Movies you love that contain "little" inaccuracies that bother you

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.

**Sgt_Scruffy**

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

**sebster**

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.

**KalashnikovMarine**

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**

Jaws 3. Nuff said

**NecronLord3**

Boiler Room: great flick except for the part where an entire PC hard drive is downloaded to a single 3.5 Floppy Disk in minutes.

**Seaward**

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.

Yeah, you can. Ask me how I know.

**htj**

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...

**MrMerlin**

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?

**d-usa**

Nobody ever reloads.

And how about them storm-troopers? They are known for their accuracy, but always miss!

**Fafnir**

d-usa wrote:

And how about them storm-troopers? They are known for their accuracy, but always miss!

Tell that to Uncle Owen.

**Seaward**

d-usa wrote:
Nobody ever reloads.

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.

**htj**

Fafnir wrote:
d-usa wrote:

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.

**SoloFalcon1138**

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?

**Ensis Ferrae**

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
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.

**RossDas**

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.

**Frazzled**

*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.

**rockerbikie**

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.

**rubiksnoob**

I've always found the ending of "Surf Nazis must Die" to be a little improbable.

**rockerbikie**

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
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**

Seaward wrote:
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.

Yeah, you can. Ask me how I know.

Tempation..... Im a sucker for it

. How?

**Ensis Ferrae**

rockerbikie wrote:

I dunno. Rambo 3 is a pretty big offender also. Even, though it is a good movie.

Hey now....of course you can ram a flying helicopter with a tank!!! Especially one that you have had no training or prior experience with

**AustonT**

master of ordinance wrote:
Seaward wrote:
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.

Yeah, you can. Ask me how I know.

Tempation..... Im a sucker for it . How?

Because literally thousands of guys have done it.

**reds8n**

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 ?

**htj**

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.

**reds8n**

htj wrote:
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.

**htj**

reds8n wrote:
htj wrote:
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.

**AustonT**

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.

**yeri**

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.

**HopinmyTub**

Braveheart.

Battle for Stirling Bridge.

**Hlaine Larkin mk2**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
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.

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