The entertainment industry has just as much trouble with the legal system as it does with computers and firearms. Given how ingrained attorneys are in the entertainment industry you’d think they’d take the trouble to just “run it by the guys in legal”.
In every David Kelly legal show it’s always just the attorney and the defendant present when they try to settle a claim. In real life the defendant is almost never there and no insurance company is going to allow an independent defense firm to spend $50,000 without somebody from the company present. When you hit the $100,000 mark your going to get someone who knows the file backwards and forwards (usually better than the defense lawyer); has negotiated thousands of settlements, takes and active and constructive part in the negotiations and has debated the merits with others and isn’t going to be surprised or cowed by some statement like, “Your client won’t sell well to a jury” or “The jury is going to give us gobs of money because the defendant is the evil nursing home/coal mine/construction company ect.”
I keep seeing this on the SDMB, and I think it’s an urban legend.
First of all, I’ve never heard of any film or theater producer prosecuted for portraying members of the military on film or the stage. Such prosecution would, I think, run into serious 1st Amendment free speech issues.
Secondly, simster, why would a filmmaker care whether or not the military granted them an “exception,” and do you have a cite that these “exceptions” are rarely granted?
Finally, the errors with military uniforms that I’ve observed are generally very subtle. Filmmakers tend to screw up warfare designations and awards, for instance, or when and where particular uniform is worn (such as USN summer whites in winter, for example).
There’s generally enough correct (particularly with respect to rank insignia), however, that if a zealous prosecutor did happen to be inclined to go after a filmmaker, he could (notwithstanding the constitutional issues mentioned previously). To put it another way, if a civilian put on one of these slightly fudged uniforms and tried to actually impersonate a military member on an military installation, for instance, I don’t think the fact that there were small errors with his uniform would help in his defense one whit.
I think it is more likely that filmmakers couldn’t care less about intentionally making small errors, but that the errors simply happen inadvertently.
My wife is constantly rolling her eyes at me when I get worked up over some military error in a movie. I can assure you that many movies that don’t have approval of the military get the uniforms correct. Most do not but that is because they aren’t trying, not because of some unenforcable law.
I have mentioned this before on another thread. There is one error in Broken Arrow that you probably wouldn’t notice unless you know something about helicopters. During the climax John Travolta and Christian Slater are fighting on a train. Loaded on the flatbed is an OH-58 (Bell Jetranger). This is the escape vehicle for the bad guy so we can assume it is being shipped in working condition. The main rotor blade is tied down properly so It doesn’t flop around or spin in the wind. During the fight our two characters are on opposite sides of the tail rotor. One of them grabs the tail rotor, spins it hard so it smacks the other in the face. This is impossible. The main rotor and tail rotor are attached to each other through the transmission. If you spin the main rotor by hand, the tail rotor spins. If you moved the tail rotor the main rotor spins. It would be impossible to spin the tail rotor with the blades tied down. The only way this could happen is if the tail rotor is detached from the drive shaft that runs the length of the tail boom. This is an aircraft that the bad guy is expecting to fly away from an exploding nuke. No way it would be disabled in this way.
I don’t know if you’ve read the book or not, but if you haven’t I highly recommend it. After I read the book for the first time, I thought that it would make a great movie. When the movie came out, I couldn’t have been more disappointed. I know that they have to cut some stuff out to get the movie shortened to ~2hrs, but they picked some really bad stuff to omit. IIRC, the French speaking character in the book had also been trained in medieval French.
Loach, good call on the tail rotor thing. I didn’t pick up on that, but you are right.
As for lock picking, that bugs the crap out of me as well. I know how to pick a 5 tumbler lock so I know that no one could learn the skill simply watching someone on screen do it correctly. It would take very little time to teach someone to at least look like they knew what they were doing.
Maybe so, but the movie was stupid for A) making such a big deal out of it and then B) having the guy stand around like a poleaxed steer and pretty much get dead before he has to translate a single word–just teeth grittingly stupid. Then, to make it more vivid, we have the French chick who not only speaks modern French, but modern English as well! Wow, those fourteenth century tutors must’ve been amazing!
Is there not some gearing involved, I would doubt it is a one for one rotation. A couple of turns on the tail rotor maybe could only translate into a fraction of a turn on the main rotor which would be well within the flex available in the tie down ropes. Also is there not a clutch mechanism to allow overspeeding of the tail rotor against the main rotor, or some mechanism for decoupling or enhancing the RPM of the tail rotor against the main rotor for orienting the helicoptor left and right?
this is purely a WAG, I don’t have much of a clue how a whirlywhatsitcoptor works and I am currently typing with my butt cheeks.
