Why do old movies have fewer "goofs" compared to newer ones?

[Jacob Silj]

Go to IMDB, most of the big newer films have dozens of "goofs" but how many are there in Casablanca or The Bicylce Thief? One or two, if any. And usually goofs in older films are restricted to historical epics where the ancient Roman is wearing a brand of wristwatch that wasn't produced until 44 BC or whatever. The only thing I can come up with is that these were maybe usually shot in sequence, or with fewer takes? I can't imagine in 1940 film makers scrutinized the final product for goofs at all, let alone more so than today. Are there any classics made pre-1950, let's say, set in the present with huge blatant mistakes, not along the lines of the usual things noted in IMDB like in the first scene the character is holding an unlit cigarette, then in the next scene the cigarette is magically lit! How did it happen, we did not see him lighting it?

[tdn]

It could be that newer movies are watched far more often, and hence come under closer scrutiny than old ones.

I don't know enough about the shooting procedure to know what's different today. But if you really want to see some old flubs, you might want to start with the fine works of Ed Wood. ;)

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

Actually, I'd be willing to bet that it's the other way around. Old movies probably have more minor continuity problems than new ones. Did they even have someone worrying about continuity back then?

I was watching Gunfight at the OK Corral last week, and I noticed at least one scene with glaringly obvious continuity errors.

Doc Holiday is sitting alone playing solitaire when Wyatt Earp enters and talks to him. During their convsersation, Holiday turns up (and plays on the board) the two of spades twice, and three black threes.

As for "major" goofs, I think you'll have to define what you mean. My impression is that older movies had a greater allowance for suspension of disbelief. Costumes, sets, and props look fake, like they were used in a stage play just to give an idea of a thing, rather than to try to make it look real. Nowadays, those kinds of things would get marked as "goofs," but back then, it was just how films were made.

[HubZilla]

If you look at IMDB's goof lists, they tend to concentrate on popular action (Gladiator, Lord of the Rings) or Sci-Fi (Star Wars, Matrix, Independence Day) type movies. The ones people tend to watch repeatedly because of the cool effects, etc. That skews the results to the more modern movies.

Look at IMDB's goof list for ID4, for instance. Someone noticed the weather patterns on USA Today were not consistent with summer, someone else noticed the chess pieces were in incorrect places. Do people look that carefully into movies like Pretty Woman or Sound of Music?

[RealityChuck]

In general, the number of goofs listed is directly proportional to the popularity of the movie. That's even true in older films: Duck Soup has an appreciable number of goofs, but A Night in Casablanca has only two listed. It makes sense: in order to report a goof, you have to see a film.

I just looked up Cain and Mabel, whose major goof is strongly documented in one of Michael Medved's "Worst Films" books, yet it's not listed in the IMDB. Again, few who contribute to the IMBD have seen it.

Also, since the real old films were shot almost entirely in the studio, it reduced the type of goofs that occur when you're on location (someone waving at the camera, for instance). Also, many films were set in fictional countries, so there were no issues of historical errors.

[Hampshire]

I'd guess with the advancements in film-making, added costs, and higher production value there are multiple takes, multiple cameras, and lots of hi-tech editing to create a scene. I think there's more chance of errors here.
Older films may have just been shot with a minimal amount of film and the editing not as intense. Therefore less room to flub it up.

[saoirse]

Newer movies do have more takes, and also include a lot of detail that could be wrong. You don't see the weather report on any newspapers in Casablamce. Details like that just don't pop up as much, sl there's less chance to get them wrong.

[saoirse]

And I trust everyone is familiar with Casablamce. It's a classic, famous for the line, "Plat iy agibn, Sma." Interestingly, that line is never spoken in the movie.

[Lamar Mundane]

And I trust everyone is familiar with Casablamce. It's a classic, famous for the line, "Plat iy agibn, Sma." Interestingly, that line is never spoken in the movie.
You don't say?

[Tapioca Dextrin]

In addition to the above, newer films are more likely to be released on DVDs with commentaries. It's hard to talk about a film you've just made for two hours with using anecdotes. Goofs make for good anecdotes.

[kelly5078]

And I trust everyone is familiar with Casablamce. It's a classic, famous for the line, "Plat iy agibn, Sma." Interestingly, that line is never spoken in the movie.

My favorite line is when Louis says, "Rpimd i[ tje isia; sis[ects."

