Ok, I'm bored at work, watching a movie, and I realized we all have these: movies we love that contain things that truly bother us, even if we love the movie itself. Obviously, I'll start. I'm watching The Avengers, and I'm bothered by the car-chase at the beginning. A mind controlled Hawkeye is shooting at Agent Maria Hill, and he hasn't shot and killed her. In the comics, Hawkeye is an expert marksman who never misses his target. So how does every shot miss in this chase? I love the movie, love Cobie Smolders and wouldn't want her character to die...but can't we make Hawkeye's accuracy a little, well, ACCURATE?
Never said he had powers-I said expert marksman. Believe me, i can tell you every important, semi important, and close to negligable Marvel character's abilities without having to look them up. Regardless, he shouldn't have missed her with every shot. He had no issue shooting agents later in the movie while in a moving vehicle, kill shots, but he can't even hit Hill at all.
To explain, in one scene in LotR, Gandalf is asked to give up his staff (I think it happened in the 2nd Film). He doesn't claiming it is a walking stick. In the next scene (as he is entering the King's Throne room) he is using it as a walking stick (perpendicular to the ground). The camera angle changes and he is carrying the staff at his side (parallel to the ground). The camera angle again changes and it is again perpendicular to the ground.
Another example is from Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls. When Ace is talking to the main baddie of the film in his office/taxidermy room, in one scene there are chess pieces on a chess board immediately in front of the main baddie. After a camera angle change, the chess board is devoid of any pieces.
Yet another example is in the Harry Potter films. As the series progresses, Harry's scar slowly travels up and to the right side of his forehead. In some of the more "dynamic" scenes, his scar is missing completely. In even others, the scar is again re-centered or on the top-left side.
The most extreme example is from Kung-Pow: Enter the Fist; they draw great attention to it too. If you've seen the movie, it is the whole "Red Clothes!" / "Black Clothes!" bit.
Unless it is used as comedy (as in Kung-Pow), it irks me that such simple things can be overlooked.
timetowaste85 wrote: Ok, I'm bored at work, watching a movie, and I realized we all have these: movies we love that contain things that truly bother us, even if we love the movie itself. Obviously, I'll start. I'm watching The Avengers, and I'm bothered by the car-chase at the beginning. A mind controlled Hawkeye is shooting at Agent Maria Hill, and he hasn't shot and killed her. In the comics, Hawkeye is an expert marksman who never misses his target. So how does every shot miss in this chase? I love the movie, love Cobie Smolders and wouldn't want her character to die...but can't we make Hawkeye's accuracy a little, well, ACCURATE?
What bothered me more when Samuel L. Jackson crashed and just walk out of it like nothing happened or the scene where Scarlett Johansson was unrealistically hanging off the hover bike, but other than that it was an amazing movie.
Surely the biggest odd thing in Avengers is how the Hulk suddenly becomes controlled, takes instructions and hangs out with everyone. What happened to the uncontrolled rage earlier in the film?
George Spiggott wrote: Surely the biggest odd thing in Avengers is how the Hulk suddenly becomes controlled, takes instructions and hangs out with everyone. What happened to the uncontrolled rage earlier in the film?
Yeah that's true maybe The Hulk has different levels of anger?
They sort of explain that-sometimes the Hulk comes out on its own. When that happens, it's uncontrolled. When Banner wills him to come out, he is more...willing to listen.
timetowaste85 wrote: They sort of explain that-sometimes the Hulk comes out on its own. When that happens, it's uncontrolled. When Banner wills him to come out, he is more...willing to listen.
I only saw the movie once...
But before Banner changed to the HULK to punch that flying fishy thingamajig... didn't he say something like: "I'm always Angry?"
The way I looked at it, he has a control of his anger, and is able to unleash the green menace at will.
Pochahontas, I mean, So much inaccuracies, like the fact that when john smith arrived she was 14. And John smith died and Pocahontas went to live in england as a liaison for her tribe.
timetowaste85 wrote: They sort of explain that-sometimes the Hulk comes out on its own. When that happens, it's uncontrolled. When Banner wills him to come out, he is more...willing to listen.
I only saw the movie once...
But before Banner changed to the HULK to punch that flying fishy thingamajig... didn't he say something like: "I'm always Angry?"
The way I looked at it, he has a control of his anger, and is able to unleash the green menace at will.
So why the big deal on the flying aircraft carrier thing? Except to make Loki's plan look slightly plausible?
I think my favourite is from Deep Blue Sea, where apparently being super-smart lets sharks swim backwards.
The best part about it is the fact that they even mention it in the movie, with one of the characters exclaiming that it's impossible... and then just moving on. No explanation given, just 'Holy crap! Sharks can't swim backwards!'
Having seen 'Skyfall' last night (which was excellent by the way, Javier Bardem is an absolute genius!), one little thing annoyed me. Ok, Bond films don't exactly scream accuracy but seeing a 1963 Aston Martin with a tax disc really peeved me. Peeps in the UK know what I'm talking about.... Right?!
One of my biggest pet peeves with Kingdom of Heaven, besides the dull preformance by Orlando Snooze;
Jeremy Irons' character 'Tiberius' is actually Rolland of Tripoli. The production company forced Riddley Scott to change the name to Tiberius because they felt American audiances would get overly confused with the likes of Raynald & Ramond...
Most of the shooting exploits in the movie "shooter"
Like other military folks here, I rarely can watch a Military movie, because I am always watching for uniform inacurracies, like the movie "Basic" in which, Sam Jackson is seen, standing in a torrential downpour, wearing BDU pants, boots, a Class B sweater vest with SFC rank on the shoulders, wearing a poncho like a cape, and a beret with the rank of Major on it... lol
sarpedons-right-hand wrote: Having seen 'Skyfall' last night (which was excellent by the way, Javier Bardem is an absolute genius!), one little thing annoyed me. Ok, Bond films don't exactly scream accuracy but seeing a 1963 Aston Martin with a tax disc really peeved me. Peeps in the UK know what I'm talking about.... Right?!
FTRI saw the film and took no notice of a or the lack of a tax disc., but surely it would be less accurate without the tax disc?
I just saw Skyfall on Sunday and there a part where M is walking away from the coffins where she jumps ahead 18-36 inches. Unless that was just my theatre that bugs me. Find out on DVD I suppose.
marv335 wrote:Top Gun.
Pretty much the entire film really...
Welcome to my ignore list.
Heathen.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Most of the shooting exploits in the movie "shooter"
Like other military folks here, I rarely can watch a Military movie, because I am always watching for uniform inacurracies, like the movie "Basic" in which, Sam Jackson is seen, standing in a torrential downpour, wearing BDU pants, boots, a Class B sweater vest with SFC rank on the shoulders, wearing a poncho like a cape, and a beret with the rank of Major on it... lol
That whole movie is a uniform clusterfeth. There's another scene where he's a specialist which I'm pretty sure is the NEXT scene.
There was an episode of BSG shortly after the writers strike ended where Col Tigh is wearing Admirals pips.
And shooter was an OK movie if only because it was outrageous bs. That's why I've seen it 8 dozen times...it's just plain entertaining garbage.
When it comes to military movies, I prefer the uniform "wrongs" to be slight... Like in Forrest gump, where the only thing wrong with his dress uniform, is that the ribbons are assembled upside down.
OR, they go the Apocalypse Now route, and just remove half the uniform so that we don't have so much to scrutinize
timetowaste85 wrote:Ok, I'm bored at work, watching a movie, and I realized we all have these: movies we love that contain things that truly bother us, even if we love the movie itself. Obviously, I'll start. I'm watching The Avengers, and I'm bothered by the car-chase at the beginning. A mind controlled Hawkeye is shooting at Agent Maria Hill, and he hasn't shot and killed her. In the comics, Hawkeye is an expert marksman who never misses his target. So how does every shot miss in this chase? I love the movie, love Cobie Smolders and wouldn't want her character to die...but can't we make Hawkeye's accuracy a little, well, ACCURATE?
Hawkeye's only special power is "I enjoy archery", or possibly "DC's got the Green Arrow, so... yeah". You're thinking of Bullseye, who never misses (and weaponizes everything tangible).
I'm constantly irritated by the "pfft" sound that suppressors make in movies. That's not how it works.
I think even tax exempt cars get given a disk to display, you don't pay anything for it but you have to register it for being on the road and being road worthy.
Anyway, if you want innacuracies in Skyfall, how about the fact the London Transport were apparently using 1995 stock on the circle line instead of D stock?
timetowaste85 wrote:Ok, I'm bored at work, watching a movie, and I realized we all have these: movies we love that contain things that truly bother us, even if we love the movie itself. Obviously, I'll start. I'm watching The Avengers, and I'm bothered by the car-chase at the beginning. A mind controlled Hawkeye is shooting at Agent Maria Hill, and he hasn't shot and killed her. In the comics, Hawkeye is an expert marksman who never misses his target. So how does every shot miss in this chase? I love the movie, love Cobie Smolders and wouldn't want her character to die...but can't we make Hawkeye's accuracy a little, well, ACCURATE?
Hawkeye's only special power is "I enjoy archery", or possibly "DC's got the Green Arrow, so... yeah". You're thinking of Bullseye, who never misses (and weaponizes everything tangible).
I'm constantly irritated by the "pfft" sound that suppressors make in movies. That's not how it works.
There's a theory that both Hawkeye and Green Arrow are both psychokinetic (hence why they can fire boxing glove arrows, explosive arrows etc...) and the bow is simply for show.
Makes a lot of their supposedly impossible shots seem a bit more plausible in the context of their universes.
