Little inaccuracies that ruin in a film...

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?!!

fob

For films in general:

Any time our hero knocks out or incapacitates a baddie with one or two punches - rendering them 'dealt with' from that point on. It's incredibly hard to knock someone unconscious and even then people usually regain consciousness quite quickly.

Winny_Pooh

fob said:

For films in general:

Any time our hero knocks out or incapacitates a baddie with one or two punches - rendering them 'dealt with' from that point on. It's incredibly hard to knock someone unconscious and even then people usually regain consciousness quite quickly.

Wis'd. In family rated movies the anonymous baddies or unwitting security gaurds usually get a thump to the back of head and off to sleepyland they go.

Blueingreen

fob said:

For films in general:

Any time our hero knocks out or incapacitates a baddie with one or two punches - rendering them 'dealt with' from that point on. It's incredibly hard to knock someone unconscious and even then people usually regain consciousness quite quickly.

Plus if you were to, say, hit someone over the head with a gun or even punch them in the jaw hard enough to render them unconscious your chances of doing serious damage to them would be high - cracked skull, brain damage, broken jaw etc.  The idea that the hero knows exactly how hard to hit someone to render them unconscious but enable them to wake up a little groggily a few minutes later with no harm done is really silly.  To be fair you don't see it much in modern films unless it's a deliberate spoof of old movies.

carlos

fob said:

For films in general:

Any time our hero knocks out or incapacitates a baddie with one or two punches - rendering them 'dealt with' from that point on. It's incredibly hard to knock someone unconscious and even then people usually regain consciousness quite quickly.

There's a reason anaesthesiologists are paid a lot of money and have to study a lot to learn their job. It's very hard to put somebody to sleep for a long-ish time without damaging them permanently. Yet the odd villain with a rag dipped in chloroform can put someone to sleep for hours without brain damage.

not_the_dj

Realistic films would be very boring

carlos

Well used trope of throwing a cigarette or a match or a zippo into a pool of gasoline and the whole thing lights up. Scientists have tried it 2,000 times and failed to score an ignition - https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/feb/27/smoking.film

carlos

Finally, and because I used to be a pre-gunpowder military history nerd, almost ALL depictions of those battles and skirmishes. Nobody fights like they would have fought, e.g. saxons and vikings charging in like loonies with axes and swords, instead of forming a compact shield wall with their long shields and spears. I guess the latter isn't as exciting. And don't get me started on catapults w/ flaming rocks (!!) and flaming arrows.

scrumhalf

fob said:

For films in general:

Any time our hero knocks out or incapacitates a baddie with one or two punches - rendering them 'dealt with' from that point on. It's incredibly hard to knock someone unconscious and even then people usually regain consciousness quite quickly.

There was a Bond film omn the other night where he's being chased by the baddies and basically incapacitates some of them by doing a simple judo throw.

There's also the issue of our hero fighting a mob of baddies one at a time. Because, of course, they would never have a go at him all at once, would they?

Philly_Q

fandango said:

Blueingreen said:

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.

One of the (many) things which annoyed me about 24, where "everything happens in real time" was that there should've been entire episodes, or several in a row, where Jack Bauer does nothing but drive a car or nod off on a plane.

Reverend

Pretty much all fights in films.

munckee

carlos said:

Finally, and because I used to be a pre-gunpowder military history nerd, almost ALL depictions of those battles and skirmishes. Nobody fights like they would have fought, e.g. saxons and vikings charging in like loonies with axes and swords, instead of forming a compact shield wall with their long shields and spears. I guess the latter isn't as exciting. And don't get me started on catapults w/ flaming rocks (!!) and flaming arrows.

Not always, battle of hastings was apparently going the saxon's way until they charged down the hill like loons after the normans giving up their position of strength and causing them to be routed.

Bernard Cornwall researches to the nth degree for his battle scenes and the scene from last kingdom where Uhtred single handedly breached the dane's shield wall is also based on a real event (different saxon though).

