Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/17/2003 3:43:16 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 3:45:53 PM EDT
It's called 'Dramatic License'
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 4:37:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 4:53:17 PM EDT
What about numbers of weapons? For example, In ww2, most Soviets had Mosin Nagants. In every movie, you see most troops carrying SMG's, and once every so often a Nagant pops up (in sniper form, not the M44's and 38's that were given to most conscripts). Of course, Im only using the Soviet Union as an example, Same thing with German troops, and Japs (only the USA had the resourses to arm much of a division with SMG's) Never really seen a movie where english and american weapons are being used by the enemy (besides captured). Then again, I didnt see all the 'old' war-movies. Not to hijack, but Stalingrad was great, BTW (very realistic, but in German[subtitles, assuming you can read [;D]).
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 5:10:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 5:15:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2003 5:16:26 PM EDT by stator]
Is it just me or does large equipment inaccuracies in a movie ruin it for you?
View Quote
Not really, at least not until the Internet was born where I could complain about it.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 5:44:42 PM EDT
I can understand the problems involved with finding a supply of weapons of a specific period or nationality. In older films, some props were knowingly inaccurate, but they were only a small part of the story. A movie doesn't have to have a lot of special effects and great props if the story is good and sound, or clever enough to pull it off without a big budget. My big gripe is when a movie comes out, they brag all about how much effort and money was put into accuracy and costumes, and all the military advisors they hired in a effort to make you feel "you are there." It really ticks me off when I watch such films, and it's if they had an 8 year old go through and rewrite the story and disregard any legitimacy a consultant would have provided.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 5:55:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Andreuha: What about numbers of weapons? For example, In ww2, most Soviets had Mosin Nagants. In every movie, you see most troops carrying SMG's, and once every so often a Nagant pops up (in sniper form, not the M44's and 38's that were given to most conscripts). Of course, Im only using the Soviet Union as an example, Same thing with German troops, and Japs (only the USA had the resourses to arm much of a division with SMG's).
View Quote
To the contrary. The Soviets outfitted entire battalions with smgs. The PPSh41 took a lot less time, effort, skill & material to make than a MN91-30. A lot of PPSh41 barrels were cut down Mosin Nagant barrels (one MN91 barrel=2 or 3 smg barrels). I will admit that the German MP40 is over represented in film though. You never see WW2 German troops use any other smg. And if they use a pistol it's always a P-08 or P-38 (maybe a PP or PPK), never a VIS-35 Radom, BHP, Astra/Star, Berreta M1934 or some funky little non Walther .32acp.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 6:09:47 PM EDT
Shucks .... and all I can think about is the early scene in Patton with 2 jeeps ... one a WWII with split windshield.. and a Post War with full windshield...
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 6:10:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sherrick13: Is it just me or does large equipment inaccuracies in a movie ruin it for you. For example, Battle of the Bulge and Patton just don't do it for me because I can't stand the Germans using M48 and M60 tanks. Bridge on the River Kwai because the Japs had British and American weapons. On the other hand the historical fiction of SPR did not bother me. Patton, Bulge and Kwai would probably not even be in my top 20.
View Quote
Small inaccuracies don't bother me too much, but gross ignorance does. For example, using Brit rifles in the Blue Max is okay. If they used M1s (non period rifles), I'd be upset. Pic Out.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 6:18:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 9:01:20 PM EDT
Yup. inaccurate equipment bugs the hell out of me. I'm not a COMPLETE detail freak, but as pointed out above, PLEASE don't show me a M48 and call it a Panzer. As for the rest - the intercutting of old war footage, or older movie footage, into a new feature. Especially when the equipment is mismatched. Saw a carrier war film one time, supposed to be a jet crash on carrier approach, and they cut to a real shot of a prop-driven plane smashing the barrier.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 9:51:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2003 9:55:47 PM EDT by Dave_A]
Minor innacuracy is ok, especially with 'hard to find' or inaccessable equipment... Example: You can't expect Paramount to come up with MiG-25s or 29s for 'Top Gun' back in 1988, so the use of F5s as 'MiG-28s' is explainable (esp since there was no MiG-28, so it's not like they're misrepresenting a real plane). Gross innacuracy gets to me. Especially with regard to aircraft weapons... Example: Hollywood seems to be in love with the AIM-9 Sidewinder (other AAMS are used too, but the 9 is the most popular). To them, it is the universal missile, which can lock onto anything from an individual person, to a truck, a building, a 50 gallon drum, and occasionally it's designed target (aircraft)... The 'hollywood' warhead produces an explosion bigger than a 2000lb bomb, and the launchers can auto-reload as needed... For reference, in Tears of the Sun the F-18s took off loaded with Sidewinders (AIM-9) and AMRAAMS (AIM-120), then proceeded to lock and fire them on a formation of ground troops, producing explosions worthy of a B-52 raid and wiping out the enemy formation... And to referr to Top Gun again, every missile fired in that final dogfight was a Sidewinder... Never mind that if the Navy was really serious about 'keeping hostile aircraft beyond 100mi' they would have used Phoenixes or Sparrows, not gone looking for a knife fight... But then there would have been no final dogfight, and Maverick wouldn't have been able to 'heroically overcome his fear of loosing another RIO'... So we see special 'hollywood tactics' used to make the movie ending better... Another pet peeve is the over-doing of explosions.... Everything blows up like it was full of ammo and gas (just like every car that rolls over in a film explodes like it was hit with a LAW rocket)... Windtalkers and Tears of the Sun were classic offenders... And then there's 'Stormtrooper Syndrome', where everyone (but especially the bad guys) can't hit jack shit... They blaze away on full-auto, but everyone allways misses... Even single aimed shots conveniently miss untill 'just the right time' in the movie plot where someone needs to be removed... Finally, 'Hollywood Hi-caps' can get annoying too, ala Rambo and his magic regenerating ammo belt fot the M-60...
