What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Artist

[rodneyfaile]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

plus it has a Starship Cpt and a Jedi!:cool

And a D'Artagnan!

 

[Jet Beetle]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

Argo - It was the Canadians who came up with the whole plan.

U-571 - The British took over the German U-Boat

Prince of Egypt - No one was animated back then.

 

[Bigdaddy]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

Three musketeers: Airship and many more :sick :facepalm

"Nick Fury was a B.A dude in the comics. Think of the Punisher with one eye. But Samuel L. Jackson* is not a BA. Sorry but it's So true, so true. If you say what about Pulp Fiction. Then I'll say Mr. Wolf, no one messes with Mr.Wolf. You just better go get him a Big Kahuna burger if you know whats good for ya.

BTW Bruce Willis is like Chuck Norris, you cant stop the man."

Mr Wolf didn't give any indication of being a B.A., smart efficient and very well connected certainly, but Jewels was the B.A.
Sam can act like a B.A.,.... Chuck just is a B.A. :lol

 

[Solo4114]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

U-571 - The British took over the German U-Boat

Yeah, U-571 was just bad all around. Bad acting, dumb story, totally ahistorical.


Alas, I paid for it in the theater back when I was in college. Unless we did a twofer that night, which we probably did, come to think of it.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

Yeah, U-571 was just bad all around. Bad acting, dumb story, totally ahistorical.


Alas, I paid for it in the theater back when I was in college.

Same experience here. :lol

Compare that to one of my favourite films, Das Boot.

 

[Riceball]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

Although I've never seen it I hate the Russel Crowe Robin Hood and their use for what are essentially wooden , oar driven Higgins boats in the beach assault scene. The idea for the Higgins boat and the bow ramp didn't come until around the 30s or so, until then all beach assaults were always done by climbing over the sides of boats.

The one thing that bothers me in a lot of historical, as we as fantasy, movies and shows is how worthless armor is shown to be. I've always found it laughable how easy they make it seem to kill an armored man, even in just mail, by simply slicing across their gut never mind that all metal armor provides excellent protection against those kins of attacks.

 

[Laspector]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

I think my biggest one currently is watching these old Happy Days reruns on the INSP channel and seeing everyone with 70s hairdos. After about the second season the 50s was gone and everything looked 70s.

And on that note--That 70s Show. Eric Foreman has tons of Star Wars toys that were not even available until the late 90s. That really irks me.

 

[Darth Lars]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

U-571 - The British took over the German U-Boat

I was going to post this. It shows US:ians capturing a German U-boat and its Enigma machine, where as the British had captured its first German U-boat with an Enigma machine before USA had entered the war.

 

[Zombie_61]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

"We're making a movie, not a documentary!" I've heard that one quite often from a director...

To a degree, that director is right. Within that context I don't see a problem with the production staff trying to get as much right/accurate as possible, but in the end it's a movie made for entertainment, not education. And filmmakers since the first motion picture was created have had no qualms about screwing with the facts if it helps them tell the story they want to tell. Some of my favorite movies are "based on a true story"; they're entertaining, but often far from being accurate.

I've given up on any movie that proclaims to be a historical dramatization, the problem I encounter is so many people take the film as "fact" it makes it hard to have a discussion with them after. A friend of mine saw JFK years ago and said "now I finally know the truth!" facepalm

This is the biggest problem with movies that are allegedly based on factual events--people walk out of the theaters thinking they've received a history lesson. :facepalm I'm surprised more people don't think Abraham Lincoln actually hunted vampires. :lol

Another good example is Zodiac (2007). It's an entertaining and effective movie, but the "facts" presented within support only Robert Graysmith's theory of who the killer was--a theory which has been repeatedly proven wrong by professional investigators and law enforcement personnel.

Getting back to the main topic, at my age I have neither the energy nor the desire to get worked up over inaccuracies in any given movie; if I'm interested in the subject I can research it myself to find out what's true and what isn't.

 

[robn1]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

The Untouchables. Ness throws Frank Nitti off the courthouse roof, but in reality Nitti commited suicide several years later. Capone attends a show by Enrico Caruso, but Caruso died about 9 years earlier. Ness is portrayed as married with children, but he was actually a bachelor at the time.

 

[Rotwang]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

Exaclibur is pure fantasy and makes no pretenses to be otherwise. By contrast, King Arthur, from around 2003, was supposedly "historically based," except....y'know....not really. Same with the Russel Crowe Robin Hood film. Supposedly historically based but, again, not so much.

Robin Hood and the "LSK" - Landing Ship Knight ... (sigh)

 

[Jet Beetle]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

Although I've never seen it I hate the Russel Crowe Robin Hood

BEST POST EVER! You go Riceball!!! I feel the same way about so many.:cool

 

[SSgt Burton]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

Another good example is Zodiac (2007). It's an entertaining and effective movie, but the "facts" presented within support only Robert Graysmith's theory of who the killer was--a theory which has been repeatedly proven wrong by professional investigators and law enforcement personnel.

