IMDB "Goofs" - who ARE these people?

[Stink Fish Pot]

I enjoy going to IMDB every once in a while to read about a movie, usually to find an actor/actress. But once on the page, I might read the "goofs" section, or memorable quotes.

I was looking at "No Country For Old Men" tonight, and went to the "goofs" page. Who are these people that find this crap?

examples

Anachronisms: The glass milk bottle that Anton and later Sheriff Bell drink from is from Promised Land Dairy in Floresville, TX. This company did not exist until 1987.

Anachronisms: When Anton goes into Mike Zoss Pharmacy, you can see a bottle of Prednisone on the shelf. This bottle was manufactured by generic drug company Watson, which wasn't established until 1984.

These are just two of dozens of inane observations by, well, I don't know who. Who has the kind of time it would take to notice these types of things? Unless something stands out as an obvious mistake, and impacts my enjoyment of a film, knowing that the Promised Land Dairy bottle was a mistake borders on mental instability.

Then, I stumble on a mistake:

Continuity: In the trailer, Lewellen asks Carla Jean, rhetorically, "Baby, at what point would you quit bothering to look for your two million dollars?" For him to know that there was $2 million in the case, he would have had to have gone through the money and counted it, which means he would have found the transponder.

No, genius. Moss could have counted how many stacks of bills were in one column and multiplied by the number of columns to get the amount. (which is exactly what he did in the book). He would have only found the transponder if he pulled that specific money block out and thumbed through it, like he did in the movie.

It's not the only mistake in the goofs section, either.

So, who are these people that pick through a movie to such detail that they see a bottle of Prednisone on a shelf, find out when the company that made it came into existence, and based on when the movie was supposed to be, send in something to the IMDB site? And on the other end, do these "goofs" get checked by anyone, or are they uploaded automatically?

I'm sure there is a factual answer to this, but I'm not posting it in GQ because it's not that important. I'm more fascinated by the people who have the time and desire to comb through a movie to find this stuff. They must be in a rubber room drooling in a cup. If someone forced me to watch a movie as many times as necessary to come up with half the crap in NCFOM's "goofs" page, I'd snap.

[Johnny L.A.]

Originally Posted by Stink Fish Pot

Who has the kind of time it would take to notice these types of things?

Sometimes mistakes are just blatant. I don't know about the milk bottle, nor do I care. But someone noticed it. Like when Flight of the Intruder came out, the bar code on the Flying magazine jumped out at me. (And I happened to have had that issue.) The first commercial use of a bar code didn't happen until 1974, after the events of the film. I just happened to know that bar codes weren't used then, and I happened to have that magazine; so it jumped out. Some people see things that jump out at them, and they have to make sure everyone knows they know. Hence, the 'goofs'.

Personally, I find many of them interesting.

[BigT]

It's a fun way to get more life out of a movie after you've exhausted any other things.

And if IMDB is set up the way Nitpickers.com was, you voice the nitpick, it is vetted by the experienced nitpickers, then it appears on the page. After that, someone can pop up and explain why the nitpick is invalid. Those experienced Nitpickers then vote on whether the new information means the nitpick is invalid, and, if it is, mark the nitpick as refuted. They leave it there so other people won't feel the need to add it.

*The site is broken, as new nitpicks cannot be voted on, so it serves only as an archive of a once bustling community. I wish they'd take it down, and just let people use the Internet archive. It's sad to see a once great site in such disrepair.

[Stink Fish Pot]

Originally Posted by Johnny L.A.

Sometimes mistakes are just blatant. I don't know about the milk bottle, nor do I care. But someone noticed it. Like when Flight of the Intruder came out, the bar code on the Flying magazine jumped out at me. (And I happened to have had that issue.) The first commercial use of a bar code didn't happen until 1974, after the events of the film. I just happened to know that bar codes weren't used then, and I happened to have that magazine; so it jumped out. Some people see things that jump out at them, and they have to make sure everyone knows they know. Hence, the 'goofs'.

Personally, I find many of them interesting.

I guess that's one way to look at it. And if something jumps out at you, I can see where it would be interesting to point it out. But for some reason, I can't for the life of me understand why someone would go through the trouble of explaining why Chigurh would probably not have a 1958 quarter in his pocket change. No proof, mind you. But since it was a 90% silver coin, the odds he'd have one would be low. C'mon now! That's picking fly shit out of pepper!