[NDP]

It could be that newer movies are watched far more often, and hence come under closer scrutiny than old ones.
I certainly think that's part of it. Often you only notice a glitch after if you've seen a movie more than once. With cable movie channels, VCRs, and DVDs, there are more opportunities for you to view movies repeatedly and--in the case of VCRs and DVDs--stop, rewind, and freeze a scene when you something that looks off. You certainly couldn't do anything like that in the pre-TV era when people mostly just saw a movie once in the theater or in the pre-VCR era when people would generally see certain older movies no more than a couple times a year on free TV.

[Jacob Silj]

I go along with the "old movies aren't viewed often enough to find goofs" line of reasoning for some obscure B-grade noirs, but for the big classics, like Kane, Casablanca, etc. these have IMDB ratings in the tens of thousands, surely big mistakes would be spotted by now. I kinda like the theory that old films had fewer takes, and thus less chance for continuity gaffes, but I don't have any support for it, other than the notion that movies in the 40's had much shorter shooting schedules than they do know. I mean back then some of the bigger stars could knock out a few films a year, easy, in starring roles.

And Reality Chuck, if you are still around, can you advise the big error in Cain & Mabel?

[Otto]

Actually, I'd be willing to bet that it's the other way around. Old movies probably have more minor continuity problems than new ones. Did they even have someone worrying about continuity back then?
Yup. They were known as "continuity clerks" and "script girls." Nowadays usually credited as script supervisors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Script_supervisor).

Anecdotally, Bette Davis was somewhat known for monitoring her own continuity. For example, she was careful about extinguishing her cigarettes between takes so that they wouldn't radically change lengths in the final assembled film.

[RealityChuck]

And Reality Chuck, if you are still around, can you advise the big error in Cain & Mabel?Evidently there's a member of the crew wandering around the set during the big production number. It wasn't discovered until the editing, and it was too expensive to reshoot.

[Bryan Ekers]

In Casablanca a bottle of Vichy water has a big VICHY WATER label on it, in English, in French-administered Casablana. That's always kinda bugged me.

[Bill Door]

Is anyone else annoyed by the people who report a goof on the IMDB when, for example, there is an exterior shot of a Boeing 767-400ER and the interior shots are of a Boeing 777-200? I mean, I'm as big a geek as anyone, but come on, give the movie some kind of a break.

[Miller]

And I trust everyone is familiar with Casablamce.

The classic film starring Emeril Lagasse?

[AuntiePam]

And I trust everyone is familiar with Casablamce. It's a classic, famous for the line, "Plat iy agibn, Sma." Interestingly, that line is never spoken in the movie.

I've mistyped Casablanca more than any other word. My fingers always want to put an "e" at the end. More words end in "ce" than "ca", maybe?

:) at your "I meant to do that". I usually go with a boring "Sorry!"

I vote with the folks who think we don't notice the continuity errors in older films because they haven't been watched as often as the newer ones.

I watch these on Turner Classic Movies rather than DVD, and I don't watch that closely. I'm seeing them for the first time, so I'm more interested in what happens. If I watch again, I might notice stuff in the background, like cigarettes that burn down too quickly, or a car that's a coupe in one scene and a sedan in the next.

[Exapno Mapcase]

"Sascha, I think Mr. Saoirse has had enough. Take enough money for his tab out of his pocket and find him a cab home."

[lissener]

People who watch new movies are looking for goofs; people who watch old movies are watching the movie.

[RealityChuck]

People who watch new movies are looking for goofs; people who watch old movies are watching the movie.How very true.

Also, people today get upset if the bottle says "Vichy Water" in English. It's an irrelevant point, and it was done that way so people didn't have to know French to get the point. People nowadays, as I often point out, would rather things be accurate and dull (and confusing) than "inaccurate," but to the point and dramatic.

[Sage Rat]

And I trust everyone is familiar with Casablamce. It's a classic, famous for the line, "Plat iy agibn, Sma." Interestingly, that line is never spoken in the movie.
Yay! That was my favorite bit of random...just random for the year. Not "coffee on the keyboard" funny, but I sat giggling for a good five minutes. :cool:

[dnooman]

I say that continuity errors are almost always present, regardless of era. They are minutia.

I think that directors paid more attention to the film as a whole back in the day. Today's directors leave continuity, lighting, cinematography, and scripting to dozens of people. Such things were often controlled by far fewer people, if not just the director, during the era of classic films.

IMDB goof-logging is subject to both movie popularity, as well as the popularity of the goof (the hanging man in The Wizard of Oz).

I'd say that older movies were scrutinized more, minor continuity errors were overlooked by the public, and they've been viewed less by current IMDB movie raters.

