Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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!

 master of ordinance wrote:

And then theres the bit where one of the old men shoots an RPG out of the air. With a revolver

IIRC Mythbusters managed to pull this off.

kronk wrote:

 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?

That will do, AustinT. That will do.

 motyak wrote:

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??

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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.

 sebster wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 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.

...one of those is a prop from the movie...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's frightening to think 300 got it more right than most movies...
300.

 AustonT wrote:

It's frightening to think 300 got it more right than most movies...
300.

That's an unpleasant thought. I'm going to choose to ignore that.

How about the Warhammer Fantasy Butcher SC that was totally ripped off in 300!

 htj wrote:

 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

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Eragon is one huge inaccuracy.

That never happened. *nanananananana can't hear you*

Anyone else read this thread and hear the Comic Book Guy's voice the entire time?

 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...

In Zulu (1964), in which the officers have Webley revolvers first available in 1884, when the Battle of Rorke's Drift took place in 1879.

Shocking.

Never heard of "Field Test" before procurement?

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?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Any movie ever that shows vikings with horned or winged helmets.

Just because there's no record of vikings with horns in there helm doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 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?

There was a new Total Recall?

It was so bad I don't recall.

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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Eragon is one huge inaccuracy.

That never happened. *nanananananana can't hear you*

I kind of liked Eragon...

 Frazzled wrote:

 htj wrote:

 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!

 htj wrote:

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.

 sebster wrote:

 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.