[Balance]

Originally Posted by Stink Fish Pot

So, who are these people that pick through a movie to such detail that they see a bottle of Prednisone on a shelf, find out when the company that made it came into existence, and based on when the movie was supposed to be, send in something to the IMDB site? And on the other end, do these "goofs" get checked by anyone, or are they uploaded automatically?

I suspect that for the most part, people don't approach it that way. They don't notice the bottle and go look up details to see if it belongs there--they already happen to know something about it (maybe they worked on the Prednisone bottling line or something) and are thereby very familiar with it. Familiar things often catch the eye, and once they do, you may have a pretty good idea whether or not they fit the scene.

The other thing is that there are people who actually do this for a living. They work in the movie industry, and their job is to make sure things are consistent from one scene to another. If a street scene is shot in two takes, the two takes may be done on different days, and these people are the ones who make sure the same cars are parked in the same places both days. If someone is carrying a grocery sack with a loaf of bread sticking out of it up their apartment stairs, they make sure that the loaf is still there when the actor comes in the apartment door--even if the interior shot is done a week later. Such people may well be submitting some of the goofs; for them, it's a matter of professional interest.

[Little Nemo]

I suspect that for the most part, people don't approach it that way. They don't notice the bottle and go look up details to see if it belongs there--they already happen to know something about it (maybe they worked on the Prednisone bottling line or something) and are thereby very familiar with it. Familiar things often catch the eye, and once they do, you may have a pretty good idea whether or not they fit the scene.

Exactly. The milk bottle was probably noticed by some collector. This is why you'll often see goofs about cars and weapons - these are subjects a lot of people know. In a current thread on military uniforms, somebody who's in the military mentioned how they always notice mistakes about uniforms in movies and TV shows.

[Cicero]

I've reported goofs to IMDB. It is (as has been said) just something you notice.

[ftg]

Note: I have never submitted a goof to IMDb but I have been seriously tempted on many occasions.

Here's a recent example of the kinds of things I notice. (And I didn't even bother to list Troy's toothpick moving around too fast during the "Troy made God mad." scene. That's just too minor to care about.)

I have been recently rewatching a TV series and have noticed a ton of goofs. Fewer than half are listed on IMDb and I only missed a few that are listed. Again, seriously tempted.

As to the type of goof mentioned in the OP, I noticed in one episode of "Mad Men" that a kid had a comic book that I didn't think had been published by that time frame. A quick check at Wikipedia confirmed this. I merely owned that comic and remembered how old I was when it came out, etc. It's just a combo of personal experience and a good memory. That's all.

I am surprised at how some people don't notice obvious things. E.g., a few years ago there was some back and forth with Roger Ebert in his "Answer Man" column about a weird reflection during the funeral scene in The Godfather. I noticed it years ago on first viewing. It's as plain as day. And yet Ebert, who has seen the film many times still didn't see it after it was pointed out to him! He denied it was there and had to be specifically directed to the exact moment where it occurs before he saw it. And this is a guy who watches movies for a living!

Note that I pay attention while watching TV and movies. E.g., I realized right away what was going on in the The Sixth Sense. Still an enjoyable movie. I have no idea how on Earth people thought this movie had a twist ending. At the very latest, what were these people thinking during the "I see dead people." speech? Don't they realize that the kid is saying this for a reason? Sheesh. Pay attention.

You don't really have to watch something multiple times to catch these.

BTW: Goof in OP. It's "IMDb" not "IMDB". See, easy-peasy.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Haven't you ever seen a movie and said to yourself that what you just saw was a load of horseshit? Well, that's all the goofs are, a way of putting your finger on why it was wrong.

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF

Haven't you ever seen a movie and said to yourself that what you just saw was a load of horseshit?

Ironically, that's EXACTLY what I thought when I saw No Country for Old Men.

Goofs: Anton's hairstyle looks like he scalped Ringo Starr and wore it as a hat, and it makes him impossible to take seriously.

Goofs: Unlike the book, the movie gives you no indication who the damn protagonist is.

SPOILER:

I thought it was Llewellyn until he got offscreen murdered with no fanfare whatsoever, and spent the rest of the movie in a "what the hell just happened" rage. Then I read the book and kinda liked it, because it was actually clear about being about the damn wuss of a sheriff the whole time.