The Watchmen. Awesome movie so acurate to the Graphic novel, then the ending was totally different why? Yes giant psychic alien squid are less realistic than bombs but why make everything else so accurate then change the ending? And IMO, the end result of the movie didn't unify humanity in the way the threat of aliens did in the novel.
NecronLord3 wrote:The Watchmen. Awesome movie so acurate to the Graphic novel, then the ending was totally different why? Yes giant psychic alien squid are less realistic than bombs but why make everything else so accurate then change the ending? And IMO, the end result of the movie didn't unify humanity in the way the threat of aliens did in the novel.
The source of the threat didn't matter- the important part was that there was a common, powerful enemy that would cause the entire world to become allies, if not unified.
My only complaint was that the Night Owl's defeated response should never have changed to the crap that the movie displayed.
Also, I don't think that's really the kind of inaccuracy that this thread is referring to.
Snrub wrote: One movie inaccuracy that gets me the Helms Deep scene in the LoTR. There are NO elves at Helms Deep. None, Nada, Ziltch, Zip. No pointy ears.
Hanith wrote: I've always been bothered by oversights.
To explain, in one scene in LotR, Gandalf is asked to give up his staff (I think it happened in the 2nd Film). He doesn't claiming it is a walking stick. In the next scene (as he is entering the King's Throne room) he is using it as a walking stick (perpendicular to the ground). The camera angle changes and he is carrying the staff at his side (parallel to the ground). The camera angle again changes and it is again perpendicular to the ground.
I didn't like how his sword never glowed.
Or when they are on the ramparts of minas tirith and he's killing orc's but there is no blood even when he hits an orc in the neck.
It really took me out of the movie when I saw it in the theater.
Aliens - possibly my favorite film of all time... but when Vasquez and Gorman are cut off and facing their impending doom together, clutching a grenade as the xenomorphs close in, her last words are;
"you always were an donkey-cave, Gorman...'
As though they'd enjoyed a long career together, instead of about 12 hours in each other's vicinity. It just doesn't sit well and sounds wedged in for cliched effect.
Snrub wrote: One movie inaccuracy that gets me the Helms Deep scene in the LoTR. There are NO elves at Helms Deep. None, Nada, Ziltch, Zip. No pointy ears.
NecronLord3 wrote: The Watchmen. Awesome movie so acurate to the Graphic novel, then the ending was totally different why? Yes giant psychic alien squid are less realistic than bombs but why make everything else so accurate then change the ending? And IMO, the end result of the movie didn't unify humanity in the way the threat of aliens did in the novel.
Because the squid only makes sense in the context of 1980s comics, which shenanigans like psychic squid from another dimensional was stuff that happened. In a movie released today it loses any commentary on the media, and just becomes really stupid instead.
The issue with Watchmen was, if anything, that it was slavishly devoted to the source material.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Snrub wrote: One movie inaccuracy that gets me the Helms Deep scene in the LoTR. There are NO elves at Helms Deep. None, Nada, Ziltch, Zip. No pointy ears.
In that the battle of Helm's Deep didn't actually happen, it isn't an inaccuracy, just a change to the original media. I've got mixed feelings about it, on the one hand the Elves were departing, and considered the fight against Sauron purely an affair of man, given how it was because of men that the ring still existed. But the was a strange disconnect, as LotR constantly referenced its own history, and to go through the books and have the alliance of men and elves not reflected at all never sat right with me.
The bigger issue with the movies are the changes to the dialogue, which are often just boiler plate Hollywood movie talk that makes no sense in the world of Middle Earth. A good example is the added dialogue to the scene mourning of the death of Theodred; "No parent should have to bury their child." That's a very odd sentiment coming from a man who leads a warrior culture - where men would be burying their sons all the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: Saving Private Ryan- P-51s were high altitude escort fighters, not tank hunting attack fighters.
Mustangs were used as fighter bombers. It wasn't its primary role but it was still used for it fairly often.
Also, that gak-fest, Pearl Harbor (the one with ben affleck and mat damon [que Team America joke here])...
They were flying the wrong mark of Spitfires when he was in England, and I'm fairly sure that during the Dec. 7th event, they were flying the wrong mark of P-40 as well. I suppose that if they were using an actual flying airplane for certain shots, this could explain the discrepancy, but it still bugs me.
Snrub wrote: One movie inaccuracy that gets me the Helms Deep scene in the LoTR. There are NO elves at Helms Deep. None, Nada, Ziltch, Zip. No pointy ears.
A deliberate change from the original fictional source material isn't really an 'inaccuracy' though.
When a book is made into a movie, stuff gets changed, for various reasons. But the same has happened for thousands of years in every mode of storytelling. Every storyteller will tell a story their own way. Often, the same storyteller will tell a story differently at different times.
A movie based on a book is someone else's version of the story. So it won't be identical... and nor should it be, or there would be little point in making it.
Snrub wrote: One movie inaccuracy that gets me the Helms Deep scene in the LoTR. There are NO elves at Helms Deep. None, Nada, Ziltch, Zip. No pointy ears.
A deliberate change from the original fictional source material isn't really an 'inaccuracy' though.
When a book is made into a movie, stuff gets changed, for various reasons. But the same has happened for thousands of years in every mode of storytelling. Every storyteller will tell a story their own way. Often, the same storyteller will tell a story differently at different times.
A movie based on a book is someone else's version of the story. So it won't be identical... and nor should it be, or there would be little point in making it.
Word.
I fething love what Peter Jackson did with the LoTR movies....
While it's not the book in verbatim, it captures spirit of the books rather well.
I just wished they figured a way to incorporate Zeppelin Misty Mountain song...
Snrub wrote: One movie inaccuracy that gets me the Helms Deep scene in the LoTR. There are NO elves at Helms Deep. None, Nada, Ziltch, Zip. No pointy ears.
A deliberate change from the original fictional source material isn't really an 'inaccuracy' though.
When a book is made into a movie, stuff gets changed, for various reasons. But the same has happened for thousands of years in every mode of storytelling. Every storyteller will tell a story their own way. Often, the same storyteller will tell a story differently at different times.
A movie based on a book is someone else's version of the story. So it won't be identical... and nor should it be, or there would be little point in making it.
Word.
I fething love what Peter Jackson did with the LoTR movies....
While it's not the book in verbatim, it captures spirit of the books rather well.
I just wished they figured a way to incorporate Zeppelin Misty Mountain song...
As much as I love Led Zeppelin I'm pretty sure 70's heavy metal music would have sounded out of place.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Also, that gak-fest, Pearl Harbor (the one with ben affleck and mat damon [que Team America joke here])...
They were flying the wrong mark of Spitfires when he was in England, and I'm fairly sure that during the Dec. 7th event, they were flying the wrong mark of P-40 as well. I suppose that if they were using an actual flying airplane for certain shots, this could explain the discrepancy, but it still bugs me.
I'm about 99% sure that Matt Damon isn't in Pearl Harbor...
The military guys got most of mine, but my one personal pet peeve is the movie the Hurtlocker.
Watch it with a military EOD tech. Just once. Holy hera for a movie that was hailed as the "Saving Private Ryan" of our generation it's about as accurate as by someone on LSD trying to use a machinegun. Sure it got one or two things right, but those are explained solely by the law of averages and not any actual effort towards reality on their part.
The big scene that got me from the first time I watched it (I didn't see it with a EOD tech handy till the second time I saw it) was the freaking sniper battle. Now there's some plausibility there as EOD sometimes sets off big detonations with a precision weapon, but that's very different then actually sniping and engaging targets at range. The range to the enemy is also suspect with the main characters saying the enemy position is approx 800m and some change from the ridge line they moved up to. They then show that the insurgents are engaging them (the good guys) with Dragunov rifles. These DMRs have a max effective range of about 800m, a skilled man with a scope can probably use them out to their max range of 1300m, but you really have to know what you're doing. So that's bollocks and speaking of that, who the FETH were those random British dudes?
Hanith wrote: I've always been bothered by oversights.
To explain, in one scene in LotR, Gandalf is asked to give up his staff (I think it happened in the 2nd Film). He doesn't claiming it is a walking stick. In the next scene (as he is entering the King's Throne room) he is using it as a walking stick (perpendicular to the ground). The camera angle changes and he is carrying the staff at his side (parallel to the ground). The camera angle again changes and it is again perpendicular to the ground.
Another editing error which just KILLS a scene I'd otherwise love (I love all the way up to this point, then urrrgh). The battle of Pelennor fields in the film, as the riders of rohan charge there is a half second where you see Eowyn holding her spear and shouting 'aaaaah'. After they hit the orc line? Exact. Same. Image. Gets me every freaking time, and ruins the flow of that bit. Just kills it.
Also, I'm pretty sure in Waterloo there is a doubled up bit of film of the French attacking one of the farm houses/chateaus
AustonT wrote: I'm about 99% sure that Matt Damon isn't in Pearl Harbor...
It's kind of telling that a thread that's supposed to be about complaining about inaccuracies in films has had quite a few inaccuracies of its own
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The military guys got most of mine, but my one personal pet peeve is the movie the Hurtlocker.
Watch it with a military EOD tech. Just once. Holy hera for a movie that was hailed as the "Saving Private Ryan" of our generation it's about as accurate as by someone on LSD trying to use a machinegun. Sure it got one or two things right, but those are explained solely by the law of averages and not any actual effort towards reality on their part.