[shamrock227]

Is anyone else annoyed by the people who report a goof on the IMDB when, for example, there is an exterior shot of a Boeing 767-400ER and the interior shots are of a Boeing 777-200? I mean, I'm as big a geek as anyone, but come on, give the movie some kind of a break.

Yup. When people point out those type of errors it makes me wonder if they are watching the movie for fun or watching the movie to see how much more clever they are than everyone else.

I'm on the absolute opposite end of the scale. Something has to really be screaming in my face for it to bother me. Brad Pitt could have been wearing a wristwatch and sneakers for the whole of Troy and it probably wouldn't have bothered me that much.

[RealityChuck]

Yup. When people point out those type of errors it makes me wonder if they are watching the movie for fun or watching the movie to see how much more clever they are than everyone else.Oh, it's definitely the latter: by pointing out a particular pointless nitpick, they get to show how smart they are.

It can be an entertaining game, but when people start talking about how terrible something is and how they couldn't enjoy the movie because of some minor factual error, it's pure ego all the way.

[ftg]

Ebert and fans got excited recently when during a scene-by-scene analysis of "Citizen Kane" he was doing someone noticed that a hat jiggled because the table it was on was being moved in order to let the camera pass thru. Apparently hadn't been noticed before.

Can't find the original article but here's (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041114/ANSWERMAN/411140313/1023) a followup to it.

So there is a list of "Citizen Kane" goofs and it's still being added to.

I think it's just that there's not a huge number of people watching old movies over and over. With modern movies, it's become a game. Be the first to post a goof and become immortal!

[ouryL]

I say that continuity errors are almost always present, regardless of era. They are minutia.

I think that directors paid more attention to the film as a whole back in the day. Today's directors leave continuity, lighting, cinematography, and scripting to dozens of people. Such things were often controlled by far fewer people, if not just the director, during the era of classic films.

IMDB goof-logging is subject to both movie popularity, as well as the popularity of the goof (the hanging man in The Wizard of Oz).

I'd say that older movies were scrutinized more, minor continuity errors were overlooked by the public, and they've been viewed less by current IMDB movie raters.


A couple of friends of mine try, whenever someone drinks coffee or tea in a black and white movie to guest if they are actually drinking anything at all. Most times, they ain't! :eek:

[Fish]

I'd wager that to see some of the technical errors in older films you would need some specialized knowledge.

Example: while you could easily detect a car chase that leapt illogically from Aurora Avenue in north Seattle to 3rd Avenue in downtown Seattle, circa 1990, how easy would it be to detect the same error in a film from circa 1940? None of the landmarks would be familiar.

Example: while you can detect an erroneous email address or phone number (like the job email in Mission: Impossible), can you detect an erroneous trunk phone number like Cleveland 2-6549?

Example: while we can easily make observations on a point of law or procedure in modern times, how many can remember the pertinent rules and laws as shown in a fifty-year-old film?

[Cartooniverse]

I think that directors paid more attention to the film as a whole back in the day. Today's directors leave continuity, lighting, cinematography, and scripting to dozens of people. Such things were often controlled by far fewer people, if not just the director, during the era of classic films.

Sorry, but as a professional cinematographer I gotta nitpick this one. I don't know how far back you go to define "classic films era", but The American Society of Cinematographers (http://www.theasc.com/clubhouse/inside/aschist_index.htm) was chartered by the state of California in 1919, and is based on two clubs both founded in 1913.

1919. Ten years before the first talkie. It is entirely fair to say that by 1919, the jobs of lighting, grip, cinematographer and script supervisor were already clearly established. A film director was not, in fact, responsible for any of those tasks. ( The odd auteur aside, of course ). They hired professionals who specialized in script continuity, lighting/gaffer, grip work, cinematography and so on.

A Director directs.

Fish, continuity within a scene and world continuity are different things. It's hardly reasonable to ask a production company to set a chase scene so that it takes place in a real 20 mile unbroken length of highway and streets. That kind of continuity leap is completely accepted, and few folks- UNLESS they are intimately familiar with the area- would have an continuity "error" involving real space leap out at them. My wife attended Indiana University, and in fact went for the summer session when Breaking Away was shot. She went to see the film and found it amusing that in some bicycling scenes, the riders magicaly turned of one path and traversed thousands of yards to another part of campus, all by virtue of an edit. That's not a continuity error unless you know a shitload about I.U. Even then, it's not unreasonable to make such edits.

Did anyone watching Bullitt honestly think that the infamous chase scene took place in real time, over exactly those city blocks? I would think not.