[Zsofia]

There must be some kind of process, because I've submitted stuff that never went up.

And obviously yes, it's people who already know about that stuff. The boyfriend works in film and video and he ALWAYS catches a reflection or a boom mike or whatever. I'm a librarian and I pointed and laughed at the library scene in Ghostbusters when my perennial nightmare happens - the catalog cards all come out of the drawers - but they weren't real catalog cards. Real catalog cards have holes in them for the rod at the bottom so if you drop a drawer they DON'T all fall out.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Zsofia

There must be some kind of process, because I've submitted stuff that never went up.

And obviously yes, it's people who already know about that stuff. The boyfriend works in film and video and he ALWAYS catches a reflection or a boom mike or whatever. I'm a librarian and I pointed and laughed at the library scene in Ghostbusters when my perennial nightmare happens - the catalog cards all come out of the drawers - but they weren't real catalog cards. Real catalog cards have holes in them for the rod at the bottom so if you drop a drawer they DON'T all fall out.

Back when there were card catalogues, they did indeed have holes in the cards, and rods in the drawers to keep the cards in -- when the catalogue was in a public area. That as to make it a little more difficult for members of the public to re-arrange the cards. However, when those card drawers were in backrooms, away from the public, we often left the rods out, to make it easier to add new cards. In addition, when you were filing in the public catalogues, you had to take the rods out to add or withdraw cards. In either case, there was a real danger of dropping the drawer, and having cards fall out.

(Yes, I've done it myself. Fortunately, the cards fall on the ground in bunches, so it's not that hard to put them back in the drawer in the right order.)

The catalogue in Ghostbusters was in the stacks, so it's not really clear if it was in a public area, or it was a closed stack where the library staff might have left the rods out for convenience. In addition, the cards were flying into the air individually, so to get them back into the right sequence, some poor person would have to sort them one by one: they would not be in bunches on the floor.

[Zsofia]

Yeah, but the cards always had holes in them regardless. The Ghostbusters cards don't have holes - doesn't matter whether the rods were out or not.

My first library job was in 2005 in an art museum - I was the sole staff member, I was paid jack minus shit, and I had the enviable task of maintaining and doing original cataloging on cards. I was NOT prepared for that in library school and every time I had to take a rod out to add a new card there was fear in my throat. Shaking, sweating fear.

[twickster]

Moved MPSIMS --> Cafe Society.

Damn, there's something so satisfying about catch a goof ...

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

Originally Posted by Zsofia

There must be some kind of process, because I've submitted stuff that never went up.

There's a lot of "it depends" in that.

They don't let just anyone change vital dates, for example. Too many agents/personalities want to *shave years off their age.

They also don't let just anyone delete credits. Too many agents/personalities want to say, "I'm embarrassed of being associated with that movie early in my career, and I want my name deleted."

They can be very wary of people adding Big Stars in early uncredited roles. I had to submit film snippets of Renee Zellweger in "Dazed and Confused" before they would acccept it.

Also, if you have a track record of submissions, most updates happen pretty routinely. If you register to change someone's DOB, and that's the only thing you've ever contributed, the updated DOB is DOA.

[John DiFool]

Originally Posted by BigT

*The site is broken, as new nitpicks cannot be voted on, so it serves only as an archive of a once bustling community. I wish they'd take it down, and just let people use the Internet archive. It's sad to see a once great site in such disrepair.

It is? <checks> Well, another one bites the dust-first JumpTheShark, and now this. Sic transit gloria mundi.

[RealityChuck]

It's fun. I've caught a few myself (in Remember the Titans, when the team goes into the shotgun, someone says, "Who do they think they are, the New York Jets?" But no pro team, including the Jets, used the shotgun in the time frame of the movie, so it would not be recognized as a pro formation, nor as one the Jets used).

Most of it is just how your personal knowledge of a subject comes into play. If the movie deals with things you have experience with, then you can notice the nit (part, too, is random -- being alert to things when they happen). Then you get the egoboo of putting it up on the IMDB.

It sometimes gets silly when people proclaim these minor goofs "ruin the movie." That's just showing off their esoteric knowledge to a ridiculous extent. The Film Flubs books -- which started the obsession with finding goofs in films -- specifically said that that minor flubs are just part of the process and that you'll find them in any film.

