fumanstan

I believe everything I see in movies at TV.

GoldenJCJ

stvn1974

Didn't SPR show the Germans using tanks that hadn't been created yet?

Tom Banjo

covenant

Giantrobo

Yeah we Radio people love "WKRP in Cincinnati" but laugh at the "made for tv reasons" studio situation. ie..in a real studio the room goes silent when you turn the mic on. But on that show they are talking and you can hear the music which would mean they would need headphones. They didn't always shave headphones.

Noonan

You mean to tell me that car doors and filing cabinets are NOT bulletproof like TV and movies would make us believe???

Decker

I'm still pissed that Kubrick spilled the beans and showed the world how we doctors all have a special Physician ID card that allows us to access any location in the city.

stvn1974

My favorite is when a character shoots a lock or keypad and a door opens...or it won't open anymore. It always depends on what the story calls for.

Nick Danger

When I was a kid, Mad magazine would talk about MD license plates that would allow you to park anywhere anytime in New York City. Don't they have those in Las Vegas?

Actually, I thought Tom Cruise getting anything he wanted by saying, "It's okay, I'm a doctor" was one of the best running jokes I've ever seen. I think it's funny as hell.

GoldenJCJ

GoldenJCJ

Brack

Obi-Wanma

It would be a major inaccuracy if they were shaving headphones. That's just weird, man.

stvn1974

Everything in the '70s was hairy.

Hokeyboy

I'll never forget when I was watching some CW show and the "hacker" was remarking about "military-grade encryption" and the screen showed a C# case statement.

JimRochester

That's why I really like documentaries or commentaries to go along with historical dramas like that. You have to know things are done to look good on the screen or hold viewer interest that are not technically accurate. With the exception of docudramas which are claiming to be as accurate as possible, you have to know there is a lot of artistic license going on. I remember when American Sniper came out there was a heated discussion about the accuracy of the story. Really? A guy writes a book about himself. Exaggeration. They make a movie about the book. Artistic license. And you're surprised that there were liberties taken? Why did you watch it? Just so you could trash it? Remember the martial arts movies? 10 guys attack our hero but all politely wait their turn to fight so it's really one at a time.

Nick Danger

I think it was Conan O'Brian who asked Chuck Norris why the bad guys attacked him one at a time. Chuck said, "If they all came at once they'd kick my ass!"

JimRochester

History Buffs on YouTube is a fun channel with some good comparisons.

Note: The only thing true about Braveheart was the name of the people. There really was a William Wallace (who never wore a kilt) There really was a Robert The Bruce. I saw his statue in Scotland (he never met Wallace) There really was s Princes Isabelle (she was about 9 at the time) Entertaining movie but a total work of fiction.


We've had threads way back dedicated to these mistakes. I just don't remember what they were called to search for them.

TomOpus

I don't think the general public care about 100% historical accuracies. It's a movie.

JimRochester

ARGO was an entertaining movie but had huge artistic liberties taken including the final act. Not to mention the complete omission of the countries that assisted us
Lone Survivor entertained but also had an entirely made up 3rd act
American Sniper - was based off a book a by the guy then made into a movie. By nature we see things differently through our eyes than from afar. When we describe ourselves in a book it will most likely be in a shining light. The movie will further enhance the exaggeration. The movie included a villain that wasn't there in real life.

At least in the case of these war movies many of the complaints are from people already biased to dislike the military or dislike war movies. The complaint about jingoism is common. If you've ever heard a group of military guys talk, that's how they talk. If you want a documentary, watch a documentary. If you are going to movie only to complain about how they talk or how things didn't match real life, don't go.

The sword the guy carries wasn't invented until 10 years after this takes place. Big deal. It represents a weapon he carried. I'm far more bothered by the 12 shot revolver or any gun that never runs out of bullets.

GoldenJCJ

d2cheer

Yup and Escape from New York.

Tom Banjo

Ash Ketchum

I just watched a John Wayne western, THE COMANCHEROS (1961), set in Texas in 1843. There's a duel at the very beginning, in which co-star Stuart Whitman participates, and the dueling pistols are the last accurate weapons we see in the movie. In every other scene, they've got six-shooters and repeating rifles, years before they were invented and decades before they were available out west. If they had just set the movie 30-40 years later, none of this would have been a problem. Of course, if the Duke had to fight the Comanches with single-shot rifles and pistols, the movie would have been an hour longer and in all likelihood he would have been killed by an arrow during his loading time.