Movie screw ups that made you chuckle

[Typo_Negative]

Watched ‘Deliver Us From Evil’ from Netflix yesterday.

Sucked.

But there was one scene that pissed me off. One of the main characters, a priest, tells the cop about him being a heroin addict and got clean in NA. He tells him this while in a bar, drinking. The cop calls bullshit, and the then the priest said ‘NA, not AA’. Obviously, he suggests that as long as it isn’t heroin, it’s cool in NA and he’s still clean.

I screamed at the screen. Screenwriter couldn’t have done a little research? Couldn’t have come up with a better line to explain why he still he drinks? One that doesn’t make it sound like NA is OK with drinking? Because I could come up with several.

[x-ray_vision]

@Typo_Negative

Watched ‘Deliver Us From Evil’ from Netflix yesterday.

Sucked.

But there was one scene that pissed me off. One of the main characters, a priest, tells the cop about him being a heroin addict and got clean in NA. He tells him this while in a bar, drinking. The cop calls bullshit, and the then the priest said ‘NA, not AA’. Obviously, he suggests that as long as it isn’t heroin, it’s cool in NA and he’s still clean.

I screamed at the screen. Screenwriter couldn’t have done a little research? Couldn’t have come up with a better line to explain why he still he drinks? One that doesn’t make it sound like NA is OK with drinking? Because I could come up with several.

I don’t see that as a movie mistake. The scene you describe reminds me of similar things I’ve heard out of the mouth of addicts I’ve known over the years. Rationalizing, stretching the truth and manipulation go hand in hand with addiction.

[Cees-R]

I once saw an episode from Lab Rats where there were multiple Adam’s.
They did the mask clone effect, but there was one shot where you could notice the masking if you looked really good.
It wasn’t a bad thing and editing something like that frame by frame takes a lot of time since I tried that once.
But it was pretty funny that it was visible.

[Gary_T]

@JohnT

The Incredible Disappearing Fredo. At 3:04 in this clip, Fredo is sitting next to Tom Hagan. A few close-ups occur and, 30 seconds later @ 3:34, we see the table and everybody is still where they were… except Fredo.

@from_a_to_z

Even more curious, Fredo didn’t leave the table until his older brother told him, “Go on, get me a drink. Go on!” At least this gave Tom Hagen plenty of elbow room.

I don’t see any inconsistency here. At 3:04 Fredo is sitting there. At 3:05 Sonny says “get me a drink.” At 3:06 the camera goes to a close-up of Tom, while Fredo – now off-camera – gets up to fetch Sonny’s drink. At 3:34 when we next see the group at the table, Fredo hasn’t returned with the drink yet.

I’ll grant that Fredo was remarkably quick at moving away from Tom’s left side so as not to show in the close-up at 3:06 (and perhaps the actor was not there when the close-up was actually filmed), but I don’t see any breach in continuity or plausibility. Certainly the fact that he’s not there at 3:34 is not strange in the least, given that he’s left the table on his errand.

[x-ray_vision]

@Gary_T

I don’t see any inconsistency here. At 3:04 Fredo is sitting there. At 3:05 Sonny says “get me a drink.” At 3:06 the camera goes to a close-up of Tom, while Fredo – now off-camera – gets up to fetch Sonny’s drink. At 3:34 when we next see the group at the table, Fredo hasn’t returned with the drink yet.

I’ll grant that Fredo was remarkably quick at moving away from Tom’s left side so as not to show in the close-up at 3:06 (and perhaps the actor was not there when the close-up was actually filmed), but I don’t see any breach in continuity or plausibility. Certainly the fact that he’s not there at 3:34 is not strange in the least, given that he’s left the table on his errand.

I think that’s what from_a_to_z was getting at and why JohnT recognized it as not a mistake in post 111.

[Battle_Pope]

@Colibri

For me it’s out of place bird calls. Every jungle scene, no matter what continent, has a Kookaburra or Screaming Piha. Every desert scene has a Red-tailed Hawk scream.