[chrisk]

Originally Posted by Stink Fish Pot

Then, I stumble on a mistake:

Continuity: In the trailer, Lewellen asks Carla Jean, rhetorically, "Baby, at what point would you quit bothering to look for your two million dollars?" For him to know that there was $2 million in the case, he would have had to have gone through the money and counted it, which means he would have found the transponder.

No, genius. Moss could have counted how many stacks of bills were in one column and multiplied by the number of columns to get the amount. (which is exactly what he did in the book). He would have only found the transponder if he pulled that specific money block out and thumbed through it, like he did in the movie.

It's not the only mistake in the goofs section, either.

I've never done it myself, but I believe it would be possible to submit your reasoning to turn this into an 'incorrectly reguarded as goof' entry - they add your reasoning to explain why this is not, in fact, a continuity error.

If you actually care enough to go through that, of course.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Cicero

I've reported goofs to IMDB. It is (as has been said) just something you notice.

And sometimes they're so obvious you don't know what took them so long. For example, in Iron Man 2, Stan Lee is listed in the credits as "Himself" even though he shows up on screen as Larry King (with the suspenders and all). I went to the Goofs page to add it expecting it to already be there (the movie had already been out a few days and already had a large number of Goofs). But nope, it wasn't there. So I added it.

So part of it is the same "I wanna fix it!" mentality that makes Wikipedia popular.

[Bijou Drains]

I sometimes notice blatant stuff. One example was in Goodfellas they said it was 1963 but they showed a 747 landing which did not come out until around 1969.

[Snickers]

I've corrected a goof - IMDB used to say that Jack Sparrow couldn't have slid down the rope in the first Pirates movie as his hands were chained together. Not so - the movie very clearly shows him holding his wrists together to double up the chain, then he tosses the doubled up chain over the rope and catches it in his hands, then slides down the rope. I couldn't stand to have an incorrect goof in there (especially because I was obsessed with the movie at the time), so I submitted a correction.

My correction used to show up as an "Incorrectly regarded as" thingie, but now it's been removed entirely.

[Mister Rik]

I occasionally notice "goofs" related to my profession (cook). For example, in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode where Riker is cooking scrambled eggs for the other officers, it's implied that cooking is a hobby of Riker's. Yet I was completely distracted by the ridiculous way he was holding the wire whisk he was using to scramble the eggs. It wasn't "wrong" per se, it was just extremely awkward, and an experienced cook wouldn't hold it that way.

[John DiFool]

Quick question re: Inglourious Basterds: would it be a proper Goof solicitation if I posted that there was no effin' way in hell that the Germans would have had a mere two guards for the entire place, and that instead there would have been at least an entire SS Regiment at (inside, outside) the theatre? Or is this just something I have to take on faith in the Tarantinoverse, and let it go?

[Biffy the Elephant Shrew]

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

Most of it is just how your personal knowledge of a subject comes into play.

Exactly. For example, I'm a record collector. The presence of the Let It Be LP in Apollo 13 or '70s Who reissues in Quadrophenia may be utterly trivial anachronisms, but to me they stuck out like a sore thumb--I didn't go looking for them.

[Bijou Drains]

Speaking of the Quadrophenia movie, I also noticed those reissue albums. Another thing I saw was a 70s era Camaro when the movie was set in the early 60s.

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

For example, in Iron Man 2, Stan Lee is listed in the credits as "Himself" even though he shows up on screen as Larry King (with the suspenders and all).

Not having seen the movie, I wonder how he is credited onscreen.

[Wheelz]

Originally Posted by chrisk

I've never done it myself, but I believe it would be possible to submit your reasoning to turn this into an 'incorrectly reguarded as goof' entry - they add your reasoning to explain why this is not, in fact, a continuity error.

If you actually care enough to go through that, of course.

Once, several years ago, I submitted an "Incorrectly Regarded as Goof" to IMDb for Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Short Round wears a New York Giants baseball cap; somebody had mis-identified it as a Mets cap and listed it as an Anachronism.
After I sent in my correction I checked periodically for, I don't know, a year or so I guess. It didn't get changed, and I eventually just sort of forgot about it. This thread reminded me of that, so I went and looked again. My correction is not there, but niether is the original "goof," so I suppose that's just as good.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Earl Snake-Hips Tucker

Not having seen the movie, I wonder how he is credited onscreen.