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 3:31:07 AM EDT
I tend to prioritize categories of factors like this: 1. If the movie portrays a historic event is it reasonably accurate? 2. Are the story line/plot/events within the realm of possibility (The "Iron Eagle" series didn't stand a chance here)? 3. Are the "larger" details plausible (The USAF F-18s in "The Rock" violated this one)? 4. Are the finer details taken care of (A good conduct medal on an officer would be a violation of this)?
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 6:45:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A: Minor innacuracy is ok, especially with 'hard to find' or inaccessable equipment... Example: You can't expect Paramount to come up with MiG-25s or 29s for 'Top Gun' back in 1988, so the use of F5s as 'MiG-28s' is explainable (esp since there was no MiG-28, so it's not like they're misrepresenting a real plane). Gross innacuracy gets to me. Especially with regard to aircraft weapons... Example: Hollywood seems to be in love with the AIM-9 Sidewinder (other AAMS are used too, but the 9 is the most popular). To them, it is the universal missile, which can lock onto anything from an individual person, to a truck, a building, a 50 gallon drum, and occasionally it's designed target (aircraft)... The 'hollywood' warhead produces an explosion bigger than a 2000lb bomb, and the launchers can auto-reload as needed...
View Quote
The biggest doosey of a technical error of note was in the movie Pearl Harbor. I speak of the scene where they show the Kate or Val swooping in on the three modern destroyers or frigates (boats that had their keels put down in the 70s).
For reference, in Tears of the Sun the F-18s took off loaded with Sidewinders (AIM-9) and AMRAAMS (AIM-120), then proceeded to lock and fire them on a formation of ground troops, producing explosions worthy of a B-52 raid and wiping out the enemy formation...
View Quote
I noticed this fopah too. I worked the flightline in MMS and I was wondering what air-to-ground ordninance was slung under those Hornets. Also, when you see the Hornets take off from the carrier, there's no ordinance slung under them.
And to referr to Top Gun again, every missile fired in that final dogfight was a Sidewinder... Never mind that if the Navy was really serious about 'keeping hostile aircraft beyond 100mi' they would have used Phoenixes or Sparrows, not gone looking for a knife fight... But then there would have been no final dogfight, and Maverick wouldn't have been able to 'heroically overcome his fear of loosing another RIO'... So we see special 'hollywood tactics' used to make the movie ending better... Another pet peeve is the over-doing of explosions.... Everything blows up like it was full of ammo and gas (just like every car that rolls over in a film explodes like it was hit with a LAW rocket)... Windtalkers and Tears of the Sun were classic offenders... And then there's 'Stormtrooper Syndrome', where everyone (but especially the bad guys) can't hit jack shit... They blaze away on full-auto, but everyone allways misses... Even single aimed shots conveniently miss untill 'just the right time' in the movie plot where someone needs to be removed... Finally, 'Hollywood Hi-caps' can get annoying too, ala Rambo and his magic regenerating ammo belt fot the M-60...
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 9:49:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sherrick13: Is it just me or does large equipment inaccuracies in a movie ruin it for you. For example, Battle of the Bulge and Patton just don't do it for me because I can't stand the Germans using M48 and M60 tanks. Bridge on the River Kwai because the Japs had British and American weapons. On the other hand the historical fiction of SPR did not bother me. Patton, Bulge and Kwai would probably not even be in my top 20.
View Quote
Bulge really bugged me because the terrain was just plain wrong, and the story had little to do with the real battle. I can forgive the use of M48s to depict German tanks. How many Tiger IIs did Hollywood have access to back in the 60's, anyway? The use of Shermans to depict Pathers (or whatever they were depicting) in Big Red One did bug me. In A Bridge To Far, the German's were using mocked-up Leopards. Well, at least they were REAL German tanks. Frankly, poor story line bothers me more. I like realistic stories & realistic fights. The funky sub-plots of SPR bugged me. And I avoided both U-571 and Pearl Harbor.
Top Top