That reminds me of the Thin Red Line, set on Guadalcanal, hey look its a Tawny frogmouth, a bird only found in Australia.

Plus whenever there was a shot of an artillery piece firing it was obviously sitting on a pneumatic platform that just bounced the whole gun up and down, rather than having the gun tube recoil.

[wellanuff]

@El_Kabong

Hah, you sucked me back in on that one; one of my all-time favorite films. The photography is beautiful, the set pieces spectacular, Lancaster and Scofield are great and it’s actually better than most at simulating actual railroad operations, but they don’t get everything right:

The Train is also one of my favorite films, perhaps the film that I have watched the most number of times.

Since you apparently are very knowledgeable about actual railroads, I want to ask, is the scene where Papa Bull (the old French engineer) kicks Lancaster off of his train during the air raid, and Lancaster calls out “You’ll never get through, the switch is closed!” and Bull responds “Open it!” legit or a movie “goof”/compromise?

Because Lancaster runs about 15 yards against the direction of travel of the train, and during this time I would estimate that the train ttravels about 100 yards beyond the position of the switch that Lancaster eventually throws. I would think a manual switch lever located trackside would be positioned much closer to the actual switch. Is that scene possible, or dramatic license?

It starts at about 1:30 of the following clip:

Also, I will add that there is a 10 minute documentary on the filming of *The Train* on youtube. It is in French, but it is shot in color on location during the filming, and includes color ground level film of the train crash and the "air raid".

Frankenheimer’s DVD commentary is also very good, with a lot of trivia about the making of the film.

[zbuzz]

@FairyChatMom

Minor irritant is when the characters refer to highways around DC as “*the *395” or “*the *50” - I know that’s a California thing, but it ain’t a DC thing. You’ve got *the *Beltway, but everything else is referred to by its number. Like I said, minor, but it still makes me yell at the TV.

It’s really more of a southern California thing. Northern Californians pretty much don’t call their freeways “the.”

[dougie_monty]

Does that mean someone would say, for example, “I’m coming to San Francisco from Livermore on 280?”

[Morbo]

@dougie_monty

Does that mean someone would say, for example, “I’m coming to San Francisco from Livermore on 280?”

No, because they would be on 580.

[dougie_monty]

Details…

[cochrane]

I was watching an Adventures of Superman episode today. AoS was notorious for reusing the same film stock shots in multiple episodes, especially effects shots of Superman (George Reeves) flying. In one scene, they clearly reversed a shot left-to-right as the “S” on Supes’ chest was backwards. Mistakes like this were common on the series as the producers saved money everywhere they could.

[El_Kabong]

@wellanuff

The Train Since you apparently are very knowledgeable about actual railroads, I want to ask, is the scene where Papa Bull (the old French engineer) kicks Lancaster off of his train during the air raid, and Lancaster calls out “You’ll never get through, the switch is closed!” and Bull responds “Open it!” legit or a movie “goof”/compromise?

Because Lancaster runs about 15 yards against the direction of travel of the train, and during this time I would estimate that the train ttravels about 100 yards beyond the position of the switch that Lancaster eventually throws. I would think a manual switch lever located trackside would be positioned much closer to the actual switch. Is that scene possible, or dramatic license?

Well spotted. That’s dramatic license, and yeah, the whole scene is a bit of a mess from an operational standpoint. At that point, we’ve already seen that the local switches are controlled remotely from the tower that Lancaster descended from. There normally would be some hand-thrown switches in the yard as well, but there wouldn’t be any particular reason for the lever of a given switch to be dozens of meters away from the switch it activates; normally it’s right next to the moveable points. I’m sure Frankenheimer wanted a bit of extra drama there and since Lancaster couldn’t be on the ground and in the tower at the same time, came up with the idea of pretending the switch was controlled remotely from the ground.