He's credited onscreen as "Himself".

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

He's credited onscreen as "Himself".

OK. I inferred from your message that you were referring to the IMDB credits, not what you had seen actually listed onscreen, since they're not always the same.

It's fine where it is, and I'm not going to mess with it, but technically, this sort of discrepancy should be listed under the "crazy credits" entry.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Earl Snake-Hips Tucker

It's fine where it is, and I'm not going to mess with it, but technically, this sort of discrepancy should be listed under the "crazy credits" entry.

I've never seen a mistake in the credits listed under the Crazy Credits section. Shouldn't, by definition, a mistake go under Goofs?

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

I've never seen a mistake in the credits listed under the Crazy Credits section. Shouldn't, by definition, a mistake go under Goofs?

Think of it as a special subset of "Goofs."

One "classic" example is the movie "Gone With the Wind," which in the onscreen credits have the Tarleton twins' names flip-flopped. Brent is credited to George Reeves, and Stuart is credited to Fred Crane. However, when you see the scene in the movie, you can see that that is not correct.

The IMDB guidelines refer to documenting the credit as it appears onscreen, which is not always correct--and supply correcting information as a trivia, goof, whatever item. At one time, the GWTW entry accurately reflected the inaccurate credit, but someone has changed it. However, they have left the "crazy credit" in place.

[middleman]

Originally Posted by Johnny L.A.

Sometimes mistakes are just blatant. I don't know about the milk bottle, nor do I care. But someone noticed it. Like when Flight of the Intruder came out, the bar code on the Flying magazine jumped out at me. (And I happened to have had that issue.) The first commercial use of a bar code didn't happen until 1974, after the events of the film. I just happened to know that bar codes weren't used then, and I happened to have that magazine; so it jumped out. Some people see things that jump out at them, and they have to make sure everyone knows they know. Hence, the 'goofs'.

Personally, I find many of them interesting.

I like them too, but it is the "someone should be fired" crowd that spoil the fun a tad.

Originally Posted by ftg

Note: I have never submitted a goof to IMDb but I have been seriously tempted on many occasions.

Here's a recent example of the kinds of things I notice. (And I didn't even bother to list Troy's toothpick moving around too fast during the "Troy made God mad." scene. That's just too minor to care about.)

I have been recently rewatching a TV series and have noticed a ton of goofs. Fewer than half are listed on IMDb and I only missed a few that are listed. Again, seriously tempted.

As to the type of goof mentioned in the OP, I noticed in one episode of "Mad Men" that a kid had a comic book that I didn't think had been published by that time frame. A quick check at Wikipedia confirmed this. I merely owned that comic and remembered how old I was when it came out, etc. It's just a combo of personal experience and a good memory. That's all.

I am surprised at how some people don't notice obvious things. E.g., a few years ago there was some back and forth with Roger Ebert in his "Answer Man" column about a weird reflection during the funeral scene in The Godfather. I noticed it years ago on first viewing. It's as plain as day. And yet Ebert, who has seen the film many times still didn't see it after it was pointed out to him! He denied it was there and had to be specifically directed to the exact moment where it occurs before he saw it. And this is a guy who watches movies for a living!

Note that I pay attention while watching TV and movies. E.g., I realized right away what was going on in the The Sixth Sense. Still an enjoyable movie. I have no idea how on Earth people thought this movie had a twist ending. At the very latest, what were these people thinking during the "I see dead people." speech? Don't they realize that the kid is saying this for a reason? Sheesh. Pay attention.

You don't really have to watch something multiple times to catch these.

BTW: Goof in OP. It's "IMDb" not "IMDB". See, easy-peasy.

People don't like sitting next to you on airplanes, do they?

Originally Posted by Mister Rik

I occasionally notice "goofs" related to my profession (cook). For example, in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode where Riker is cooking scrambled eggs for the other officers, it's implied that cooking is a hobby of Riker's. Yet I was completely distracted by the ridiculous way he was holding the wire whisk he was using to scramble the eggs. It wasn't "wrong" per se, it was just extremely awkward, and an experienced cook wouldn't hold it that way.

This is kind of a non-goof. I love cooking, but I have no idea how to hold a whisk. There is a difference between being a hobbyist and being a trained culinary professional. Either way, it is virtually impossible to watch your own profession portrayed on screen.

