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.

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.

 AduroT wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Eragon is one huge inaccuracy.

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

I kind of liked Eragon...

Did you read the book before watching it?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Eragon is one huge inaccuracy.

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

I kind of liked Eragon...

Did you read the book before watching it?

There must be a different book called Eragon, because the film sure as hell wasn't based off Paolini's book.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Eragon is one huge inaccuracy.

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

I kind of liked Eragon...

Did you read the book before watching it?

evidently not

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Eragon is one huge inaccuracy.

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....

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.

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.

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::

 Ensis Ferrae 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.

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.

In The Avengers, Loki looked too much like Tim Lincecum.

 Sasori wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Eragon is one huge inaccuracy.

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?

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae 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.

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.

U-571. I think one of the rivets on the submarine may be in the wrong place.

 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.

Oh, that the Americans recoverd the Ultra code book from a sinking German sub.... but other than that.....

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.

Just... try. Or something.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae 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.

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.

In the sense that it was a two handed great sword yes. Absolutely.

Ironclad, I could've sworn that the blood smear when that body was catapulted into a wall was in the wrong spot.

Good film that.

 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.

 sebster wrote:


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.

 Frazzled wrote:
Glory was pretty awesome for technical and historical accuracy over all.

In fact, let's just call Glory one of the great American movies.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 sebster wrote:


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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Captain Fantastic wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 sebster wrote:


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...

 sebster wrote:

 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.

 sebster wrote:


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.

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!

Worst of all, they left out Peeves!!!

 George Spiggott wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 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.