Furthermore, if a switch was ‘closed’ (i.e. not lined for the approaching traffic) in a tower-controlled mechanical interlocking of this type, a stop signal would have been displayed. So, either it wasn’t closed, or it was but Boule ignored the stop signal. That would have gotten him fired pretty much immediately, except he was already on the fast track to dismissal by having just literally kicked his boss off a moving train.

That said, Boule was a great character and I knew a couple of engineers and conductors from my railroad days who were at least as as cantankerous, if not more so. They knew very well what the rules were, though, and were good at not getting caught breaking them.

[Declan]

@El_Kabong

Hah, you sucked me back in on that one; one of my all-time favorite films. The photography is beautiful, the set pieces spectacular, Lancaster and Scofield are great and it’s actually better than most at simulating actual railroad operations, but they don’t get everything right:

Went looking for this movie, based on what you wrote.

1. When Scofield’s character orders the art train underway, no one even attempts to get clearance to enter the main line, which, being Paris, would be occupied by commuter and long-distance trains running on headways of a few minutes. Departing without getting authorization from a dispatching station would very quickly result in disaster.

At that very moment in time, over the space of 4 days or so , to me it would have been very plausible. If you remember the one scene in the Farm house, it was mentioned that a french division was to be the first to enter Paris, so other than retreating German trains, nothing was going to be coming that way.

2. In the scene at the railroad yard and shops just before the air raid, we see a tower operator throwing switches right in the face of an approaching locomotive. There’s no reason to do that, and in a typical interlocking plant, you can’t; you have to line all the switches first, and only then do the signals allow the train to go through.

Dramatic license perhaps, but its strange that he did that, at a time when quite a few people would have an understanding of how a train yard worked, I’m trying to equate this to something modern

Then, in the same scene, there are a couple of extras carrying a long board on their shoulders who cross the tracks right in front of a rapidly approaching train, clearing it only by a few meters. I have a feeling it wasn’t planned to be so close, and I shudder every time I see that one.

Lol, I can just see modern OSHA and Railroad folks just facepalming

3. Lancaster seems to do every job on the railroad. He’s referred to as an ‘Inspector’, a job classification I’m not familiar with, but in the movie seems to be roughly what would called ‘superintendent’, basically mid-level line management. At various times, however, he carries out jobs that might be done by a dispatcher, yardmaster, road foreman of engines, crew caller, engine driver and mechanic. Now, I recognize all the job-switching is necessary to make sure he’s in the right place and time to advance the plot, so no big thing.

I seen this point before actually watching it, but it did not faze me , the character seemed like he was one of those types that started at the bottom and worked up, doing every job.

With all that said, the authenticity of the actors playing railroaders, including Lancaster, and the general look and feel of the various operations, are spot on. Most of the scenes where the railroaders try to stop or impede the art train are at least plausible, although I doubt the whole notion of faking out the Germans on board as to which way they were going would ever have really worked. For the specific scene you mention, however, yes, if I wanted to derail a relatively slow-moving train in occupied France in 1945, that’s just the way I would have done it.

If it was not for the reprisals and what not, being portrayed in the movie, I would have thought this would have made decent disney flick.

Declan

[El_Kabong]

@Declan

At that very moment in time, over the space of 4 days or so , to me it would have been very plausible. If you remember the one scene in the Farm house, it was mentioned that a french division was to be the first to enter Paris, so other than retreating German trains, nothing was going to be coming that way.

Sorry, have to disagree with the above. Wartime or no, trains in signaled territory never proceed without dispatcher authorization, as to do otherwise makes a horrific collision highly likely. I should mention that the real art train on which the story was based was held up by just those means: it was shunted into various sidetracks around suburban Paris for several days until the Allies overran the area.

Hey, maybe in the movie they kept a track open and a green signal for the art train; that more or less works, although the movie makes it clear it was not initially a priority to anyone except Scofield’s character.

I’ll restate for the record that despite any of my nitpicking the movie still does the railroady bits better than most films.

