Little inaccuracies that ruin in a film...

artiebear

"Braveheart", from the opening scenes through to the end credits. 

ICBM

artiebear said:

"Braveheart", from the opening scenes through to the end credits. 

The only good thing about that film is the brilliantly maniacal performance Patrick McGoohan gave as King Edward I.

Keiko

I'm no expert on boxing, but the fight scenes in Rocky 1, 2, 3, and 4 are clearly ridiculous. Also, what the hell is Apollo Creed wearing for jogging in Rocky 3? Come on, this was never in fashion:

Winny_Pooh

2001: A Space Odyssey

So many things innacurate about 2001 in this rubbish rubbish movie.

tony99

ICBM said:

artiebear said:

"Braveheart", from the opening scenes through to the end credits. 

The only good thing about that film is the brilliantly maniacal performance Patrick McGoohan gave as King Edward I.

hahah when his son's fancy man declares himself skilled in the arts of strategy and warfare

so Eddy Longshanks just lashes him out the window

Stratavarious

Back to the Future series was dead to me when they did not explain how a 1955 Marty could borrow a 1963 ES345! 

crunchman

Stratavarious said:

Back to the Future series was dead to me when they did not explain how a 1955 Marty could borrow a 1963 ES345! 

At least they have a time machine there.  It would be possible for someone to bring it back to 1955.

Maybe there could be a Rogue One style spinoff where they explain how the guitar got back to 1955.

TheBigDipper

I know I shouldn't, but I just cringe when films set in London cross the entire city when the protagonists turn a street corner. or get off the no 8 bus at a place the route doesn't go anywhere near. Before turning another corner and...  

I think I'd like to go out now, please. I actually miss going to the cinema. Watching at home is not the same experience at all. 

fob

TheBigDipper said:

I think I'd like to go out now, please. I actually miss going to the cinema. Watching at home is not the same experience at all. 

I think that's one of the few areas where I was already self-isolating - I'd choose watching at home over the cinema even in these trying times.

Headphones

not_the_dj said:

Cols said:

not_the_dj said:

Were the Nazi’s tracking Indy at that point in the film?

I thought they just happened to turn up at the same time he was at Marion’s bar, both looking for her fathers headpiece?

Yep.  You see one of them behind him when boarding the flying boat to Nepal, reading Life magazine and playing Sinister Nazi Music.

Of course, I really should watch it again!

And the Flying boat's a Short Sandringham.... Post war conversion of Sunderland Flying boats! 

Jolly good entertainment, but don't look too closely (or at eps 2 and 4).

MrSwanson

TheBigDipper said:

I know I shouldn't, but I just cringe when films set in London cross the entire city when the protagonists turn a street corner. or get off the no 8 bus at a place the route doesn't go anywhere near. Before turning another corner and...  

I think I'd like to go out now, please. I actually miss going to the cinema. Watching at home is not the same experience at all. 

We've been trying to make an effort of shutting all blinds/curtains so it's dark no phones etc... but still nothing quite the same

scrumhalf

There's one episode of The Proifessionals (ok, not a film, sue me) where one of them is following someone from Heathrow Airport on the Tube to central London.

The action takes place in a variety of places, some of which are not on the route from Heathrow to the West End (Wembley Park?) and in several trains, some of which never went to Heathrow.

Is it just me or is it too warm to be wearing an anorak?

Blueingreen

In one of his excellent "Adventures in the Screen Trade" books William Goldman (screen writer on Butch Cassidy and All The President's Men among others) makes a point about plausibility in films.

The example he takes iirc (I read these a long time ago) is someone going to a bank in, say, NYC.  He drives to the bank, obviously confident he can park outside, parks outside and goes in.  Some filmgoers find this kind of thing annoyingly unrealistic.  The odds against getting an available parking space right in front of a bank in NYC are astronomical.  No-one would drive straight to the bank confident of finding one.

But Goldman says, what are we supposed to do?  Show him driving around looking for a parking space, eventually finding one, and walking to the bank?  Film-makers don't do that because it adds time and would be boring. They are constantly sacrificing plausibility to narrative concision, not because they want to or don't care, but because the alternative would be a worse film.

fandango

Blueingreen said:

In one of his excellent "Adventures in the Screen Trade" books William Goldman (screen writer on Butch Cassidy and All The President's Men among others) makes a point about plausibility in films.

The example he takes iirc (I read these a long time ago) is someone going to a bank in, say, NYC.  He drives to the bank, obviously confident he can park outside, parks outside and goes in.  Some filmgoers find this kind of thing annoyingly unrealistic.  The odds against getting an available parking space right in front of a bank in NYC are astronomical.  No-one would drive straight to the bank confident of finding one.

But Goldman says, what are we supposed to do?  Show him driving around looking for a parking space, eventually finding one, and walking to the bank?  Film-makers don't do that because it adds time and would be boring. They are constantly sacrificing plausibility to narrative concision, not because they want to or don't care, but because the alternative would be a worse film.

Same for brushing teeth, going to The John, making a cuppa (as opposed to drinking it) paying for a bus/train fare, putting on one’s shoes, strapping up with seat belt, etc etc.

Yes, there are examples of all the above, but they are secondary or tertiary to what moves the plot narrative on.

That is why some (most?) films establish a character’s attention to detail very quickly so the viewer gets it, before then never having to address that detail ever again. E.g. yes we know Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) brushes his teeth every morning (Stranger Than Fiction) - because The screenplay tells you. Yet you only see this once (If I remember correctly). And once only. And it was to establish detail. After a while the writing on the screen becomes sparser and sparser, because the point is established, and because text on screen for the whole film would become intensely annoying.

lasermonkey

The complete absence of soft, juicy fruit in The King's Peach.
What a swizz!

skunkwerx

Any Asystole scene where the medic keeps using the defib. 

I'm often there getting stressed out shouting 'EPINEPHRINE AND CPR YOU DUMB FUCK!' 

Headphones

Blinking bombs...

Has no one grumped about the irony of the title here yet?

Jalapeno

fandango said:

Will Ferrell...... the whole film would become intensely annoying.

Hmmm

MagicPigDetective

Over exaggerated sound effects. Take footsteps. Film and TV have chosen to make this sound very prominent, watch 60's and 70's stuff, with it's constant tapping, stomping, shuffling, gravel noises etc always very loud. There must have been a whole industry making footstep noise effects to overdub REALLY LOUDLY.  Then again, perhaps that how it was back in the day, before people wore trainers, rubber soles etc?

rogd

tony99 said:

ICBM said:

artiebear said:

"Braveheart", from the opening scenes through to the end credits. 

The only good thing about that film is the brilliantly maniacal performance Patrick McGoohan gave as King Edward I.

hahah when his son's fancy man declares himself skilled in the arts of strategy and warfare

so Eddy Longshanks just lashes him out the window

Uilleann pipes?!!