What is apparently very unrealistic is all the clashing of swords, they wouldn't take much clashing.

the_jaffa

Another one that troubles me:

Tom Cruise playing Jack Reacher. Reacher is 6'5" and 250lbs (although don't get me started on the size descriptions in the books and their lack or feasibility) and Tom Cruise definitely isn't

LastMantra

munckee said:

What is apparently very unrealistic is all the clashing of swords, they wouldn't take much clashing.

I always thought that about sword fights. How come the blades don't get damaged?
Highlander? There's people finding chunks of it in posts!
Don't care how many times the steel had been folded.

munckee

the_jaffa said:

Another one that troubles me:

Tom Cruise playing Jack Reacher. Reacher is 6'5" and 250lbs (although don't get me started on the size descriptions in the books and their lack or feasibility) and Tom Cruise definitely isn't

Saw an interview with Lee Childs where he said he pictures Reacher like a young Lawrence Dallaglio (blonde hair version).  They are making a netflix series I believe more authentic to the books.

carlos

munckee said:

carlos said:

Finally, and because I used to be a pre-gunpowder military history nerd, almost ALL depictions of those battles and skirmishes. Nobody fights like they would have fought, e.g. saxons and vikings charging in like loonies with axes and swords, instead of forming a compact shield wall with their long shields and spears. I guess the latter isn't as exciting. And don't get me started on catapults w/ flaming rocks (!!) and flaming arrows.

Not always, battle of hastings was apparently going the saxon's way until they charged down the hill like loons after the normans giving up their position of strength and causing them to be routed.

Bernard Cornwall researches to the nth degree for his battle scenes and the scene from last kingdom where Uhtred single handedly breached the dane's shield wall is also based on a real event (different saxon though).

What is apparently very unrealistic is all the clashing of swords, they wouldn't take much clashing.

Yeah, the battle of Hasting was the exception that proves the rule. And we know how it turned out once they broke formation. They used it because it worked when your forces consisted of mostly militia with little training. Hold the line, push and stab! Eventually that formation was surpassed in Europe by heavy cavalry and a rising professional military class. But no charging Romans please!

Stratavarious

The Goofs section of IMDB single handedly ruined a generation’s appreciation of cinema... spend movies judging details... ignore the big picture

ICBM

Stratavarious said:

The Goofs section of IMDB single handedly ruined a generation’s appreciation of cinema... spend movies judging details... ignore the big picture

I've never looked at it - but I have spotted plenty of suspension-of-disbelief-destroying moments in movies without it. (Including the helicopter one I mentioned earlier .)

From the classic six-gun firing more than six shots in the old Cowboys & Indians films onwards... it's really not rocket science to get simple things right. I thought film companies paid people to check stuff like that!

dano

Kalimna said:

poopot said:

Not so much an inaccuracy, more of a gaping hole in the story...

raiders of the lost ark... Indiana Jones has no role in the outcome of the story... if he wasn’t in it the film would have ended with the exact same outcome!... 

the nazis would have still found the ark, opened it and all died... exactly as they did!!!!!

I'll take slight issue with that. Without Indy, the Nazi's perhaps wouldn't have found the Ark as they didn't have the correct length staff in the map room - just the scarred portion on creepy-Nazi's hand and not the 'Take back one khaddam to honour the Hebrew god who's Ark this is'....

But either way, doesn't stop it from being a spectacularly great piece of entertainment

The Nazis just didn't look hard enough. When Indy escapes from the tomb with the snakes he goes out through a stone block wall which is right in the middle of the Nazi camp.  

fandango

Little inaccuracies??? Can we suggest major inaccuracies??? Like this scene below in True Lies with Arnie Schwarzenegger where he knew how to fly a Harrier Jump Jet (there weren't many in the USA) and despite getting hit, doesn't burst into flames and crash. Somehow we are expected to suspend our disbelief, and not only finding his daughter up a crane hanging on for dear life, and remaining rather calm about it, but Arnie's total ability to own that Harrier, whilst evading Art Malik's attempt to kill both him and his daughter.

I guess this is more about flagging up the preposterous, but seriously the inaccuracy is that the Harrier is an easy jet to fly at the best of times, and Arnie jumps in as if it's his car and going for a drive to the Mall.