The big scene that got me from the first time I watched it (I didn't see it with a EOD tech handy till the second time I saw it) was the freaking sniper battle. Now there's some plausibility there as EOD sometimes sets off big detonations with a precision weapon, but that's very different then actually sniping and engaging targets at range. The range to the enemy is also suspect with the main characters saying the enemy position is approx 800m and some change from the ridge line they moved up to. They then show that the insurgents are engaging them (the good guys) with Dragunov rifles. These DMRs have a max effective range of about 800m, a skilled man with a scope can probably use them out to their max range of 1300m, but you really have to know what you're doing. So that's bollocks and speaking of that, who the FETH were those random British dudes?
I can go on like this for a dog's age really.
The British guys were private contractors or something. There was some talk about collecting a bounty, dead or alive.
That was actually the scene where I realised the movie wasn't anywhere near as good as people were claiming it was, though not because of the range of rifles, which is the kind of military knowledge that sails right over my head.
Nah, my problem was that once we saw the British contractors come on screen, get wiped out like a bunch of chumps, only for our plucky bomb disposal squad to outsniper the enemy snipers... it was pretty obvious we weren't dealing with the grim realities of war, we were dealing with the grim stupidity of script immunity, and that no matter how ridiculous the crazy guy acted our three leads were getting through to the end. Then the psychiatrist asks to go along on a combat op, and everything is so telegraphed it's laughable.
And once that film lost its suspense it just didn't work.
Red. In the begining one of the agents advances whilst firing an M60 GPMG from the shoulder. And it wasnt bursts-he was hosing the house with that thing on full auto. No way on earth can you do that without suffering a broken shoulder.
Also the amount of damage they caused was dissproportanate to the firepower that they had. 2 M16 assault rifles and an M60 GPMG do not just shred a house.
And then theres the bit where one of the old men shoots an RPG out of the air. With a revolver
master of ordinance wrote: Red. In the begining one of the agents advances whilst firing an M60 GPMG from the shoulder. And it wasnt bursts-he was hosing the house with that thing on full auto. No way on earth can you do that without suffering a broken shoulder.
Also the amount of damage they caused was dissproportanate to the firepower that they had. 2 M16 assault rifles and an M60 GPMG do not just shred a house.
And then theres the bit where one of the old men shoots an RPG out of the air. With a revolver
Considering that John Malkovich and Bruce Willis are involved, I find it to be entirely believable.
I think it's the first Blade movie where the bad guy at the end gets the super regen blood powers, but the blood smear on his face switches back and forth between two patterns during the fight scene.
One that really got me though is the end of the first GIJoe where the ice Sinks when the cobra base gets blown up.
marv335 wrote:Top Gun.
Pretty much the entire film really...
Welcome to my ignore list.
Heathen.
I'm an Airframe Fitter by trade, and I've worked with aircrew and on various combat aircraft for 20 years.
Top Gun, where shall I start...
1. When Maverick tells Goose " I'm going to hit the brakes and he'll fly right by." He throws the throttle straight forward which actually would have sent him into afterburner and thus the speed brakes would not have actuated.
2. In the closeup cockpit shots, the ejection seats have the maintainence magards fitted.
3. The CWP (Central Warning Panel) is lit up like an Xmas tree for much of the in cockpit shots. If this had been in flight the aircraft would be in serious trouble (no power, no hydraulics, no engines, etc.)
marv, I'm surprised you didn't mention that the range the dogfights were fought at would be the equivalents of tanks trying to ram each other to death. Actually, wait, you're an Airframe Fitter - no I'm not. It makes more sense that you'd notice the technical details.
In the 1993 movie Gettysburg, there is a scene of the opening engagements of the battle, when a confederate battery of artillery arrives to support Archer's brigade in their foray against some of Buford's Federal cavalry.
Anyway, the movie shows one of those confederate artillery pieces getting blown up. However, it is a well known fact that the Army of Northern Virginia did not lose a single artillery piece during the entire Gettysburg campaign.
Snrub wrote: One movie inaccuracy that gets me the Helms Deep scene in the LoTR. There are NO elves at Helms Deep. None, Nada, Ziltch, Zip. No pointy ears.
They explain that in the extras. And its not the only thing in the three films that changes the book.
They wanted to remind you that Aragon and Arwen are in love, they were going to send her in but thought that was too obvious, so sent in some different elves instead.
And surely Legolas would have been there anyway? Or was he busy that day?
It's an old one but a classic, in the film Gladiator, in the seen where Antonius Proximo(oliver reed) is buying some animals and slaves off some market trader guy, he says (can't remember the exact numbers but it's something like this):
'So that's 4000 for the slaves and 4000 for the animals, so that's 7000 in total'
I know it has a rational explanation (he's deliberately fast-talking to con the merchant), but that little mathematical error really gets on my wick...
I can't think of a specific example because I have watched a lot of old "Epics", but when Roman soldiers use their Pilums like spears, it kind of bothers me.
AustonT wrote: I just saw Skyfall on Sunday and there a part where M is walking away from the coffins where she jumps ahead 18-36 inches. Unless that was just my theatre that bugs me. Find out on DVD I suppose.
marv335 wrote:Top Gun.
Pretty much the entire film really...
Welcome to my ignore list.
Admit it. Your favorite scene from Top Gun is the Volley Ball scene.
djones520 wrote: As a weather forecaster, The Day After Tomorrow drove me absolutely bonkers.
I didn't really love the movie either... not really a fan of Jake Macgillicagootch.
But yeah, that movie makes weather people cringe.
If you want another really cringe worthy disaster movie... Check out Volcano! - lava flowing uphill.
- people running about without any protection in a heavy ashfall.
- helicopters FLYING through a heavy ashfall!!! - swimming pool water, (and not much of it really), cooling a lava flow.
- that whole scene on the subway...
- the fact that the tarpits aren't anywhere near the Cascadia Subduction Zone to begin with. (and it's not a hot spot either)
Yeah... Disaster movies should never be watched by anyone who has any actual knowledge of the real science releated to the specific disaster!
Experiment 626 wrote:Disaster movies should never be watched by anyone who has any actual knowledge of the real science releated to the specific disaster!
Re-assign it the genre of comedy. Suddenly, it's a great film!
AustonT wrote: I just saw Skyfall on Sunday and there a part where M is walking away from the coffins where she jumps ahead 18-36 inches. Unless that was just my theatre that bugs me. Find out on DVD I suppose.
marv335 wrote:Top Gun.
Pretty much the entire film really...
Welcome to my ignore list.
Admit it. Your favorite scene from Top Gun is the Volley Ball scene.
I make reference to it when referring to the suspected homosexuality of my fellow soldiers...does that count?
Hanith wrote: I've always been bothered by oversights.
To explain, in one scene in LotR, Gandalf is asked to give up his staff (I think it happened in the 2nd Film). He doesn't claiming it is a walking stick. In the next scene (as he is entering the King's Throne room) he is using it as a walking stick (perpendicular to the ground). The camera angle changes and he is carrying the staff at his side (parallel to the ground). The camera angle again changes and it is again perpendicular to the ground.
Another editing error which just KILLS a scene I'd otherwise love (I love all the way up to this point, then urrrgh). The battle of Pelennor fields in the film, as the riders of rohan charge there is a half second where you see Eowyn holding her spear and shouting 'aaaaah'. After they hit the orc line? Exact. Same. Image. Gets me every freaking time, and ruins the flow of that bit. Just kills it.
Also, I'm pretty sure in Waterloo there is a doubled up bit of film of the French attacking one of the farm houses/chateaus
How comes the charge of the horse at Pennor, all the riders have their shields strapped to their horses???
Ben Hur and Cleopatra, the Romans always wear the wrong armor. It vexes me slightly.
Any movie ever that shows vikings with horned or winged helmets.
Someone mentioned kingdom of heaven, and i will add; it really bothered me that Saladin's army was full of dudes using european longswords...I guess they just ran out of proper scimitars for the movie or something??
Someone mentioned kingdom of heaven, and i will add; it really bothered me that Saladin's army was full of dudes using european longswords...I guess they just ran out of proper scimitars for the movie or something??
Historically correct my friend. You're talking about these?:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Any movie ever that shows vikings with horned or winged helmets.
Someone mentioned kingdom of heaven, and i will add; it really bothered me that Saladin's army was full of dudes using european longswords...I guess they just ran out of proper scimitars for the movie or something??
As AustonT pointed out, you've kinda done the 'Vikings have horns' thing with 'Saracens have scimitars.'
Yes, that is true, however if you note the pommels on the swords Auston showcased, and compare them with the distinctly european style longer handles used in the movies
And besides, from what reading for college history projects i have read, the larger portion of Saladin's (and almost any) army should have been armed with spear and bow, as the cost of making a sword was prohibitive of the common soldier owning one, unless he was allowed to keep a looted weapon.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The military guys got most of mine, but my one personal pet peeve is the movie the Hurtlocker.
Watch it with a military EOD tech. Just once. Holy hera for a movie that was hailed as the "Saving Private Ryan" of our generation it's about as accurate as by someone on LSD trying to use a machinegun. Sure it got one or two things right, but those are explained solely by the law of averages and not any actual effort towards reality on their part.
The big scene that got me from the first time I watched it (I didn't see it with a EOD tech handy till the second time I saw it) was the freaking sniper battle. Now there's some plausibility there as EOD sometimes sets off big detonations with a precision weapon, but that's very different then actually sniping and engaging targets at range. The range to the enemy is also suspect with the main characters saying the enemy position is approx 800m and some change from the ridge line they moved up to. They then show that the insurgents are engaging them (the good guys) with Dragunov rifles. These DMRs have a max effective range of about 800m, a skilled man with a scope can probably use them out to their max range of 1300m, but you really have to know what you're doing. So that's bollocks and speaking of that, who the FETH were those random British dudes?
I can go on like this for a dog's age really.
