:dubious: Then shouldn’t it be No Country for an Old Man?
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 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.
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.”
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.
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…
This is exactly how I took it, as well, and I laughed out loud both times.
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.
What do you mean, you don’t work in 48-point Fixedsys like the rest of us?
That doesn’t make any sense to me. He was dressed as Hef and he was surrounded by Playboy bunnies. How was he not Hef?
In other words, cite?
He lodged it as an opinion. You cannot ask for a cite to prove an opinion. His post is his cite.
Though I also disagree with his opinion.
Whta? He refers to an extended filmed scene that shows Tony Stark being mistaken and thinking Stan Lee is Hef. That’s what I was asking about.
At least you have some sense. 
That’s the joke. When he turned around he had a look on his face that indicated confusion, something like “How could you confuse me with anybody else?” Lee plays himself in all of his movies. Remember in the 2nd Fantastic Four movie when he couldn’t get into the wedding because they didn’t believe he was Stan Lee? It’s the same joke.
One reference. There’s also a compilation of his cameos on youtube, but I can’t access it.
Back to the OP, how could anyone who has been posting and reading at the SDMB for ten years actually be surprised about people who seem to live for nitpicking? 
There are many cringable ways the interface is bad, but the worst that is indefensible is the “no cursor”. Some software hide the cursor while typing, but when you come to a screen and there is never any cursor at all - and your typing just magically goes into the correct spot - it’s galling. The old TV show Doogie Howser was the worst (though I loved the show).
Same here! I read a book recently where a character uses a potion to turn herself into “any small rodent”… she puts in what she mistakenly believes to be mouse fur and turns into… a mink. She repeatedly refers to herself-as-a-mink as being a rodent. It almost ruined the book for me and is probably one of the reasons* I never bothered with the sequels.
*not because the character didn’t know a mink wasn’t a rodent, but rather I didn’t care to read an author who had such a poor grasp of common knowledge, and who had an editor who couldn’t be bothered to fix simple mistakes. I figured the series was likely to just end up annoying me.
I see one was provided, but I didn’t really have one and was just explaining how I took it and it was in such a way that what you feel is a mistake is not a mistake.
When I saw Iron Man I thought it was self-evident that Start was mistaking Stan Lee for Hugh Hefner (with just cause). Then I later read confirmation somewhere (two years later I have no idea where).
So when the watching Iron Man 2 I just took it to be the same joke being done. Maybe in Iron Man 3 he’ll get a longer beard and dress in a Union uniform and Stark will mistake him for Ulysses S. Grant.
Though now looking for a cite I see that footnote 68 of Stan Lee’s Wikipedia page suggests that the extended version of the scene can be seen on the 2-Disc DVD edition.
But I was also wrong about Iron Man 2, apparently I wasn’t paying enough attention. According to things I’m reading now in trying to verify Stan Lee asked Stark when he’s going to come on his show (though I have no memory of that at all). That’s much more explicitly presenting Lee to actually be Larry King.
It’s not so much a matter of being trained — I wasn’t specifically trained in how to use a whisk. It’s more that when you use the tool more than a few times you eventually find the most practical/comfortable/efficient way to hold it. I can’t remember the exact way Riker was holding the thing, but it wouldn’t take very long, holding it the way he was, in real life to simply realize, “this doesn’t work very well this way”. There is actually more than one way to grip a whisk, depending on the task, but the way he was holding it wasn’t one of them 
Agreed. The only movie I’ve ever seen that accurately portrays a working kitchen was, believe it or not, Ratatouille. In most movies I want to rage at the screen when they have extended restaurant scenes. In particular, those movies where the protagonists are dining in a cozy, small restaurant, and the bad guys burst in, which leads to the inevitable escape through the kitchen and out the back door, whereupon we discover that this small restaurant with maybe ten tables has a fully-equipped, banquet-sized kitchen and six chefs on duty. In reality, that small restaurant probably has a ridiculously cramped kitchen with a single harried cook trying to pump out the food and probably having to wash the dishes too. I understand the “why” behind this - it’s because they filmed the dining room scene and the kitchen scene in completely different restaurants - the dining room chosen for atmosphere and the kitchen chosen because they could fit the filming equipment in it. But I’ve long suspected this kind of thing gives people the wrong impression, and it’s why they think it’s reasonable to show up at a small restaurant, unannounced, with a party of 30 and then complain because the food is taking so long.