Cartooniverse

[Fish]

I'm not going to try to decide what is or is not an "error," Cartooniverse. If one counts real-world continuity of space as an "error", then I'm only pointing out that such errors are easier to point out when the city has a recognizeable modern context than when the city is 50+ years old.

Likewise, when a film makes an error regarding a piece of technology, the older it gets, the less likely this type of error is to be spotted. It isn't any more or less wrong, but fewer people know enough to spot it.

For any given category of error, we're more likely to notice the modern ones because we have the proper context.

[Rigamarole]

I kinda like the theory that old films had fewer takes, and thus less chance for continuity gaffes, but I don't have any support for it, other than the notion that movies in the 40's had much shorter shooting schedules than they do know. I mean back then some of the bigger stars could knock out a few films a year, easy, in starring roles.[/B]

What makes you think the shooting schedules were that much shorter? Or that they even had fewer takes for that matter?

Johnny Depp (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000136/) averages at least a couple films a year, as does Nicole Kidman (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000173/) and plenty of other big stars.

Even a film with a huge budget costs an astronomical amount of money per day of production, and producers are always trying to get the most bang for their buck as possible. A feature can be (and often is) shot in 4-6 weeks. (this being the production period, not including pre- and post-production) Cite being my own experience working on a few features.

To be fair though, I haven't worked on any huge budget studio productions, and for a very big project it does take longer - but even still, 3 months of production is usually the max (the biggest I've heard of being the LOTR trilogy, where the commentary states they dedicated a year and a half to making the 3 films - but even that time period seems like it included some or all of the pre- and post- production)

So... as to the OP I side with the "it's mostly the popularity" idea - but the content of the film also matters. A simpler, character-driven drama (such as Casablanca) just has less things to mess up than an enormous, computer-enhanced thrill ride in which everyone and everything is, at some point, blown up.

[Walloon]

Go to IMDB, most of the big newer films have dozens of "goofs" but how many are there in Casablanca or The Bicylce Thief? One or two, if any.Casablanca has more than thirty goofs (http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/2906) listed on the IMDb.

[Khampelf]

Casablanca has more than thirty goofs (http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/2906) listed on the IMDb.

Waloon, your link took me to a discussion of 'Banjo Milking'.

I don't even remember any Banjos in Casablanca, let alone any that were milked improperly. ;)

[Walloon]

Waloon, your link took me to a discussion of 'Banjo Milking'.Just how do you milk a banjo?

[Khampelf]

Just how do you milk a banjo?


I guess by putting it near a microphone to get more sound out of it.


Milking, Miking, what's a phantom 'L' between posters?

Appypollylodges for not bolding your name in that first post, Walloon

[Jacob Silj]

I guess I used the wrong example with Casablanca. However, in my defense I will say most of the 30 odd goofs per IMDB are of the very trivial sort that were commented on above. For example, a character leaves without his hat, then later has his hat? Um, maybe he has two hats? Maybe he doubled back to pick it up when he noticed he forgot it? A guy is rubbing his hands, then in the next scene he is folding his arms? Um, maybe he quit rubbing them, then folded them when he was offscreen? Glass changes postion on a table- maybe someone moved it? Yes, crappy nitpicks like that put the movie nitpick business in a bad light ;)

[Walloon]

A guy is rubbing his hands, then in the next scene he is folding his arms? Um, maybe he quit rubbing them, then folded them when he was offscreen?Not the next scene. The next shot. No intervening scene or shot.

[scotandrsn]

Did anyone watching Bullitt honestly think that the infamous chase scene took place in real time, over exactly those city blocks? I would think not.

Cartooniverse

Actually, I saw Bullitt after hearing about it's SF car chase scene for years.

Imagine my disappointment when it was plain as day to me that all the hilly scenes were filmed on the same two blocks, shot from about 14 different angles. There's even the same damn extra car pulling out in every one of them! :mad:

[saoirse]

My favorite line is when Louis says, "Rpimd i[ tje isia; sis[ects."

You know I really liked the movie tje isia; sis[ects. I thought K v n Sp y was great.

[ralph124c]

Yay! That was my favorite bit of random...just random for the year. Not "coffee on the keyboard" funny, but I sat giggling for a good five minutes. :cool:
I LOVE "CASABLANCA"-but its full of holes: like the letters of transit (signedby General DeGaulle)-that would have been meaningless in Casablanca. One scene I never got-when Rick, Elsa, Paul and Capt. Renault meet at the airport , an officer is talking to the control tower (relaying the weather report)-why isn't this done by the control tower?And that issue about the evil Nazi officer-he could have ordered Rick arrested and held till he revealed the letters of transit. Who the heck NEEDS letters of transit?.