The British guys were private contractors or something. There was some talk about collecting a bounty, dead or alive.
That was actually the scene where I realised the movie wasn't anywhere near as good as people were claiming it was, though not because of the range of rifles, which is the kind of military knowledge that sails right over my head.
Nah, my problem was that once we saw the British contractors come on screen, get wiped out like a bunch of chumps, only for our plucky bomb disposal squad to outsniper the enemy snipers... it was pretty obvious we weren't dealing with the grim realities of war, we were dealing with the grim stupidity of script immunity, and that no matter how ridiculous the crazy guy acted our three leads were getting through to the end. Then the psychiatrist asks to go along on a combat op, and everything is so telegraphed it's laughable.
And once that film lost its suspense it just didn't work.
Right I mean I took it from that perspective too (I wish I had plot armor) but I make my wage off the technical details so it's what comes to mind first when it's time to cry fowl about things. There's so much GAK in that movie. Even non-military details. I believe the film's set in 03/04 and they show our intrepid and disturbed in the head EOD tech playing Gears of War which was released in 06. The motives and depiction of SFC James and the military in general is fairly suspect as well beyond all the detail issues.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Yes, that is true, however if you note the pommels on the swords Auston showcased, and compare them with the distinctly european style longer handles used in the movies
And besides, from what reading for college history projects i have read, the larger portion of Saladin's (and almost any) army should have been armed with spear and bow, as the cost of making a sword was prohibitive of the common soldier owning one, unless he was allowed to keep a looted weapon.
That's true enough, on both counts. I always figured that Hollywood tends to favour swords over spears because they think it looks cooler. Personally, I think spear walls look cool, but that's why I play wargames I guess.
Oh, that's something that really bugs me. Lack of cohesive units in battles. It seems in every film (bar a few) where there's a battle scene they all just run at each other then pair off into dozens of one on one sword fights. Bugs the hell out of me.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Yes, that is true, however if you note the pommels on the swords Auston showcased, and compare them with the distinctly european style longer handles used in the movies
And besides, from what reading for college history projects i have read, the larger portion of Saladin's (and almost any) army should have been armed with spear and bow, as the cost of making a sword was prohibitive of the common soldier owning one, unless he was allowed to keep a looted weapon.
That's true enough, on both counts. I always figured that Hollywood tends to favour swords over spears because they think it looks cooler. Personally, I think spear walls look cool, but that's why I play wargames I guess.
Oh, that's something that really bugs me. Lack of cohesive units in battles. It seems in every film (bar a few) where there's a battle scene they all just run at each other then pair off into dozens of one on one sword fights. Bugs the hell out of me.
Yes. I can almost note in my head the few fights scenes that were slightly appropriate:
*Phalanx scene in Alexander (an otherwise crappy movie)
*The initial first fight in 300 with the shield wall (Gates of Fire is reportedly going to be a movie)
*The initial fight scene in Rome where the maniples are in formation. Quite good actually
*The initial fight scene in The Eagle (testudo)
*The testudo fight in Cleopatra.
*Bonus feature, the charge of the 54th in Glory, Pickett's charge in Gettysberg, and Jackson's charge in God's and Generals
master of ordinance wrote: Red. In the begining one of the agents advances whilst firing an M60 GPMG from the shoulder. And it wasnt bursts-he was hosing the house with that thing on full auto. No way on earth can you do that without suffering a broken shoulder.
Also the amount of damage they caused was dissproportanate to the firepower that they had. 2 M16 assault rifles and an M60 GPMG do not just shred a house.
And then theres the bit where one of the old men shoots an RPG out of the air. With a revolver
Sounds like you somewhat missed the point of that movie...
4oursword wrote: Total Recall (newer version). On the outside of a giant cylinder travelling faster than sound, and the only ill-effect is a bit of wind.
Also robot policemen having external controls for their phone. I mean, why?
In Transformers: Dark of the Moon (a film I love, but is still riddled with errors) one major error is a bit where Megatron is walking through the savannah. Then in the next shot he is in a desert. Next shot, back in the savannah.
Whoops. Saying that, Megatron is so awesome that it is kind of forgivable.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Yes, that is true, however if you note the pommels on the swords Auston showcased, and compare them with the distinctly european style longer handles used in the movies
And besides, from what reading for college history projects i have read, the larger portion of Saladin's (and almost any) army should have been armed with spear and bow, as the cost of making a sword was prohibitive of the common soldier owning one, unless he was allowed to keep a looted weapon.
That's true enough, on both counts. I always figured that Hollywood tends to favour swords over spears because they think it looks cooler. Personally, I think spear walls look cool, but that's why I play wargames I guess.
Oh, that's something that really bugs me. Lack of cohesive units in battles. It seems in every film (bar a few) where there's a battle scene they all just run at each other then pair off into dozens of one on one sword fights. Bugs the hell out of me.
Yes. I can almost note in my head the few fights scenes that were slightly appropriate:
*Phalanx scene in Alexander (an otherwise crappy movie)
*The initial first fight in 300 with the shield wall (Gates of Fire is reportedly going to be a movie)
*The initial fight scene in Rome where the maniples are in formation. Quite good actually
*The initial fight scene in The Eagle (testudo)
*The testudo fight in Cleopatra.
*Bonus feature, the charge of the 54th in Glory, Pickett's charge in Gettysberg, and Jackson's charge in God's and Generals
'Period' battles pretty much have to be fudged for purely safety concerns. It's far, far easier to corriograph and safely act out one-on-one sword fights for example instead of risking half your stunt crew on a proper and more historically accurate 'spear hedge vs charging formation'!
To do it 100% truthful would require far too much in the way of special effects in order to ensure that no one gets seriously crippled filming those scenes... At that point, you'd probably need to double or tripple the movie's budget and then it would never have a chance of earning back anything!
In 300 they freely admitted that they purposely did not film the fight scenes using actual Ancient Spartan methods, as doingso would have likely resulted in a number of badly maimed and sometimes fatal 'accidents' for the poor b ds who got be Persian fodder!
Oh, that's something that really bugs me. Lack of cohesive units in battles. It seems in every film (bar a few) where there's a battle scene they all just run at each other then pair off into dozens of one on one sword fights. Bugs the hell out of me.
Well, the thing is, depending on the region "covered" by the movie, there weren't very many "cohesive units" around... I mean, during the Crusades of course, most knights would don the colors of their order, which creates a cohesion.
However, if we watch a movie focusing on say, the Agincourt campaign, if they are going for more historical accuracy, the two opposing armies will be a veritable riot of colors. This is because each knight bears his own colors. If he cannot afford to wear his own arms, then he will wear the colors of his liege. I am sure that most of you guys have seen at least a few coats of arms around the net, museums, etc. Of course, this only accounts for the knights (and from my research, most of the common soldiers, archers and artillery and the like, weren't given much in the way of armor, or 'colors' to wear)
So, I guess on that account, that would mean that Braveheart (which is already bad enough, historically) is even worse, because the English armies were far too cohesive.
master of ordinance wrote: Red. In the begining one of the agents advances whilst firing an M60 GPMG from the shoulder. And it wasnt bursts-he was hosing the house with that thing on full auto. No way on earth can you do that without suffering a broken shoulder. Also the amount of damage they caused was dissproportanate to the firepower that they had. 2 M16 assault rifles and an M60 GPMG do not just shred a house. And then theres the bit where one of the old men shoots an RPG out of the air. With a revolver
And in Being John Malkovich there's this portal into Malkovich's head, but those things don't really exist. It's a terrible error, didn't they do any fact checking about whether portals into the brains of well respected actors really exist or not?
Seriously dude, some things are errors, and some things are genre conventions. Bullets shredding a house way more than they should (but not hitting anyone inside) and shooting a rocket in mid air are just goofy genre things, not actual errors.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Right I mean I took it from that perspective too (I wish I had plot armor) but I make my wage off the technical details so it's what comes to mind first when it's time to cry fowl about things. There's so much GAK in that movie. Even non-military details. I believe the film's set in 03/04 and they show our intrepid and disturbed in the head EOD tech playing Gears of War which was released in 06. The motives and depiction of SFC James and the military in general is fairly suspect as well beyond all the detail issues.
True, and when the film tried to sell itself on being accurate and gritty all that stuff matters more. And yeah, the plot with James was pretty screwy. I get that they were trying to say that between staffing pressures and the psych toll put on the men there's no choice but to let these loons into the field, but the danger he put his team under was so nutty. A smarter script could have made that conflict work, but instead it was so over the top.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Yes. I can almost note in my head the few fights scenes that were slightly appropriate:
*Phalanx scene in Alexander (an otherwise crappy movie)
Yeah. I loved that bit, but then it just kept going for like another hour and a half.
*The initial first fight in 300 with the shield wall (Gates of Fire is reportedly going to be a movie)
I saw that scene and thought 'holy crap this movie might actually be pretty good'. And then it was an hour and a half of people running around on their own, doing slow motion twirls as they slaughtered perhaps the most incompetent extras ever filmed.
*Bonus feature, the charge of the 54th in Glory, Pickett's charge in Gettysberg, and Jackson's charge in God's and Generals
The other fight in Glory wasn't that bad, either, was it? The skirmish in the woods.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Right I mean I took it from that perspective too (I wish I had plot armor) but I make my wage off the technical details so it's what comes to mind first when it's time to cry fowl about things. There's so much GAK in that movie. Even non-military details. I believe the film's set in 03/04 and they show our intrepid and disturbed in the head EOD tech playing Gears of War which was released in 06. The motives and depiction of SFC James and the military in general is fairly suspect as well beyond all the detail issues.
