On the language thing - do foreign films (voiced in the foreign language) have scenes where they depict non-native speakers speaking the native tongue, but in an exaggerated accent of their own country.
Example - if there was a German film about the Battle of Britain, would they show Churchill saying ‘Nie im Bereich des menschlichen Konflikts…’, but in a ridiclously toffee english accent?
Examples from youtube, please…
Sometimes, I’m the opposite. In Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, I wasn’t bothered by vampires and Abe with ninja axe skills.
But I was bothered by the logistics of walking silver ammo overnight from Washington DC to Gettysburg.
In Russian films I’ve seen, they have someone with an abominal accent speaking lines from a shitty translation into English. They usually learn the lines phonetically, without ever having to read the actual English.
The bridge crew got to watch the climax to “Arena” on the main viewscreen, but that was courtesy of the Metrons, who were pretty much omnipotent. Still, it was remarkable how every scene from the asteroid was directed and edited to make it theatrical.
Uh, almost all of them. It has to be something so egregious and silly as to take me out of the story, and enjoying a well-told story is what film, for me, is all about. Not many inaccuracies are this bad.
I can absolutely promise you that, unless it’s something as extreme as somebody using an arquebus in a World War II movie, I will probably not even notice. It’s a gun. He’s firing a gun. I look no further.
I wasn’t listening very carefully, could she repeat what she said?
Not nearly as extreme as real life: Jack Churchill - Wikipedia
under 12 parsecs. who cares what it means in our world, why can’t it be a unit of time in a fictional universe? hell, it could be an alien food if you want it to, It’s just a word, it has no intrinsic meaning, use it how ever you want in a galaxy far far away.
This reminds me of when people are riding on motorcycles, or in speeding convertibles, or a rollercoaster, or water skis – you get the idea – and are having a conversation without raising their voices at all. I don’t mind because it’s better than having actors yelling at each other over load engine noises and screaming “WHAT???” every other line.
Check out this classic Israeli Arik Einstein/Uri Zohar sketch:
I’m not at all bothered when I see portrayals of computer geeks on shows like Leverage or Person of Interest where they hack into dozens of different systems with a few quick keystrokes. It moves the story along. Computer code is magic. We get it.
On the cliche front:
I noticed several years ago on one show that just about all scenes started with someone walking up to someone or into a room. Then the conversation starts.
Of course, I started noticing it a bit elsewhere but some shows just start most of their scenes without such “motion”. The people are already in place and the scene picks up a conversation in place or some such. Seems more natural.
It bugged me a bit. A good writer shouldn’t have to resort to the “Goober enters and starts talking to Andy” trope so many times.
But now I sort of see it as just a “let’s get things moving” type of thing and don’t really care anymore if it’s overused.
Maybe that’s true for you, but then you’re an extreme outlier. I think that most people watching a Vietnam war movie would be thrown off if, during the big firefight scene there was no automatic weapons fire at all, and instead the troops were firing six shooters that require pull back the hammer with each shot. The distinctive shape of a jet-black M-16 is prominent on most Vietnam War movie posters, having them pack cowboy guns would look utterly bizarre. Or conversely, would you really not find it odd if a cowboy movie had no six-shooters at their hip and instead all of the cowboys had a sling holding a black, plastic M-16?
I’m not sure that’s correct. IIRC, closed-faced helms were mostly used by heavy cavalry during mounted charges, while dismounted knights and armored men-at-arms preferred to wear their helms open or just fight in mail coifs, as they needed their peripheral vision and less impediments to breathing (combat, after all, is aerobic exercise). Commanders especially needed to be heard over the heat of battle, so having a bunch of steel plates blocking their mouths was generally a bad idea.
Sure, but not all of us get hung up on the details. Cops have handguns, cowboys have six-shooters, soldiers have rifles. And if they at least appear to be of the proper vintage, I’m satisfied.
I don’t mind any of the inaccuracies in Elementary, the soporific Sherlock Holmes series set in contemporary New York. Two I recall: Holmes smelling cordite at a crime scene, and someone using chloroform. I just presume it’s like using Kleenex for tissues or Xerox for photocopy–“smells like modern small arms propellant” just doesn’t work the same. And I can pretend it’s an homage to Arthur Conan Doyle.
You hear a lot about commanders or kings being thought cut down until they stand up and opened their face guard to show it’s them.
Haven’t you heard of Metronywood?
I’m not sure which of is is the outlier, really. My point (which I admit I could have made more clearly, since I was too busy coming up with a smartass example) is that people who know and care a lot about guns are going to notice gun details. (Though any perceived inaccuracies may or may not bother them.) But to quite a lot of people, a gun is basically a gun, and we really don’t care very much.
I would hazard a guess that, out of those watching a Vietnam war movie, a significant number – and perhaps a majority – would not notice if the guns were ten years too old or too new.