NaturalBlondChap, the tail rotor does spin faster than the main rotor, but that is constant. The tail rotor does not spin faster or slower to rotate the chopper, the pitch of the tail rotor is changed. If there was a little slop in the way the main rotor was secured(I don’t recall if there was), the tail rotor could move a little because of the gearing.
SmartAleq, the parts of the movie you describe are exactly why I was so disappointed. They were not in the book like that and were very dumbed down for the movie. The time travelers had a mini translation device hidden in their ears so they could understand the dialect. Maybe that is far fetched, but at least Michael Crichton adressed the issue when he wrote the book. You said that you liked to read, just read the book. If you promise to return it, I’ll even send you my copy.
For nice SF scenes, I think VERTIGO isn’t too bad, although I don’t know enough about the area to say precisely what’s accurate. I do love how “Kim Novak” doesn’t notice Jimmy Stewart’s markedly subtle trailing job, especially when he pulls in right behind her IN AN ALLEY! Of course, there’s a reason for that…
Just finished watching the commentary on the movie RENT, and Chris Columbus was laughing about the time Tracie Thoms, who’s from Baltimore, went looking for the fictitious subway stop he placed right next to Tomkins Square Park.
But yep to the poster who mentioned THE SQUID AND THE WHALE. Columbus had a low budget, so he couldn’t totally control the cars in the shots and had to re-do plenty of them on the (few) actual NY street scenes when an SUV or something would loom into the 1990-era street. But at least he used the 2nd Ave. subway station and an authentic graffiti-ed R-46 for the subway scene in ‘Santa Fe’, even though it was actually on a set in San Francisco being rocked by stagehands.
But in THE SQUID, not only were the cars inauthentic and Park Slope and the rest of the city totally 2000s-style clean, instead of gritty and dangerous-looking, but the subway cars (while the type that were running in ‘86) had the US-flag stickers on them that the whole fleet received after 9/11. But the worst part was the diorama that was the title of the whole freakin’ film–it’s the jazzed-up, well-lit, more realistic version, not from the less dazzling old version of the Hall of Ocean Life. Here’s the 2003 renovation. And here’s the snazzy new diorama the kid was looking at, miles from the murky monochrome mystery of '86.
You are very wrong. I don’t claim to be an expert on all things helicopter but I do have a pretty good amount of hands on knowledge of this particular aircraft. A little bit of slack in the tie downs would translate to maybe a couple of inches of spin on the tail rotor. Even if the blades were not tied down it wouldn’t spin that fast just by pushing on it because of the drag on it from the transmission and main rotor. It’s been a while but I seem to remember that it was a real helicopter, not a mock up. That means the director saw it, thought that someone getting hit in the face by the blade thingy at the end would look cool and had someone remove the tail rotor from the drive shaft when he found out it wouldn’t work.
I’m not sure if this should go in this thread, or the other one, but in watching Marie Antoinette tonight, I couldn’t help but notice that all the window glass was perfectly flat and bubble free, which is not a characteristic most 18th Century window glass is known for (my father ran a glass business for a number of years, so I tend to pay attention to these things, I guess).
Which is why I should spend at least two seconds looking things up prior to making myself look dumb, and really need to give up typing with my butt cheeks.
:smack:
You’d think I’d have learned by now to never skimp on the details with the Dope!
You’re right, of course - but you are now forcing me to relive more of that awful movie! The F-117 in the movie had its wingtips folded up (like a carrier-based plane) so it could fit on the C-5. The bad guys opened the rear ramp of the C-5, rolled the F-117 out and then unfolded the wings and started the engines after falling away from the C-5.
I had avoided going into any more detail than necessary because it still drives me crazy!
Speaking of Princeton, IQ had Walter Matthau as Einstein riding a motorcycle around Palmer Square. It was the real Palmer Square, including Thomas Sweets, and ice cream store which started in the late '70s and didn’t move to Palmer Square until the mid-80s at least. (It was the first place my daughter recognized - even before she could talk, she said yumm as we went past.)
As sorted out in a previous thread, the analogy in A Beautiful Mind does not actually represent a Nash equilibrium. Also, in Good Will Hunting, the first problem the professor puts on the blackboard appears to be a graph theory problem, while the professor says that it is a Fourier transform.
I don’t know if this qualifies as requiring expert knowledge, but no one ever goes free climbing on sandstone like Tom Cruise did in Mission Impossible. It’s a quick way to die, since sandstone will break off too easily.
And don’t get me started on Japanese culture. NO NO NO! It’s not like that. Pick whatever movie and just repeat.