True, and when the film tried to sell itself on being accurate and gritty all that stuff matters more. And yeah, the plot with James was pretty screwy. I get that they were trying to say that between staffing pressures and the psych toll put on the men there's no choice but to let these loons into the field, but the danger he put his team under was so nutty. A smarter script could have made that conflict work, but instead it was so over the top.
I thought the film actually presented it's thesis quite clearly right at the start "War is a drug" and that casts James as our addict, as opposed to "Well we need nuts like him", The issue with all the gak James put his team through is that 98% would not happen in an actual operational environment, and if it did happen someone's going to get their balls ripped off by their commanding officer over it. I wish they'd have done something along the lines of A. making it longer, B. grounding the movie in reality instead of the last couple action movies Katherine Bigalow watched, THEN dedicated a full second half of the film to James's struggle stateside with what is clearly PTSD and some other mental factors. This movie's a travesty on some level beyond it being a piece of gak in general because it COULD have been something so much more then it was by telling the story of my generation of military, by showing on the big screen with a massive budget, the struggles hundreds of thousands of men and women go through every single day with PTSD and the after effects of the war. Instead we got... that.
*Bonus feature, the charge of the 54th in Glory, Pickett's charge in Gettysberg, and Jackson's charge in God's and Generals
The other fight in Glory wasn't that bad, either, was it? The skirmish in the woods.
Glory was pretty awesome for technical and historical accuracy over all.
Jihadin wrote:Any current military movies. I pick out the descrepencies on their unifoms
Section 8 is the worst offender I think. Not a military movie really, but Samuel L. Jackson is in charge of the group doing jungle training and is A) wearing a beret, and B) wearing SPC rank. Come on Man! Actually, Hollywoods inability to properly shape a beret is fething appaling
insaniak wrote:I think my favourite is from Deep Blue Sea, where apparently being super-smart lets sharks swim backwards.
The best part about it is the fact that they even mention it in the movie, with one of the characters exclaiming that it's impossible... and then just moving on. No explanation given, just 'Holy crap! Sharks can't swim backwards!'
Mentioning it and then moving on is called Hanging a Lampshade from TV Tropes
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I thought the film actually presented it's thesis quite clearly right at the start "War is a drug" and that casts James as our addict, as opposed to "Well we need nuts like him",
Sorry, I probably wasn't clear. I mean the army put up with his bs because it needs him. Not because it needs men like him, but because it needs men, crazy or not, filling up the ranks is a pressing issue whenever you have an on-going war.
He kept coming back because, exactly like you said, war is a drug.
The issue with all the gak James put his team through is that 98% would not happen in an actual operational environment, and if it did happen someone's going to get their balls ripped off by their commanding officer over it.
That's my point. Having a reckless soldier in the field, who continues to be reckless because war is a drug, and who's recklessness is overlooked by his superiors because of staffing pressures could make for a good movie, if the script had been up to the task. But instead they overplayed his recklessness to the point where it was just annoying for the audience, and made the non-responsiveness from his superiors ludicrous, and did it all through a series of action movie cliches.
Ahhhh okay I see what you're getting at now. The real issue with that plot is that you can't really pull it off and keep to the "Super Real: Like enlisting only not" label they slapped over the entire movie.
The real question here is why that gakstorm won ANY Oscars.
master of ordinance wrote: Red. In the begining one of the agents advances whilst firing an M60 GPMG from the shoulder. And it wasnt bursts-he was hosing the house with that thing on full auto. No way on earth can you do that without suffering a broken shoulder.
Experiment 626 wrote:
'Period' battles pretty much have to be fudged for purely safety concerns. It's far, far easier to corriograph and safely act out one-on-one sword fights for example instead of risking half your stunt crew on a proper and more historically accurate 'spear hedge vs charging formation'!
To do it 100% truthful would require far too much in the way of special effects in order to ensure that no one gets seriously crippled filming those scenes... At that point, you'd probably need to double or tripple the movie's budget and then it would never have a chance of earning back anything!
In 300 they freely admitted that they purposely did not film the fight scenes using actual Ancient Spartan methods, as doingso would have likely resulted in a number of badly maimed and sometimes fatal 'accidents' for the poor b ds who got be Persian fodder!
That is interesting. But they did film some fight scenes with proper shield walls and stuff, and a good deal of that film was CGI anyway. Sounds like laziness to me. But serously, that is interesting to know, thanks.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Well, the thing is, depending on the region "covered" by the movie, there weren't very many "cohesive units" around... I mean, during the Crusades of course, most knights would don the colors of their order, which creates a cohesion.
However, if we watch a movie focusing on say, the Agincourt campaign, if they are going for more historical accuracy, the two opposing armies will be a veritable riot of colors. This is because each knight bears his own colors. If he cannot afford to wear his own arms, then he will wear the colors of his liege. I am sure that most of you guys have seen at least a few coats of arms around the net, museums, etc. Of course, this only accounts for the knights (and from my research, most of the common soldiers, archers and artillery and the like, weren't given much in the way of armor, or 'colors' to wear)
So, I guess on that account, that would mean that Braveheart (which is already bad enough, historically) is even worse, because the English armies were far too cohesive.
I mean more units in formation, fighting with overlapping spears and such, rather than them wearing matching colours. Ah yes, Braveheart, where the Battle of Stirling Bridge was decidedly absent of bridges...
This one secene in Skyfall where M's office gets blown up; The sound of the explosion reaches the distant viewer at the exact moment you see it, when actally the sound should be delayed by 2 or three seconds due to the distance. Why didn't they think of that?
Au contraire. The Way of the Gun, with Ryan Phillippe and Benecio del Toro, is probably the most 'realistic' movie involving firearms I've seen. There's even a couple stovepipes that the actors simply clear and continue on, just like you would.
And how about them storm-troopers? They are known for their accuracy, but always miss!
Tell that to Uncle Owen.
If that was Uncle Owen. For all we know, they easily defeated the two Stormtroopers sent to detain them, stripped them of their armour in order to disguise themselves and escape further trouble, and burnt the corpses so it was assumed that they were dead.
I love the movie Patton. It was pretty much the last of the big studio epics. However, the fact that they used outdated M48 Patton main battle tanks still bugs me. I know by the late 60s very very few Shermans were available, but come on, they found not one but two HE111s to strafe the city, they couldn't have used a couple period tanks for the closeups?
Jihadin wrote:Any current military movies. I pick out the descrepencies on their unifoms
Section 8 is the worst offender I think. Not a military movie really, but Samuel L. Jackson is in charge of the group doing jungle training and is A) wearing a beret, and B) wearing SPC rank. Come on Man! Actually, Hollywoods inability to properly shape a beret is fething appaling
Actually mate, that was the movie "Basic" and we covered that . Section 8 was their fictional black ops unit, which is more ridiculous than Sam J's uniform.
While I'm not a great fan of Pearl Harbour, I seem to recall there being some suspiciously modern looking vessels sitting in port during the attack scene; never looked into it though.
Thor. I feel that they made Thor too sci-fi like and they made Loki not relateable enough. He did have some really harsh treatment in Valhalla and some of it wasn't even his fault.
13th Warrior. They did a good job with the rituals and the Muslims but I don't like the weapons and armour inaccuracies.
Jihadin wrote:Any current military movies. I pick out the descrepencies on their unifoms
Section 8 is the worst offender I think. Not a military movie really, but Samuel L. Jackson is in charge of the group doing jungle training and is A) wearing a beret, and B) wearing SPC rank. Come on Man! Actually, Hollywoods inability to properly shape a beret is fething appaling
insaniak wrote:I think my favourite is from Deep Blue Sea, where apparently being super-smart lets sharks swim backwards.
The best part about it is the fact that they even mention it in the movie, with one of the characters exclaiming that it's impossible... and then just moving on. No explanation given, just 'Holy crap! Sharks can't swim backwards!'
Mentioning it and then moving on is called Hanging a Lampshade from TV Tropes
I dunno. Rambo 3 is a pretty big offender also. Even, though it is a good movie.
master of ordinance wrote: Red. In the begining one of the agents advances whilst firing an M60 GPMG from the shoulder. And it wasnt bursts-he was hosing the house with that thing on full auto. No way on earth can you do that without suffering a broken shoulder.
master of ordinance wrote: Red. In the begining one of the agents advances whilst firing an M60 GPMG from the shoulder. And it wasnt bursts-he was hosing the house with that thing on full auto. No way on earth can you do that without suffering a broken shoulder.
reds8n wrote: Those barrels don't seem especially fearsome opponents. We should invade them, get the economy started.
It's true that barrels are frequently rice in natural resources. You want to watch out for the red ones though, they explode.
I'm reassured that you've clearly gotten grasp of the essential pulse of the situation.
I find it important to know when military targets are rice in natural resources. It helps to know the politics of things so you don't end up going against the grain. Having said that, in the end, we need to give peas a chance.
reds8n wrote: Those barrels don't seem especially fearsome opponents. We should invade them, get the economy started.
Firing that weapon like that would one not stand a chance of being "burnt" by the (presumably) hot cases as they're ejected ?
Not particularly more than any other firing position. The ejector *should* be pushing the cases away form you, but theres always a chance one can bounce back. I cut the tip of my trigger finger off (just a little bit not like the whole knuckle) Firing a 249 from the prone, one of the links bounced off the ground. Really killed my buzz.
