Bonus points of course if it has no plot relevance

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 45 points 3 days ago (3 children)

In gladiator 2 Denzel says 'hose him off' but they wouldn't have had hoses of any kind, it would've been pipes so he should have said 'pipe this guy off'

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 3 days ago* (6 children)

    Whenever nobles tell stoopid peasants how to do basics in order to justify (to the audience) why they're in charge because they're so smart:

    • In Bridgerton, Duke Hastings returns to his manor to find it in disarray. He tells his peasants they have to let land lay in fallow so the ground can restore nutrients. The concept of fallow land was thousands of years old at this point, and even the 3 field system was 800 years old in Europe.

    • In Kingdom of Heaven, John of Ibelin (a French blacksmith) explains to native Palestinians how to irrigate their farmlands. Europeans learned irrigation from Arabs, not the other way around.

    • In a later season of Game of Thrones, Lady Sansa commands her soldiers to wear furs between their skin and armor so the metal doesn't sap their heat in winter. She tells this to soldiers from the land where winter lasts years.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    In Kingdom of Heaven, John of Ibelin (a French blacksmith) explains to native Palestinians how to irrigate their farmlands. Europeans learned irrigation from Arabs, not the other way around.

    yeah that's funny. people in the levant, egypt and mesopotamia were irrigating their fields back when western europeans were hunting with flint spears

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    I took a different reading from that, though it may be due to differences between the theatrical cut and the directors cut. I interpreted it not as him showing them how to irrigate, but organizing the work and directing it to be done.

    The line "your father was important, his lands were not" suggests to me that this was not considered particularly good land worth capital improvements, hence why it had not had such a works built previously. Or, alternatively, it was badly administered land with an absentee landlord.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 40 points 3 days ago (5 children)

    Battles portrayed as disorganised melee fighting instead of formation fighting.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 3 days ago

    Yeah this is probably my major peeve about films and TV (along with swords as lightsabers cutting through armor). It turns out, our ancestors really didn't like dying and would do things to prevent it, such as making sure you know who's behind you and on your side. Running, too. Formations would walk into each other slowly because throughout history, battles were giant games of chicken where the first person to lose their nerve gets stabbed.

    Moving in an orderly fashion where you can avoid getting stabbed in the back, avoid running out of breath, and know what everyone on your side is doing is much, much more effective than using your face as a battering ram to headbutt the shields of the other side.

    Then there's the whole getting trampled to death by 2,000 pound animals (or bigger, like that time Hannibal crossed the Alps with African elephants). Standing in a block and making a wall of knives is the easiest way to avoid getting body slammed by a horse.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 42 points 3 days ago* (5 children)

    European women didn’t really start wearing underwear until the 19th century. I haven’t really observed any books or films messing this up but I still think it’s one of those amazing weird historical facts that few people are aware of.

    Saying “fire!” when all you have are bows and arrows that aren’t on fire.

    Still upset that we didn’t get historically accurate armor in the odyssey which I haven’t even seen yet.

    Making historical characters lie to the audience so that the audience doesn’t hate them (Lawrence of Arabia knew he was fucking over the Arabs but the movie goes out of its way to make him seem clueless about this even though the film also makes him out to be a tactical and strategic genius).

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Saying "fire!" when all you have are bows and arrows

    Volley shots like this aren't even historically accurate if they change it to "loose!" Archers waited until the enemy got within range and then just started shooting, not synchronizing with everyone else. People had different strengths and endurance, including English peasants who trained consistently with longbows. Some guy might fire 10 arrows per minute while another can fire 15. They aren't going to wait for each other.

    What this comes from is blackpowder warfare where groups had to synchronize their fire in order to hit anything. Especially when muskets were smoothbore before the invention of rifling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Also with historical bows you can't ready and hold a shot, you have to draw and release in a smooth motion. Modern bows use pulleys with weirdly shaped disks to reduce the force required to hold it when fully drawn, but without that innovation holding an arrow at full draw would quickly exhaust even a trained and fit archer.

    What this comes from is blackpowder warfare where groups had to synchronize their fire in order to hit anything. Especially when muskets were smoothbore before the invention of rifling.