I am an attorney and I cannot stand watching legal shows or movies. I keep objecting for the characters. People tell me, "you should watch (legal program)!" and I politely decline.

Drama always gets in the way of reality (the rules of civil/criminal procedure are NOT sexy), so you either avoid it or deal with it. I avoid it!

[muldoonthief]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

He's credited onscreen as "Himself".

I haven't seen Iron Man 2 yet, so is he actually referred to in his scene in the movie as "Larry King", or with some other name (other than his own), or does he just host a talk show where he appears to be imitating/spoofing Larry King? If it's the latter, I'd say that isn't a goof at all - if he wants to claim his character in the movie is himself, then that's who it is.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by muldoonthief

I haven't seen Iron Man 2 yet, so is he actually referred to in his scene in the movie as "Larry King", or with some other name (other than his own), or does he just host a talk show where he appears to be imitating/spoofing Larry King? If it's the latter, I'd say that isn't a goof at all - if he wants to claim his character in the movie is himself, then that's who it is.

He plays Larry King and is referred to as such on screen.

Why is this so hard to believe for everybody?

[Johnny L.A.]

Originally Posted by Mister Rik

I occasionally notice "goofs" related to my profession (cook). For example, in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode where Riker is cooking scrambled eggs...

I was always amused that the burner Nelix used in Star Trek: Voyager was off the aft-end of a GE J-85 turbojet engine. (I have one of those pieces.) He must have liked to cook over high heat!

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by John DiFool

Quick question re: Inglourious Basterds: would it be a proper Goof solicitation if I posted that there was no effin' way in hell that the Germans would have had a mere two guards for the entire place, and that instead there would have been at least an entire SS Regiment at (inside, outside) the theatre? Or is this just something I have to take on faith in the Tarantinoverse, and let it go?

I think you just have to take it on faith. I mean, you can certainly argue about it, but I don't think it qualifies as a factual error, since the world of IG is clearly not our own.

At best, if it had to be listed in IMDb, it would be under "Incorrectly regarded as goof:"

[Wheelz]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

He plays Larry King and is referred to as such on screen.

Why is this so hard to believe for everybody?

It's not hard to believe at all; we just didn't know. Thanks for clearing it up.

[KneadToKnow]

Originally Posted by Zeriel

Goofs: Unlike the book, the movie gives you no indication who the damn protagonist is.

Funny, the title is No Country for Old Men, and I only counted one character who could conceivably described as an old man among the main characters. I knew exactly who the protagonist was.

And I've submitted quite a few Goofs to IMDb. They usually get in. My Trivia submissions have a lesser track record.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Wheelz

It's not hard to believe at all; we just didn't know. Thanks for clearing it up.

You're welcome, I just think this thread has turned into some kind of Abbott and Costello routine.

JB: Stan Lee is credited as Himself but he's really playing Larry King.
The Rest: But what is he credited as?
JB: Himself.
The Rest: But who does he play?
JB: Larry King.
The Rest: Are you sure?
JB: Third base!

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

It's fun. I've caught a few myself (in Remember the Titans, when the team goes into the shotgun, someone says, "Who do they think they are, the New York Jets?" But no pro team, including the Jets, used the shotgun in the time frame of the movie, so it would not be recognized as a pro formation, nor as one the Jets used).

You goofed on your goof. the shotgun was already a few years old when the Jets employed it in 1971 to try to protect Joe Namath's knees. When did Remember the Titans happen? 1971. They were contemporaneous.

[garygnu]

Originally Posted by KneadToKnow

Funny, the title is No Country for Old Men, and I only counted one character who could conceivably described as an old man among the main characters. I knew exactly who the protagonist was...

Then shouldn't it be No Country for an Old Man?

[muldoonthief]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

He plays Larry King and is referred to as such on screen.

Why is this so hard to believe for everybody?

It's not hard to believe - it's just a departure from all his previous Marvel movie cameos, where he was an unnamed character. Except in Iron Man, where Tony referred to him as "Hef", even though he was credited as himself, which was easy to chalk up to Tony just not realizing who he was.