And DNA evidence decades later.

I was going to mention this one as well. While they certainly did their homework on the way the killings played out, they also deliberately fudged a key piece of evidence (Arthur Leigh Allen's birthdate) to "fit" their storyline.

Another little nitpick in Zodiac- in the opening shooting sequence of Darlene Ferrin and Mike Mageau, Ferrin drove a Chevy Corvair- the same make and model that the Zodiac drove during the actual killing. However the filmmakers deliberately chose to have the Zodiac pull up in a Mustang instead so as not to create a "doppleganger" effect with the audience.

Of course the mainstream audience wouldn't have a clue about these facts.


My contribution---

Saving Private Ryan. Definitely one of the best WWII films out there, however the assault on Dog Green sector and especially the Dog One exit- the actual exit was a road that was blocked by the Germans (by erecting a wall that had to be demolished by Allied forces)- the movie depicted a footpath the men simply had to run up.


Kevin

 

[Philly]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

I quite like U571, I was at some of the shooting of U571 when I was in Malta as a kid I think the models are still there baking in the heat along with the raise the titanic models

 

[Zombie_61]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

And DNA evidence decades later...

I hadn't heard about that.

When Zodiac was released in '07 there was a thread on Hobby Talk discussing the movie, and one of the members posted that he was at Lake Berryessa on the day Bryan Hartnell and Cecelia Shepard were attacked and claims to have seen Zodiac there; he said it was most definitely not Arthur Leigh Allen, and that he told that to the police when they interviewed him during their investigation. Obviously I have no idea whether or not he was telling the truth, but he included enough detail in his description of the day to make his story plausible.

 

[SSgt Burton]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

My understanding is that in 2002 the SFPD compared Allen's DNA to samples from the Zodiac letters- there was no match.

Personally I don't believe Allen was the Zodiac. He sure seemed "close" though.


Kevin

 

[GrimmOmen]

The "Scientists believed that detonating an atomic bomb could ignite Earth's atmosphere, but they did it anyway!" excuse. Complete and utter hogwash!

I haven't heard that one, but I think to be fair, I believe they asked Van Allen if the A- bomb would ignite the atmosphere to which he said (effectively) "maybe?".


-Grimm
(Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD)

 

[Jeyl]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

I haven't heard that one, but I think to be fair, I believe they asked Van Allen if the A- bomb would ignite the atmosphere to which he said (effectively) "maybe?".

Alright SF, take it away.

There was a fear since back before there were even Nazis, never mind the second World War, that enough heat and pressure could cause fusion to take place in the hydrogen, helium and nitrogen in our atmosphere, which could potentially spread around the whole world, and obviously destroy all life as we know it.

In 1942, Edward Teller did the calculations that yes, it might. But than J. Robert Oppenheimer put everything on hold and spoke to his superior, Arthur H. Compton about the matter. And after much discussion the decision was made that they would proceed with the Manhatten project if AND ONLY IF it could be proven based upon serious analysis that the chances of such an event happening was less than three out on ONE MILLION. It was less than that actually because, and here's another important part that is never mentioned, Teller made a mistake in his figures. He didn't factor in heat loss so his calculations were way way off.

And the pièce de résistance? Teller lead a group at Los Alamos that examined this question, and his new figures showed that the atmosphere would not ignite. Figures that agreed with the ones independently done by Hans Bethe. But they checked and rechecked this very carefully just to make sure it was certainly not going to happen rather than hit the button and hoping all would work out. They felt that if there was even a remote possibility of this igniting the atmosphere that it was better for the Nazis to conquer the world than take that chance. Their words, not mine.

Teller forgot Heat Loss. If you were to study a match and not use heat loss as a factor, you'd basically conclude that a match could never go out. So because of that miscalculation not being well known, most writers in the industry actually believe that America, the one country that didn't get involved in World War II until they were attacked, were so serious about the war that they were willing to risk the annihlation of the entire world just to stop Japan.

Cripes, even Mass Effect 3 had senior admirals thinking this way.

 

[Wes R]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

The ignition fear has even been mentioned in documentaries about the Manhattan project. I don't think many took it seriously but some did.

 

[davey77]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

i think it depends on what youre watching. as a lot of people have said, if something is purporting to be historically/realistically accurate then its really annoying when they alter stuff.

however, i think that when something is pure fantasy then it needs to be acepted that it is going to be a bit silly. my cousin was watching dr who, and he kept saying things like "oh that weapon/tool was conviniently to hand" or "he'd never have guessed that code straight away" etc. and after a while i just turned to him and said "but the 900 year old time travelling alien who changes his face and had a spaceship thats bigger on the inside, thats fine is it?"

i always find it odd when people can suspend their disbelief for things like that, but not for little details like convinient plot twists or inaccuracies. doctor who even mocks the idea with the sonic screwdriver at times - im sure i saw a few occasions where the enemy used wood for their doors etc because it doesnt work on wood (obviously )