They weren’t clear on that aspect, but it makes sense.
Agreed on this. An example that’s thankfully becoming much more rare, now that studios have realized that academic science advisors work for cheap: Bad chalkboards/whiteboards. The movie has some genius, working out some complicated problem on the board. In a good movie, in that situation, I expect to see one of two things: Either what’s on the board is completely incomprehensible, because the genius is doing something that’s so far beyond anything we puny humans have developed (this is difficult, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen it done, but it could work), or it’s something recognizable as real math, at least tangentially related to what the genius is supposed to be working on (much more common, nowadays: All you have to do is contact a university, find out who’s closest to what the movie genius is doing, and have them fill up a board in exchange for the cost of a nice dinner and their name buried in the credits somewhere).
Either of those works. What doesn’t work, though, is just taking real symbols, and jumbling them up randomly. Because if I can see what the symbols are, I know what they mean, and I know that arranging them that way makes no sense.
Oh man, this reminds me of one. It was Las Cumbres, I think, a Spanish boarding school show, and the teacher goes to play a record for the class. He removes the record from the sleeve, blows a thick layer of dust off the record and puts it right on the player. Dude is practically wiping cobwebs off the thing, and just plays it.
Here’s the shot I was talking about. I think to get mountains like that, you’d have to be in Arkansas or maybe eastern Oklahoma. There’s certainly nothing like that in Texas “North of Galveston”.
Lost in Translation really irritated me, not because it was particularly inaccurate, but because it was essentially a travelogue. It was a lot of, let’s show this particular thing because it is interesting even if it really does nothing to advance the plot nor does it make sense for the characters to be there. For that reason I enjoy Wasabi a lot more, yes there are cultural touch points that are thrown in, but they are part of the plot. It is a silly movie of course, but it integrates things better.
//i\\
Because Obi Wan visibly rolls his eyes at Solo. HE knows Solo is bullshitting, but he still needs a ride.
Now Solo, on the other hand, there’s no excuse for doubling down on the 12 parsecs (in a pear tree) mistake.
Talking about Die Hard II, don’t forget that Arnold did literally jump off a plane at rotation in Commando. I enjoy the movie, I accept it’s over the top, but that was TOO over the top. Probably 200 mph as he jumped and he was more than 40 feet up. No way he survived. And there’s no swamp at the end of the runway to splash into.
Again with DHII as an example, and I’m not sure this is technically an “inaccuracy”, but in DHII, the (not yet revealed to be) bad guys, when not in front of anyone except the camera, do “good guy” things. Why are they pretending to be good guys when they all know they are not. No one can see them.
There are far too many movies that, once the plot twist is revealed, you go, “Wait! If he was the killer, why did he do “X” back in the first part of the film?”
This scene, which is absolutely hilarious if you (a) speak Japanese and understand all the translator is leaving out, (b) have ever worked in a cross cultural situation where people are not getting each other and (c) experienced that frustration first hand.
The director had a particular vision, expressed it articulately and then the translator completely blew it off.
The scene was well done in terms of the Japanese culture, which I really enjoyed.
I can’t argue against that. I didn’t think the overall story was particularly compelling, and really the only part I really even remember is that scene. Actually, it didn’t really make sense, but this is one movie where one scene makes it all worthwhile.
I do really like the Shinjuku Park Hyatt, and the New York Grill is one of the best stake houses anywhere. With the Chief’s Signature Menu set at about $230, it’s not cheap (and out of my current budget) but was delicious.
After reading about using geese as Charmin, it’s no surprise to me that they attack us on sight.
But, in DHII, after McCain starts the fuel leak, could he have lit the fuel spill with his Zippo so he could say Yippee-Ki-Ay Muthafucka? Is that accurate?
I was replying to @Johnny_L.A 's comment about pebbles.
One of the foundational tenets of the National Outdoor Leadership School is “minimum impact”. Which extends to eschewing toilet paper during their month-long expeditions in Wyoming’s Wind River Mountains. So one of the very first lessons you learn, literally on Day One, is how to take a minimum-impact poop. Step one is, find a nice big smooth - that’s important - stone. If it’s available, a big handful of snow also works, albeit with an obvious downside.
It’s surprising how clean you can get with a rock.
Yeah, but she was at the height of her popularity right about then, and very easy on the eyes. Plus, she seemed to have pretty good chemistry with Kurt Russell as Wyatt Earp, and sold the whole romance between the two of them quite well, IMO.
I think the mannerisms/voice were a sort of necessary evil in light of all that.
I know you laugh, so you know the answer, but for those wondering, NO! That whole scene is a thick topping spread of stupid on a ludicrous sandwich with a side of cheese.
But it’s such great-tasting cheese…
How about Ahrnold dropping off the landing gear of a 747 after it rotates in Commando? 
After what Rickjay said, I may actually be conflating those two in my mind. I had a strong memory of Willis leaping off the wing as the plane was about to rotate, but that was probably the scene in Commando, which was equally stupid.
I think Willis slipped off the engine pylon after opening the fuel valve and just fell onto the runway.
Obviously, inaccuracies in areas I am totally ignorant in don’t bother me at all. Neither do pre-CGI movies with Pattons playing Tigers and F-5s playing MiGs. But these days there is no excuse for not getting it right, because you can fake or find damn near anything if you bother. Take TG: Maverick, for example. TOPGUN hasn’t been at North Island in 25 years. But they send Maverick back there because of plot reasons. That’s ok, because I can rationalize them training there for other reasons. But when they go sailing in San Diego and the shot is blatantly of them sailing in San Francisco Bay, it takes me out of the movie. Lazy writing and lazy 2nd unit work.
That’s right. The language Paul and most other characters peak is Galach, which is derived from English, but would have only a few recognisable words to modern ears.
Speaking of inaccuracies with passenger jets I think there might be some scientific inaccuracies in this scene:
Something that bothers me a lot (and probably unreasonably so) are movies that are supposedly taking place in Alaska. Now most people wouldn’t notice things that someone like me would, because most people didn’t grow up there, but for me it’s instantly obvious that the scenery is wrong and that the movie was filmed elsewhere. The mountains are wrong, the trees are wrong, etc. The Rocky Mountains look nothing like the Alaska Range, and where the hell are the ubiquitous blueberry bushes? The Gray (Liam Neeson) is a prime example. There is so much wrong with that movie I don’t know where to begin.