You cant really rule out anything, but in general the firerer is pretty safe.
when I went to see Argo I couldn't help but notice that the sets were wrong in some places. for example in the shot of the dog barking Roman architecture can be seen behind the dog. there is no Roman architecture in Iran, but there is in Istanbul where they filmed. also there were too many stars on the CIA memorial wall for the time period, but I can understand the CIA not wanting to remove the stars for a simple movie. the last thing I noticed was that when the student's stormed the embassy at the beginning the weather and tress are wrong for Iran, but not for Toronto. kind of ruined my willing suspension of disbelief, but I still enjoyed it.
Oh, that's something that really bugs me. Lack of cohesive units in battles. It seems in every film (bar a few) where there's a battle scene they all just run at each other then pair off into dozens of one on one sword fights. Bugs the hell out of me.
Well, the thing is, depending on the region "covered" by the movie, there weren't very many "cohesive units" around... I mean, during the Crusades of course, most knights would don the colors of their order, which creates a cohesion.
However, if we watch a movie focusing on say, the Agincourt campaign, if they are going for more historical accuracy, the two opposing armies will be a veritable riot of colors. This is because each knight bears his own colors. If he cannot afford to wear his own arms, then he will wear the colors of his liege. I am sure that most of you guys have seen at least a few coats of arms around the net, museums, etc. Of course, this only accounts for the knights (and from my research, most of the common soldiers, archers and artillery and the like, weren't given much in the way of armor, or 'colors' to wear)
So, I guess on that account, that would mean that Braveheart (which is already bad enough, historically) is even worse, because the English armies were far too cohesive.
Braveheart is so bad,
It was filmed in Ireland,
The battle of Stirling Bridge took place in a FIELD
Also the claymore should of been around the same size as Gibson
Another film is 2 Headed Shark Attack.
despite being a crappy film to begin with when the shark loses one of its heads it just becomes a big shark without a stump
Actually the Claymore wouldn't have looked like that at all, and everyone was wearing kilts even though the great kilt wasn't worn till something like 150 years after Wallace's death? That pattern of Claymore wasn't introduced till after that even.
The Boy loved the series of books. I tried to read the first one but it was like high school fanfiction and I felt the urge to shove a spoon in my eye by about page 15.
reds8n wrote: Those barrels don't seem especially fearsome opponents. We should invade them, get the economy started.
It's true that barrels are frequently rice in natural resources. You want to watch out for the red ones though, they explode.
No no... Red ones burn, yellow ones explode (the one in that youtube clip was obviously defective).
Ohh, and blue one electrocute people (don't ask me how, they just do), and green ones turn people into the Joker (cuz it's acid, duh)
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Actually the Claymore wouldn't have looked like that at all, and everyone was wearing kilts even though the great kilt wasn't worn till something like 150 years after Wallace's death? That pattern of Claymore wasn't introduced till after that even.
I haven't done much research into the topic, but I thought that kilts were much older than even that, however the movie was still wrong for using the greatkilt??
That, and a good number of historical photos, drawings, sketches and whatnot showcasing Claymores that I have seen, in none of them were they wrapped with leather round the blade, like Wallace's supposedly was... don't know if it's just the examples I've seen, or if theres yet another innacuracy. ::shrugs::
reds8n wrote: Those barrels don't seem especially fearsome opponents. We should invade them, get the economy started.
It's true that barrels are frequently rice in natural resources. You want to watch out for the red ones though, they explode.
No no... Red ones burn, yellow ones explode (the one in that youtube clip was obviously defective).
Ohh, and blue one electrocute people (don't ask me how, they just do), and green ones turn people into the Joker (cuz it's acid, duh)
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Actually the Claymore wouldn't have looked like that at all, and everyone was wearing kilts even though the great kilt wasn't worn till something like 150 years after Wallace's death? That pattern of Claymore wasn't introduced till after that even.
I haven't done much research into the topic, but I thought that kilts were much older than even that, however the movie was still wrong for using the greatkilt??
That, and a good number of historical photos, drawings, sketches and whatnot showcasing Claymores that I have seen, in none of them were they wrapped with leather round the blade, like Wallace's supposedly was... don't know if it's just the examples I've seen, or if theres yet another innacuracy. ::shrugs::
wallace was a lowlander and as a result wouldn't wear a kilt, his co-commander Andrew Moray on the other hand was a highlander and would have.
That never happened. *nanananananana can't hear you*
I kind of liked Eragon...
Did you read the book before watching it?
They were both pretty bad, IMO....
I like the books because Dragons, and because there are a good number of places where I read it and think "Hey I can write this sort of quality/better than this quality", and that gives me more of a drive to write. If some of the stuff in those books can still make them bestsellers, why can't I write something the same?
reds8n wrote: Those barrels don't seem especially fearsome opponents. We should invade them, get the economy started.
It's true that barrels are frequently rice in natural resources. You want to watch out for the red ones though, they explode.
No no... Red ones burn, yellow ones explode (the one in that youtube clip was obviously defective).
Ohh, and blue one electrocute people (don't ask me how, they just do), and green ones turn people into the Joker (cuz it's acid, duh)
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Actually the Claymore wouldn't have looked like that at all, and everyone was wearing kilts even though the great kilt wasn't worn till something like 150 years after Wallace's death? That pattern of Claymore wasn't introduced till after that even.
I haven't done much research into the topic, but I thought that kilts were much older than even that, however the movie was still wrong for using the greatkilt??
That, and a good number of historical photos, drawings, sketches and whatnot showcasing Claymores that I have seen, in none of them were they wrapped with leather round the blade, like Wallace's supposedly was... don't know if it's just the examples I've seen, or if theres yet another innacuracy. ::shrugs::
wallace was a lowlander and as a result wouldn't wear a kilt, his co-commander Andrew Moray on the other hand was a highlander and would have.
Wallace died in 1305
The Great Kilt became common garb in the highlands of Scotland in the sixteenth century, thus a two hundred year gap. The Claymore as we think of it, and as we see it in the movie Braveheart came to be in the 15th century, or one hundred years after Wallace's death.
George Spiggott wrote: U-571. I think one of the rivets on the submarine may be in the wrong place.
I have actually heard (never seen the movie, and don't know the industry) that Titanic was ate up, because the movie producer people used the wrong type of rivet in their ship design... Grains of salt and all that
I know that there are a number of inaccuracies in U-571, but I honestly don't remember what they were off the top of my head.
After being an IT guy for a while, any time I see a computer screen in a movie, it jars me badly enough to break that wall of disbelief. Mostly for the fact that so many movies spend millions on their set and costume design and then present me with a flashing red/yellow gif that says PASSWORD with a blank box.
reds8n wrote: Those barrels don't seem especially fearsome opponents. We should invade them, get the economy started.
It's true that barrels are frequently rice in natural resources. You want to watch out for the red ones though, they explode.
No no... Red ones burn, yellow ones explode (the one in that youtube clip was obviously defective).
Ohh, and blue one electrocute people (don't ask me how, they just do), and green ones turn people into the Joker (cuz it's acid, duh)
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Actually the Claymore wouldn't have looked like that at all, and everyone was wearing kilts even though the great kilt wasn't worn till something like 150 years after Wallace's death? That pattern of Claymore wasn't introduced till after that even.
I haven't done much research into the topic, but I thought that kilts were much older than even that, however the movie was still wrong for using the greatkilt??
That, and a good number of historical photos, drawings, sketches and whatnot showcasing Claymores that I have seen, in none of them were they wrapped with leather round the blade, like Wallace's supposedly was... don't know if it's just the examples I've seen, or if theres yet another innacuracy. ::shrugs::
wallace was a lowlander and as a result wouldn't wear a kilt, his co-commander Andrew Moray on the other hand was a highlander and would have.
Wallace died in 1305
The Great Kilt became common garb in the highlands of Scotland in the sixteenth century, thus a two hundred year gap. The Claymore as we think of it, and as we see it in the movie Braveheart came to be in the 15th century, or one hundred years after Wallace's death.
Wallace's sword wasn't a "claymore" per say, but the description of his very large great sword is superficially similar to the later claymore.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Ahhhh okay I see what you're getting at now. The real issue with that plot is that you can't really pull it off and keep to the "Super Real: Like enlisting only not" label they slapped over the entire movie.
Yeah, that sums it up nicely.
The real question here is why that gakstorm won ANY Oscars.
They ran the smartest Oscars scam since Crash.
Basically from early on they used the divorce of James Cameron and Kathryn Bigelow, who directed Avatar and Hurtlocker respectively, to make it just about those two movies. The whole conversation in Hollywood was manipulated by clever behind the scenes marketing from the Hurtlocker team into "Will the 'gritty' little war movie beat out the special effects juggernaught?"
Well of course it will, the smaller movie that's actually about something is always going to win. And that's doubly true when the big movie is Avatar, a technical marvel that wasn't actually a very good movie.
That little scam meant the best films of the year (well, the best that were nominated), Inglorious Basterds, Up In the Air, Up, An Education and District 9, were all side lined by the 'will it be Cameron or Bigelow?' marketing push.
Watching the awards that night, I knew the jig was up from the second The Hurtlocker beat out Inglorious Basterds for Best Original Screenplay. I mean, Hurtlocker was not without its qualities (Jeremy Renner's star making turn, and strong production) but the script wasn't anything special... and to beat about one of the best scripts produced in the last decade. Ludicrous.
In Dr.No, M (or was it Q?) gives Bond a Walther PPK in .32 colt, because he thinks his Beretta (in 9mm) is rubbish, and that the PPK is superior. Opinions aside, in Skyfall, he's given a PPK-S in 9mm.
I thought this was a bit of a betrayal of character. Bond almost exclusively uses a .32 PPK. I can't complain too much. At least it's a PPK, not that P99 monstrosity.