As does the original version of The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, BTW.

[Colibri]

@TCMF-2L

As well as being replaced by a “stunt man” for any scenes which are potentially dangerous there will also, usually, be a “Stand In” or a “Double” who will be used for such menial tasks as standing in position while cameras and lights are set up (“Blocking”) and also will be filmed when the actor’s actual face does not appear clearly.

All those close ups of an actor’s feet or his back as he walks away into the sunset or the back of his head as he slumps in a corner. Usually that’s the stand in.

Looking at the IMDB credits for Jurassic Park and sure enough it lists Joe Zimmerman as “Stand In” (and uncredited “Photo Double”) for Mr Goldblum.

Yes. If Goldblum wasn’t available for those scenes, using his stand-in would have been much cheaper and easier than making a dummy.

A friend of mine is a professional stand-in. He says that whenever you see Dabney Coleman from the back in Boardwalk Empire, it’s actually him. And after having been told that, I can see it.

[TCMF-2L]

Having mentioned Jurassic Park I am reminded:

So that you don’t have to, I watched the 2005 film "Attack of the Sabertooth” and that’s ninety minutes I will never get back.

This blatant Jurassic Park rip-off has a ridiculous script, poor acting (including by the vaguely famous star Robert Carradine) and poor special effects. It makes [ Insert your own choice of Mutant Sharknado, Twin Headed Giant Piranha, Plan 9 From Outer Space ] look like [ Insert your own choice of Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Raiders of the Lost Ark ].

Early in the film, the makers wave around a physical model of a sabertooth head but, by keeping it semi-obscured behind foliage at all times, they are trying. It’s not convincing but I genuinely do NOT mock that effort.

Next a dodgy CGI sabertooth is deployed and it prowls along some generally dark corridors. Not really convincing but, once again, I do not mock the attempt.

Penultimately there is the inevitable showdown and the CGI sabertooth chases the villain across a clearly lit foyer. The CGI really struggling to hold up now… But I would still make allowances - I am generous that way.

But…

Then…

Finally…

The villain exits the building and locks the door behind him. The sabertooth is pounding against the door. Outside, and for the first time in the film, we see the front of the building. It is topped by the single WORST (CGI) “Statue” of a sabertooth (CGI of anything) ever seen.

The gold statue (with a RED tongue and (non ‘saber’) teeth white - Why? Why?) is the single worst special effect ever seen ever, ever, ever. Truly, truly, truly dreadful.

Cite?

Here is a mercifully brief YouTube clip of the finale of the film which shows you all you ever need to see. The “False Colour” footage is to indicate the vision of the sabertooth. Next you see the CGI “real” sabertooth - not great but withhold your judgement. Then you see, atop the building, the CGI golden sabertooth “statue" in all it’s, er, glory.

The clip should be considered NSFW since it shows an unconvincing but (attempting to be) violent death.

Attack of the Sabretooth clip - YouTube

Edited to add: In the clip you actually see the statue atop the building before you see the “living” beast.

TCMF-2L

[dougie_monty]

@Declan

[…]

If it was not for the reprisals and what not, being portrayed in the movie, I would have thought this would have made decent Disney flick.

Declan

In college, the professor in a Learning Skills course told the class about a film on the course subject and said, “If it’s decent I’ll have it here to show you in a few weeks.”

I asked, "When do we get to see it if it’s indecent? "

[DrDeth]

@zbuzz

It’s really more of a southern California thing. Northern Californians pretty much don’t call their freeways “the.”

Meh. I hear them doing it, even radio traffic announcers. The difference is the stress:

SoCal: Thee 405
NoCal ; the 5

[Korhut]

<quote>Meh. I hear them doing it, even radio traffic announcers. The difference is the stress:

SoCal: Thee 405
NoCal ; the 5</quote>

Lived in the SF area since i was 3 and never heard this from anyone not from SoCal. and by the way, we hate the term NoCal.