[Little Nemo]

I caught a goof once but it was in a book not a movie so I guess there's nowhere to send it. In Fevre Dream by George R.R. Martin, a vampire character tells a human character that he's no Dracula. But the book is set in the 1850's. Bram Stoker wrote Dracula in 1897. If you had mentioned Dracula in the 1850's, most people would not know the name. And those that did would recognize him as an obscure 15th century Balkan warlord not as a vampire.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I caught a goof once but it was in a book not a movie so I guess there's nowhere to send it. In Fevre Dream by George R.R. Martin, a vampire character tells a human character that he's no Dracula. But the book is set in the 1850's. Bram Stoker wrote Dracula in 1897. If you had mentioned Dracula in the 1850's, most people would not know the name. And those that did would recognize him as an obscure 15th century Balkan warlord not as a vampire.

I wish there was a place for goofs for books. Sometime they drive me nuts!

For example, I just read Horns by Joe Hill a few weeks ago. Most of the story is told in flashback, but each flashback scene features events or items that would place it in a certain time period and then the next flashback scene will include an event or item that is completely impossible in context.

One flashback talks about attending John Williams' final performance with the Boston Pops, which was in 1990. In the next flashback, which is supposed to be nine years later, a character mentions how much they love their Wii, which didn't exist until 2006.

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

Originally Posted by muldoonthief

It's not hard to believe - it's just a departure from all his previous Marvel movie cameos, where he was an unnamed character. Except in Iron Man, where Tony referred to him as "Hef", even though he was credited as himself, which was easy to chalk up to Tony just not realizing who he was.

I think in "Rise of the Silver Surfer," he is simply credited as "Wedding Guest," although his name is mentioned in the movie as "Stan Lee."

[obfusciatrist]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

You're welcome, I just think this thread has turned into some kind of Abbott and Costello routine.

I took the scene as similar to the first Iron Man where Tony Stark mistakenly thought Stan Lee was some other famous person. Namely Hugh Hefner. Stark called him "Hef," but Stan Lee wasn't supposed to actually be Hugh Hefner. Apparently the filmed scene made this clearer but it wasn't used in its entirety.

So for Iron Man, Stan Lee was playing "Himself" even though he was referred to as Hugh Hefner.

Similarly for Iron Man 2, I took Stark calling him Larry King was just a mistake again on Stark's part. Meaning that once more Stan Lee is playing "Himself" even though he is referred to as Larry King.

But I must admit that I didn't put that much thought into it at the time.

[Wheelz]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I caught a goof once but it was in a book not a movie so I guess there's nowhere to send it. In Fevre Dream by George R.R. Martin, a vampire character tells a human character that he's no Dracula. But the book is set in the 1850's. Bram Stoker wrote Dracula in 1897. If you had mentioned Dracula in the 1850's, most people would not know the name. And those that did would recognize him as an obscure 15th century Balkan warlord not as a vampire.

Ah, but surely Dracula was a legend among vampires by 1850, no? I guess word leaked out to the humans like Bram Stoker a few decades later...

[KneadToKnow]

Originally Posted by obfusciatrist

Stark called him "Hef," but Stan Lee wasn't supposed to actually be Hugh Hefner. Apparently the filmed scene made this clearer but it wasn't used in its entirety.

[snip]

Similarly for Iron Man 2, I took Stark calling him Larry King was just a mistake again on Stark's part.

This is exactly how I took it, as well, and I laughed out loud both times.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by Mister Rik

I occasionally notice "goofs" related to my profession (cook). For example, in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode where Riker is cooking scrambled eggs for the other officers, it's implied that cooking is a hobby of Riker's. Yet I was completely distracted by the ridiculous way he was holding the wire whisk he was using to scramble the eggs. It wasn't "wrong" per se, it was just extremely awkward, and an experienced cook wouldn't hold it that way.

As a software developer I find the fake computer user interfaces used in movies extremely distracting. Even the mundane stuff (not the really idiotic and impractical "hacking" stations often seen) seen in police offices, etc is really unbelievable.

I have to imagine most people, including the set designers, simply don't notice this, because for me it is extremely distracting.

[KneadToKnow]

Originally Posted by Driver8

As a software developer I find the fake computer user interfaces used in movies extremely distracting. Even the mundane stuff (not the really idiotic and impractical "hacking" stations often seen) seen in police offices, etc is really unbelievable.

What do you mean, you don't work in 48-point Fixedsys like the rest of us?