Seaward wrote: Au contraire. The Way of the Gun, with Ryan Phillippe and Benecio del Toro, is probably the most 'realistic' movie involving firearms I've seen. There's even a couple stovepipes that the actors simply clear and continue on, just like you would.
The final gun fight in that movie is among my all time favourite action scenes. Maybe second only to the bank heist in Heat, and that's probably only because that scene in Heat is improved by the quality of the rest of the movie, whereas Way of the Gun is otherwise just a pretty good movie.
Watching the awards that night, I knew the jig was up from the second The Hurtlocker beat out Inglorious Basterds for Best Original Screenplay. I mean, Hurtlocker was not without its qualities (Jeremy Renner's star making turn, and strong production) but the script wasn't anything special... and to beat about one of the best scripts produced in the last decade. Ludicrous.
This. Renner made that movie decent (in a sense) by acting well above the script he was given. The script itself... well compared to "classic" war movies and other oscar winning military films like Saving Private Ryan (which is was compared to a lot) or pieces like Flags of Our Fathers, Platoon, Apocalypse now, etc... it comes up extremely short. Even compared to Heartbreak Ridge, which while a hilarious Clint Eastwood action flick that kisses reality a fleeting farewell pretty much as soon as the credits roll, I'd still argue the Hurtlocker is missing something in comparison... such as Clint Eastwood XD.
Watching the awards that night, I knew the jig was up from the second The Hurtlocker beat out Inglorious Basterds for Best Original Screenplay. I mean, Hurtlocker was not without its qualities (Jeremy Renner's star making turn, and strong production) but the script wasn't anything special... and to beat about one of the best scripts produced in the last decade. Ludicrous.
This. Renner made that movie decent (in a sense) by acting well above the script he was given. The script itself... well compared to "classic" war movies and other oscar winning military films like Saving Private Ryan (which is was compared to a lot) or pieces like Flags of Our Fathers, Platoon, Apocalypse now, etc... it comes up extremely short. Even compared to Heartbreak Ridge, which while a hilarious Clint Eastwood action flick that kisses reality a fleeting farewell pretty much as soon as the credits roll, I'd still argue the Hurtlocker is missing something in comparison... such as Clint Eastwood XD.
Is that the one where Eastwood has a Medal of Honor, and people gak all over him, and his unit of RECON marines are a bunch of rockstar playboys? I couldn't really tell what I was watching. Was it supposed to be a funny movie?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Actually the Claymore wouldn't have looked like that at all, and everyone was wearing kilts even though the great kilt wasn't worn till something like 150 years after Wallace's death? That pattern of Claymore wasn't introduced till after that even.
Never mind that the Princess that Wallace presumably slept with was only 10 by the time of Wallace's death... meaning if he'd slept with her like the movie claimed he would have been fething an 8 or 9 year old.
Captain Fantastic wrote: In Dr.No, M (or was it Q?) gives Bond a Walther PPK in .32 colt, because he thinks his Beretta (in 9mm) is rubbish, and that the PPK is superior. Opinions aside, in Skyfall, he's given a PPK-S in 9mm.
I thought this was a bit of a betrayal of character. Bond almost exclusively uses a .32 PPK. I can't complain too much. At least it's a PPK, not that P99 monstrosity.
The PPK Bond got in Skyfall was 9mm Short, which is to say .380 ACP. Walther PPKs are not produced in 9mm Parabellum. This is the more modern ammunition selection for the weapon and isn't really a betrayal any more then when Bond ditched his original Beretta 418 in the books. It's just an update for the modern era while keeping fairly true to the original weapons.
Watching the awards that night, I knew the jig was up from the second The Hurtlocker beat out Inglorious Basterds for Best Original Screenplay. I mean, Hurtlocker was not without its qualities (Jeremy Renner's star making turn, and strong production) but the script wasn't anything special... and to beat about one of the best scripts produced in the last decade. Ludicrous.
This. Renner made that movie decent (in a sense) by acting well above the script he was given. The script itself... well compared to "classic" war movies and other oscar winning military films like Saving Private Ryan (which is was compared to a lot) or pieces like Flags of Our Fathers, Platoon, Apocalypse now, etc... it comes up extremely short. Even compared to Heartbreak Ridge, which while a hilarious Clint Eastwood action flick that kisses reality a fleeting farewell pretty much as soon as the credits roll, I'd still argue the Hurtlocker is missing something in comparison... such as Clint Eastwood XD.
Is that the one where Eastwood has a Medal of Honor, and people gak all over him, and his unit of RECON marines are a bunch of rockstar playboys? I couldn't really tell what I was watching. Was it supposed to be a funny movie?
I found it highly amusing myself, most Marines do. I've actually gone through the assault course where Highway fires on the Marines with the AK, it was a pleasure to fire from the same position as Mr. Eastwood. The knocked that MOUT town down a year or two ago I think...
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Actually the Claymore wouldn't have looked like that at all, and everyone was wearing kilts even though the great kilt wasn't worn till something like 150 years after Wallace's death? That pattern of Claymore wasn't introduced till after that even.
Never mind that the Princess that Wallace presumably slept with was only 10 by the time of Wallace's death... meaning if he'd slept with her like the movie claimed he would have been fething an 8 or 9 year old.
Yep, or the fact that Wallace was a noble, so him living in a mud hut as a child was highly unlikely
Avatar 720 wrote: I like the books because Dragons, and because there are a good number of places where I read it and think "Hey I can write this sort of quality/better than this quality", and that gives me more of a drive to write. If some of the stuff in those books can still make them bestsellers, why can't I write something the same?
In that case, at least, getting published had nothing to do with talent and everything to do with having parents who own a publishing company.
The company wasn't particularly large or well connected, though, so while the book was in stores it wasn't in many, and media coverage was minimal (most of it was Paolini himself going to local schools dressed in ren faire get up and talking to anyone who'd listen). But then his big break happened, as the son of a writer connected to Random House found a copy in a bookstore, liked it, and that all led to Random House picking the book up.
As to how that son of a writer liked it, or how anyone that picked it up after that liked it? Well I guess that basically comes down to fantasy readers not being very discerning, especially when they're young - as long as the novel doesn't do anything off putting like be original, then teen fantasy readers will plow through that stuff up eagerly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Yep, or the fact that Wallace was a noble, so him living in a mud hut as a child was highly unlikely
Or the sheer nonsense of a Scottish noble running talking about American style freedom in the middle of the 13th century. I mean, you might get angry about which noble was supposed to rule over you, but the idea that you could just be left alone because 'freedom' would have been completely bewildering to a 13th century peasant.
Also Primae Noctis is a complete myth, and while there are historical records of people saying it happened somewhere else or it used to happen somewhere... there isn't a single record of it happening anywhere in the world.
That said, as a pure fantasy movie Braveheart works pretty well. One of the worst historical films of all time, but one of the best fantasy movies.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Yep, or the fact that Wallace was a noble, so him living in a mud hut as a child was highly unlikely
Or the sheer nonsense of a Scottish noble running talking about American style freedom in the middle of the 13th century. I mean, you might get angry about which noble was supposed to rule over you, but the idea that you could just be left alone because 'freedom' would have been completely bewildering to a 13th century peasant.
Also Primae Noctis is a complete myth, and while there are historical records of people saying it happened somewhere else or it used to happen somewhere... there isn't a single record of it happening anywhere in the world.
That said, as a pure fantasy movie Braveheart works pretty well. One of the worst historical films of all time, but one of the best fantasy movies.
My thoughts exactly, the key thing to remember with Mel Gibson is that he NEVER lets reality get in the way of a good story. His treatment of the American Revolution and Brigadier General Francis Marion "The Swamp Fox" (who my Infinity unit is named after as it happens) got a similar do over.
The Harry Potter films got horrendous as they moved forwards. I found the 2-parter 7th film was barely watchable as a number of important details had deviated so far from the book!
timetowaste85 wrote: They sort of explain that-sometimes the Hulk comes out on its own. When that happens, it's uncontrolled. When Banner wills him to come out, he is more...willing to listen.
I only saw the movie once...
But before Banner changed to the HULK to punch that flying fishy thingamajig... didn't he say something like: "I'm always Angry?"
The way I looked at it, he has a control of his anger, and is able to unleash the green menace at will.
So why the big deal on the flying aircraft carrier thing? Except to make Loki's plan look slightly plausible?
While a bit late...
I always saw it as two different ways of changing. This was the point of the end of the Incredible Hulk where he manages to change voluntarily, and smiles. Also why he runs away at the end of the last fight instead of just mashing Betty and Ross into the ground. When he does it himself, he retains a semblance of control. When he's forced down that path, the Hulk takes over completely.
That explaination at least helps keep the film flowing.
Experiment 626 wrote: The Harry Potter films got horrendous as they moved forwards. I found the 2-parter 7th film was barely watchable as a number of important details had deviated so far from the book!
Worst of all, they left out Peeves!!!
I speed-read through the 7th book, and finished it four days after it was released, which is fairly quick for a huge book like that, although I'm sure plenty of people finished it same-day. I don't really remember too much about it, besides the part where they find the sword under the ice. That is literally the only thing I remembered while watching the movie(s). Don't Speed-Read!
Anyway! My point... ah. The movies totally wipe your memory of the books, and if you're one of the unfortunate souls who reads the book after seeing the movie, then you're probably wasting your time, because the movie is burned into your mind!
KalashnikovMarine wrote: My thoughts exactly, the key thing to remember with Mel Gibson is that he NEVER lets reality get in the way of a good story. His treatment of the American Revolution and Brigadier General Francis Marion "The Swamp Fox" (who my Infinity unit is named after as it happens) got a similar do over.
The difference being that The Patriot had terrible history and was a terrible movie in general.
