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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I like them too, but it is the “someone should be fired” crowd that spoil the fun a tad.
People don’t like sitting next to you on airplanes, do they?
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!
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.
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!
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:”
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.
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!
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.
He’s credited onscreen as “Himself”.