[Cartooniverse]

( reality check on )

My grandmother, father and aunt had to have letters of transit permitting them to leave Germany. They left on a steamer out of Lisbon. They travelled by train to the ocean. This was in 1938, six weeks before Krystallnacht.

Nani hid a gold pocketwatch in my aunt's underpants, hoping it would not be found. The Nazis did in fact do a compartment by compartment check at the German border. As the sad cliche' goes, their papers really were in order. My Nani was checked. My father was checked. My aunt was, at the time, three. Not even the soldier was willing to put his hands on her body to poke around.

My brother owns this pocketwatch now.

Not hardly a fabrication of Hollywood, trust me.
( / reality check off )

[Tuckerfan]

Yup. When people point out those type of errors it makes me wonder if they are watching the movie for fun or watching the movie to see how much more clever they are than everyone else.
Not necessarily. Like everybody else, I went to see Jurassic Park because it was supposed to be a really great film, etc., etc., etc. The film quickly went south for me, however, when they were in the trucks riding out to see the dinos for the first time and hop out to get a closer look. I'd worked at an amusement park a few summers before and every ride (with one or two exceptions) was designed so that folks were locked into it, and they couldn't get out of it without an employee unlocking the door/harness/whatever. For someone working in an amusement park having customers locked into a ride is so hardwired into your system that not seeing it is like seeing someone with feet at the end of their arms. You don't even have to be paying all that close attention to detail for it to jump out at you. When I saw it, I couldn't help but think that if they were going to get something like that wrong (I mean, there's not a liability lawyer on the planet who'd overlook such a thing, and you'd have to have one look over the trucks before they were shipped to the island because the insurance company of the company that converted the trucks would demand it.), what else were they going to screw up? Then came the whole continuity break where a cliff appeared from nowhere and they slid down it and I just said, "Meh. This blows."

Generally, I only look for gaffe's when the film I'm watching has such terrible plot/acting/writning, etc. that I need to find something else to keep myself distracted or I'll start shouting at the screen MST3K-type comments.

[Walloon]

What was true in Germany in late 1938 was not necessarily true in Morocco in 1941. Even the screenwriters of Casablanca admitted that they made up the letters of transit as a plot device. From the article on Morocco in the Britannica Student Encyclopedia:At the outbreak of World War II in 1939, the sultan issued a call for cooperation with the French, and a large Moroccan contingent (mainly Amazigh) served with distinction in France. The collapse of the French in 1940 followed by the installation of the Vichy regime produced an entirely new situation. The sultan signified his independence by refusing to approve anti-Jewish legislation.

[shamrock227]

Not necessarily. Like everybody else, I went to see Jurassic Park because it was supposed to be a really great film, etc., etc., etc. The film quickly went south for me, however, when they were in the trucks riding out to see the dinos for the first time and hop out to get a closer look. I'd worked at an amusement park a few summers before and every ride (with one or two exceptions) was designed so that folks were locked into it, and they couldn't get out of it without an employee unlocking the door/harness/whatever. For someone working in an amusement park having customers locked into a ride is so hardwired into your system that not seeing it is like seeing someone with feet at the end of their arms. You don't even have to be paying all that close attention to detail for it to jump out at you. When I saw it, I couldn't help but think that if they were going to get something like that wrong (I mean, there's not a liability lawyer on the planet who'd overlook such a thing, and you'd have to have one look over the trucks before they were shipped to the island because the insurance company of the company that converted the trucks would demand it.), what else were they going to screw up? Then came the whole continuity break where a cliff appeared from nowhere and they slid down it and I just said, "Meh. This blows."

Generally, I only look for gaffe's when the film I'm watching has such terrible plot/acting/writning, etc. that I need to find something else to keep myself distracted or I'll start shouting at the screen MST3K-type comments.


Those aren't really the types of errors I was referring to.

One is a glaring error to you due to your former career. That's not nitpicky.

The other annoyed even me - Ms. Mostly Blind to Gaffes/Queen of Suspension of Disbelief, herself. Wasn't the girl making a HUGE deal over a goat standing there? Right there where the T-Rex just came from? Right there where there is now nothing but a great big cliff? WTF?

I was talking about the nitpicky picks like in the crowd scene of Clash of the Titans some extra was wearing a watch*
*not a real nitpick - I just made that up because I'm too lazy to go find one of the 8 million real nitpicks of this type.