Not though, that Gibson only starred in The Patriot, he didn't produce, direct, or contribute to the screenplay (and he only agreed to act in it after they dumped a gak ton of money on his doorstep).
Gibson is a crazy ass son of a bitch, and his only interest in history is in selling his particular brand of crazy world view, but the guy actually understands how to make a decent film. Which can't be said for Roland Emmerich and the team behind The Patriot.
Captain Fantastic wrote: In Dr.No, M (or was it Q?) gives Bond a Walther PPK in .32 colt, because he thinks his Beretta (in 9mm) is rubbish, and that the PPK is superior. Opinions aside, in Skyfall, he's given a PPK-S in 9mm.
I thought this was a bit of a betrayal of character. Bond almost exclusively uses a .32 PPK. I can't complain too much. At least it's a PPK, not that P99 monstrosity.
The PPK Bond got in Skyfall was 9mm Short, which is to say .380 ACP. Walther PPKs are not produced in 9mm Parabellum. This is the more modern ammunition selection for the weapon and isn't really a betrayal any more then when Bond ditched his original Beretta 418 in the books. It's just an update for the modern era while keeping fairly true to the original weapons.
What Cpt Fantastic is referring to is really an error in props. The scene in Dr. No corresponds with the scene in the book where Bond's Modelo 418 is replaced by the PPK in 7.65mm. replacing a 25 ACP with a 32 ACP isn't exactly a monumental change in firepower. The J frame he is also given in the book on the other hand is, the movies never reflected both guns, but those who read the Fleming novels would have noticed: Bond carried a revolver in *nearly* every book, if not all of them.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: My thoughts exactly, the key thing to remember with Mel Gibson is that he NEVER lets reality get in the way of a good story. His treatment of the American Revolution and Brigadier General Francis Marion "The Swamp Fox" (who my Infinity unit is named after as it happens) got a similar do over.
The difference being that The Patriot had terrible history and was a terrible movie in general.
.
That's why I was comparing it to Braveheart, not as a terrible movie, Braveheart is a personal favorite, but the history is a similar level of rubbish.
Captain Fantastic wrote: In Dr.No, M (or was it Q?) gives Bond a Walther PPK in .32 colt, because he thinks his Beretta (in 9mm) is rubbish, and that the PPK is superior. Opinions aside, in Skyfall, he's given a PPK-S in 9mm.
I thought this was a bit of a betrayal of character. Bond almost exclusively uses a .32 PPK. I can't complain too much. At least it's a PPK, not that P99 monstrosity.
The PPK Bond got in Skyfall was 9mm Short, which is to say .380 ACP. Walther PPKs are not produced in 9mm Parabellum. This is the more modern ammunition selection for the weapon and isn't really a betrayal any more then when Bond ditched his original Beretta 418 in the books. It's just an update for the modern era while keeping fairly true to the original weapons.
What Cpt Fantastic is referring to is really an error in props. The scene in Dr. No corresponds with the scene in the book where Bond's Modelo 418 is replaced by the PPK in 7.65mm. replacing a 25 ACP with a 32 ACP isn't exactly a monumental change in firepower. The J frame he is also given in the book on the other hand is, the movies never reflected both guns, but those who read the Fleming novels would have noticed: Bond carried a revolver in *nearly* every book, if not all of them.
So what's the real issue then? The lack of Bond's .38 revolver at all? or what?
I know Bond drives some gadget-filled cars in the films but there's no way on earth his DB5 could outpace a Ferrari 355 in Goldeneye.
Thinking about innacuracies involving cars is the way gear changes work in Hollywood. Maybe it's because most films are american made and the American public largely drive automatics? But even films made for car buffs break the laws of physics. How often do you see two cars going flat out side by side in a film only for the hero to drop a gear an roar ahead? That just isn't how cars work, you drop a gear while going in top at a higher gear and at best you'll slow the car down, at worst the engine will scream in agony as the cylinders all break free in an attemp to search for life outside the bonnet.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: That's why I was comparing it to Braveheart, not as a terrible movie, Braveheart is a personal favorite, but the history is a similar level of rubbish.
the sheer nonsense of a Scottish noble running talking about American style freedom in the middle of the 13th century.
While I agree that Braveheart is a historical travesty, the idea of "American style freedom" is far from nonsense,
American style freedom has its roots in Scotland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Arbroath
I recently saw a historical film I enjoyed a great deal. It was called "Brave" the really irritating historical inaccuracy surrounds bears. Everything else about the film was masterful.
Everyone knows that Scottish women turn into bears with age not magic. Or like Magnus the Red says, "There are no bears in the Highlands."
Gladiator is largely fiction, Commodus was bad but not really in the way shown. Also the gladiators equipment store appears to include both Sutton Hoo and Greek Hoplite helmets.
Easy E wrote: Yeah, the Gladiator type sin the movie Gladiator were all over the place and didn;t conform to any known standards.
However, it is Ridley Scott, and he does make cool movies so I forgive him. I will even forgive him for Kingdom of Heaven.
There is nothing wrong with Kingdom of Heaven.
YOU TAKE THAT BACK!
Well, Mr.Scott admitted that the opening of Balion's story is pure fiction... His father actually found him already in Italy - never in France as a Blacksmith. Plus, Balion also had IIRC at least two younger brothers who played a big role in helping him defend Jerusalem.
Balion himself was also captured during the Christian massacre at the Battle of Hatim and actually negotiated his release with Saladin to return and lead the defense of the Holy City.
It's completely unknown if Sibilla did kill her son. All that is known is that her son was a sickly child and died within about 8 months of assuming the throne. Scott went with the idea of Sibilla poisoning her son as a mercey to spare him the pain and suffering of living as her brother had.
He simply found it too distasteful that she would have maybe killed him as a means to gain power herself, because she was already the Queen Regeant, (and thus already effectively had the run of the city), and that it would be far too cold and sinister.
The Second Crusade is actually pretty well documented and both the Christian & Muslim accounts are pretty similar.
ALL the Crusades are actually pretty well documented. It's not quite the modern era where we have thousands of personal accounts of various battles and conflicts, but educated men on both sides put pen to paper quite a lot from the first conflict on.
No. The treaty possibly makes a claim for popular sovereignty (though as your link points out, it is debatable whether people at that time had such a concept), but that's all. This means there existed a notion that Scotland should have a Scottish king, and it might possibly have meant that king should be popular among the Scottish people and barons, but it certainly doesn't in any way make an argument for the rights of common people to be left alone by their lords and barons, as the movie pretended.
If Star Wars was scientifically accurate, half of the movies would be dead silent. Same goes for many Sci-fi movies.... but I think that argument has been done to death.
TheCustomLime wrote: If Star Wars was scientifically accurate, half of the movies would be dead silent. Same goes for many Sci-fi movies.... but I think that argument has been done to death.
Star Wars isn't sci-fi it's science fantasy it's not meant to be scientific because that's not what's important about the movie.
Another to add to my list: I watched 8 Crazy Nights last night, and the scene where Davey (Sandler) freezes Whitey into a poopsicle...how does Whitey breath? I enjoy the movie around the holidays, don't love it, but it's cute and yes, te breathing thing is the part I have issue with. I think I need to donate my brain to science...
In Prometheus the alien hologram of Earth should have Pangaea as the continents instead of Earth's current continents. Annoyed the crap out of me and totally took me out of that scene for a few seconds. And it would have been an easy thing to correct.
GalacticDefender wrote: In Prometheus the alien hologram of Earth should have Pangaea as the continents instead of Earth's current continents. Annoyed the crap out of me and totally took me out of that scene for a few seconds. And it would have been an easy thing to correct.
You're assuming that aliens arrived on Earth 200 million years ago, and didn't update their maps since then. Given the film states that aliens returned only 2,000 years ago, your claimed error makes no sense.
And, in a movie that was basically non-sensical, that's a very strange thing to complain about.
GalacticDefender wrote: In Prometheus the alien hologram of Earth should have Pangaea as the continents instead of Earth's current continents. Annoyed the crap out of me and totally took me out of that scene for a few seconds. And it would have been an easy thing to correct.
There is an unreleased deleted sceen which explains this.
GalacticDefender wrote: In Prometheus the alien hologram of Earth should have Pangaea as the continents instead of Earth's current continents. Annoyed the crap out of me and totally took me out of that scene for a few seconds. And it would have been an easy thing to correct.
You're assuming that aliens arrived on Earth 200 million years ago, and didn't update their maps since then. Given the film states that aliens returned only 2,000 years ago, your claimed error makes no sense.
And, in a movie that was basically non-sensical, that's a very strange thing to complain about.
Old film called Battle of the Bulge. I can get past the repainted modern vehicles but while some scenes are shot in winter/snow, other parts are shot in what looks like california desert with no snow in sight.
yeri wrote: when I went to see Argo I couldn't help but notice that the sets were wrong in some places. for example in the shot of the dog barking Roman architecture can be seen behind the dog. there is no Roman architecture in Iran, but there is in Istanbul where they filmed. also there were too many stars on the CIA memorial wall for the time period, but I can understand the CIA not wanting to remove the stars for a simple movie. the last thing I noticed was that when the student's stormed the embassy at the beginning the weather and tress are wrong for Iran, but not for Toronto. kind of ruined my willing suspension of disbelief, but I still enjoyed it.
And those story boards looked nothing like Jack Kirby's art!
And then there was the ending... which was ultra cheesy and ruined an otherwise good film for me.
But wow, the embassy, the period appliances, the avacoado colored phone, that was some great attention to detail.
And I squeed at the lingering shot of the kid's toys at the end.
ds who got be Persian fodder!