    And even there it's more about keeping ranks synchronized, since they were standing in a tight formation and needed the preceding rank to be kneeling to fire over them. You can't have people working at their own pace when they have to act during a certain window of opportunity and then get out of the way and start preparing for the next volley.

    Their military theory also emphasized the volley as something terrifying and withering, that a sudden barrage of musket fire would be more likely to make a charge falter or rout a line between the noise and having a large number of simultaneous casualties all falling at once.

    Oh, and while we're on this, there's a common myth about line infantry being "unwilling" to shoot at the other line, and so firing into the air above them or simply not firing at all, but the actual historical evidence is that a) muskets were unreliable as hell and would frequently misfire, and because of the nature of volley fire soldiers would commonly just not notice that their gun didn't fire and try to reload it again, and that b) contemporary sources observed that soldiers would overestimate bullet drop over distances and try to compensate by aiming higher on the target, and that they further weren't aware of how much recoil would jerk the barrel upwards before the round left it. Meaning they'd aim for the head or upper torso of someone 100-150 yards away, then the recoil would send the muzzle up and the shot would miss by a foot or so. Contemporary sources include recommendations to train soldiers to aim for the legs of the opposing line, on the assumption they'd still aim higher but would keep the margin of error within the height of the target at least.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 40 points 3 days ago (7 children)

    Any dinosaur thing that has flowers or grass before the late Cretaceous

    I would also say having dinosaurs from different periods living at the same time, but that is not a small inaccuracy. Stegosaurus lived further away in time from T. rex than even us!

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 days ago (6 children)

    Hold still, the t-rex can’t see us even though we are inches from its car-sized nose.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 days ago (5 children)

    nerd

    The T. rex probably had both decent binocular vision and large olfactory bulbs indicating a good sense of smell. It would probably both see and smell you in front of it. However it's unclear if it would attack something as small as a human.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    I think I saw that they were about as intelligent as alligators, so why not munch on a tasty bite-sized treat like a human?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    This presupposes that we taste good.

    I bet you It's more like a shark. A T-Rex would eat one person, realize that we taste like microplastics, And stick to just stomping on us instead

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 3 days ago (9 children)

    The monkey from Aladdin wearing a fez, fezes are like 1800s stuff rifles were used when monkeys wore fezes.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 3 days ago* (2 children)

    No one says Agrabah isn't an isolated desert city state while next door the Ottomans are shooting Greek nationalists and doing the Armenian genocide

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    I’ll have to find it, but there was a YouTube video that said the geographic and temporal range of Allison was like if Disney had a movie about a mythical “European” city that encompasses everything from Ancient Greece to the Renaissance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] [S] 16 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

    berdly-actually While it's true that fezzes as we now known (And in the form, say, Aladdin himself wears one) and as a part of Ottoman official dress only became a thing much later, the fez as a piece of clothing date back much further. Mehmed II is very famously depicted wearing one. (As in, the depiction of him is famous, not that the fact that he is wearing a fez is a famous fact about the depiction)

    "BUT KELD. THAT'S A TURBAN."
    I can already hear you protest. Yes, you're right. A turban wrapped around a fez. Because that's how fezzes were worn initially.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 3 days ago

    One from my dad: in the movie Glory, the final scene where they assault the fort. My dad grew up obsessed with Civil War battles and instantly pointed out that the assault was being made from the wrong direction. He paused the vhs and pointed to the position of the sun and said it was backwards, they had approached from the other cardinal direction in reality. He also had a few things to say about the arms and tactics used but it's been so long I've forgotten them

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    The opening text in Braveheart says Edward I "Longshanks" invaded Scotland in 1280 after the Scotttish king died. In reality, the king died in 1286, and Edward didn't take over until 1292, then precipitating the First Scottish War of Independence. Also, the lack of a bridge at the Battle of Sterling Bridge was pretty silly in hindsight.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

    No Country For Old Men:

    • Anton Chighur uses a Gen 2 Glock 19 in one scene. This is anachronistic because the movie takes place at some point in the year 1980. Glock handguns were introduced into Austrian military service in 1982, became available for purchase by civilians starting in 1983, and were introduced to North America in 1985. Furthermore, the Glock 19 specifically was not produced until 1988.

