In the Tudors they screwed up a lot of historical items, but honestly, the real stories were actually juicier than the made up ones.
I always figured it was Han testing them. If they didn’t get it, he’d charge them more.
Which they went and ruined in Solo.
I have so thoroughly given up on historical films that I’m a little impressed when they get anything right. When the eponymous character’s childhood captivity by the Ottomans was mentioned in Dracula Untold, I gave a loud huzzah. In fact, right up until Dracula becomes a vampire (yes, spoiler alert, Dracula becomes a vampire), that film was roughly as accurate as Braveheart. Which is all you really need to know about Braveheart’s accuracy.
And how races like the Klingons changed over time. Worf said it best: “We do not discuss it with outsiders.”
Didn’t they do an episode addressing that in Enterprise?
Tribble allergies. 
The best thing about The Tudors was that the naked women lounging around were obviously 21st century women, with no pot bellies, stretch marks, unshaven body hair, lice, scrofula, syphilitic sores, rotten or missing teeth, or (insofar as I could tell) overpowering BO.
Oof. This one is SUCH a pet peeve for me (unless extremely well-done). I love empowered female characters, but there’s too many cases I’ve seen where “empowered” is apparently taken to mean “actually has superpowers.” I’d much rather see a writer find a way to make a character feel believable AND capable.
On the “doesn’t bug me” side – I have no problem when “foreign” characters speak English with a foreign accent to each other. I’m all for using the actual language with subtitles, but the old cheesy accent route doesn’t phase me.
I also don’t mind the cheesy computer technobabble and hacker talk in movies, most of the time. ACTUAL computer talk would be boring a heck. I do, however, think most of the computer interfaces made for TV/movies are eye-rollingly stupid-looking. So many unnecessary borders and gewgaws and slow progress bars.
I remember two ST: TNG episodes that dealt with non humanoid life forms. Honestly neither one was all that great.
Likewise, I didn’t mind the Oracle/Larry Ellison placements in Iron Man II and III. Partially because Oracle rented a bunch of screens in Redwood City the day before it opened and let Oracle employees see it for free - with free soda and popcorn.
I don’t mind people finding good parking spaces easily. I don’t mind the movie telephone conventions. I don’t mind people in restaurants throwing down money and leaving. In other words I don’t mind things that speed up the action.
I also don’t mind the lack of smallpox scars etc. on characters in historical movies, and I don’t mind them not showing the horse poop on the streets. I’ve seen some shows and movies that are more realistic, and they turn me off.
If you like this stuff, may I recommend the movie of Hard to be a God.
You know that old cliché, when a girl and a boy meet, and they dislike each other, but are forced to spend some time together and fall in love, almost against their will? The Han - Leia thing?
I’m a sucker for that. I know it’s unrealistic. I know most successful relationships in the real world start with people actually liking each other. I don’t care. I find it just adorable.
In “Field of Dreams” i was not bothered by the fact that in the movie Shoeless Joe Jackson batted right-handed, even though he was left handed IRL. With a movie about ghostly ballplayers emerging from Iowa cornfields, historical accuracy isn’t important.
Have you ever seen the British comedy series 'Allo 'Allo!? It’s set in a French village during WWII. There are French villagers, German soldiers, and two British pilots, and it’s done just like you describe; they all speak English but with exaggerated accents so you know which language they’re really supposed to be speaking. But there are times when characters interact and clearly don’t understand each other, or they even need someone to translate between French-accented English and English-accented English.
The show was made by the same folks who did Are You Being Served?, and is almost as sophisticated, but the language thing was mostly well done.
There are some mistakes that never bothered me until I started noticing them, and then I realized they’d been there all along. When we watch a TV show or movie, we’re kind of omniscient observers. the camera that is gathering the images for us isn’t a part of the action, it’s just our window into seeing a story. But there are times when the characters within a movie are watching something, and then the camera does matter. It’s like when the crew on the bridge in Star Trek are looking at the viewscreen and see an image of the Enterprise facing off against two Klingon ships. There would have to be a fourth ship with a camera taking the picture of the other three. That bothers me when I notice it, but I suspect most of the time I don’t.
(I’m not sure that Star Trek has ever committed this particular sin, but that seemed the easiest way to explain it.)
Star Trek never did this, unless you count the footage from “The Cage” in “Menagerie,” and that was shown in the briefing room, not the bridge. So I’m not getting you. I can’t think of an instance where the characters are shown watching an establishing shot which wasn’t done for comedic purposes. And the only instance of that was the beginning of “Hellzapoppin’” - great movie but hard to find these days.
Could you give an example?
I think Star Trek did it in the first movie. When the V’ger cloud (before they know it’s V’ger) destroys a Federation station, crew on the Enterprise are able to watch the destruction from an external POV.
The first place I noticed this was in Rollerball. There are times, during a game, when Jonathan and a teammate are holding on to the back of one of the motorcycles, and we get a camera shot of their faces and even some dialog between them. When we see the motorcycles, there are no cameras on them, but that doesn’t matter. As part of the movie, it’s great; it develops the characters, informs us of the strategy of this weird sport, etc. But later, everyone gathers to watch a television[sup]*[/sup] retrospective of Jonathan’s career, and the characters in the movie are watching that same two-shot. How? There’s no camera on the motorcycles.
I suppose now you could say that there are cameras on the motorcycles, just too small to be noticed. That wasn’t the case when I first noticed this, and really wasn’t the case when the movie was made.
Is that clearer? Even in the world of movie nitpicks this is a pretty small thing to notice, and kinda tough to explain.
- Technically “multivision”; those odd TVs with one big screen and three smaller ones.
Good one. I like the foreign accent as I’m not an exclusive TV watcher. Very, very few shows do I sit down and just watch, without doing something else while the show is on. Generally, I’m only looking at the TV between 2/3 and 3/4 of a show (and never at the commercials). Subtitles are a pain in the ass. And yes, I miss a ton of sight gags and clues. I’m ok with that.
I am working through the old BBC comedy. 'Allo, 'Allo and the program uses accents to good effect.
My favorite moment was when Crabtree asked one of the waitresses in the cafe “Please, could I have a spune for my kiffee?” Mocking his “accent,” she put a plate with a tart on it down in front of him and said “Here, I brought you some pee.”
That, and when he answered the phone at the police station: “What? Your pissy is up a tree?”
Or when Michelle of the Resistance loses consciousness: “She has pissed out!”