    • In another scene Anton Chighur uses an Interdynamic KG-99 that seems to have been converted to full auto, meaning it's possibly supposed to be a TEC-9 in the context of the scene (the McCarthy novel calls it a TEC-9). The KG-99 was introduced in 1982, and the TEC-9 was introduced in1984.

    Shutter Island:

    • Leonardo Dicaprio's character (Edit: Ben Kingsley) uses the term "zombie" at one point to describe the effects of a lobotomy. This is anachronistic because the film is set in 1954. It wasn't until the film Night of the Living Dead in 1969 did the term come to mean a mindless, shambling corpse. In 1954 the term zombie would have been more associated with Voodoo and witchcraft, as in a mind controlled servant magically bound to a sorceror.
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 24 points 3 days ago

    Words and phrases that didn't exist yet. Like: "bleed out" used by ordinary people in the 1970s or even before. I don't know how long normies have used the term but my wild guess is the 1990s maybe.

    Ninja edit. Stranger Things had stuff like: "trust issues", "stay frosty", "I think I just threw up in my mouth." etc. I stopped making a list because I tried to ignore all of them.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 3 days ago (17 children)

    Lu Bu was:

    1. Not a real historical figure in the "high-ranking warlord" sense
    2. Only slightly above average height
    3. Not some warrior demigod with a fuckass halberd (although he was allegedly a pretty decent shot with a bow)

    Fuckin' Luo Guanzhong trying to turn everyone into a manga badass, and glazing the Shu Han kingdom when they really didn't deserve it

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 days ago (13 children)

    glazing the Shu Han kingdom when they really didn’t deserve it

    I had read the preface to current English edition where the role of the novel as historical propaganda was explained and it really have no sense except "i decided Shu is good" which then continue to be parroted over centuries. Why would Central Plains unification faction become a proxy for Mongols and Manchu while western and southern splinter warlords become good guys from the specific point of view of desirable unification of China and throwing off a foreign rule is completely beyond me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 days ago (9 children)

    It basically was trying to justify that the ruling dynasty can be based in Southern China, because before it was assumed by default that the true center of China is in the north.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago (8 children)

    What's especially baffling is the modern spin that tries to paint anticommunists as Shu and the modern CPC as Wei. I forget where I read that garbage, but it felt like some incredibly forced Radio Free Asia bullshit written by someone who just discovered Dynasty Warriors.

    Didn't even get far enough into the story to learn about the Jin Dynasty, smdh my dick head

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • load more comments (8 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [+] 17 points 3 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)
    load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 21 points 3 days ago (10 children)

    In The Odyssey, Matt Damon does his trick shot into a sheet of chipboard

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 3 days ago (9 children)

    Im the Odyssey he dry fies his bow (pulling and releasing the string without firing an arrow) which is very bad for the bow and can even break it.

    The dude does it to a very old bow that hasen't been used for years too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • [–] 11 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    Japanese imagined western fantasy transposes a lot without realizing it, characters saying itadakimasu before meals, and the mages in witch hat atelier keep ingredients in square drawer Chinese medicine cabinets, and they describe ordinary ink as using wood soot (Japanese ink is made this way) rather than oak gall.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 4 points 3 days ago

    All of 10,000 BC

    Off the top of my head:

    • Horses weren't domesticated yet

    • Mammoths were already extinct (at least in Egypt)

    • No one was building pyramids

    Also I don't know if this counts but it really bothers me when a movie is set in a very particular place but shot in a completely different biome. The most egregious examples I can think of are:

    • Diamonds Are Forever, which was filmed entirely in Nevada, but is partially set in South Africa. Like dude I can tell that's the same desert you filmed like 10 minutes ago, don't try and tell me it's the Kalahari or whatever.

    • Alien vs. Predator 2: Requiem: besides being a terrible film that shits all over the Alien and Predator franchises, it expects us to believe that a temperate rain forest in British Columbia full of ferns and shit is fucking Colorado.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 3 days ago

    Do biopics count?

    In Bohemian Rhapsody (it sucks btw, I don’t recommend it) Queen play Fat Bottomed Girls (from 1978) on their 1974 tour. Freddie Mercury is also diagnosed with HIV in 1985 in that film. He was diagnosed in 1987 in real life.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›