Even weirder (but not anachronistic) is that Carsini was able to untie and undress a corpse, and then get him into a wet suit and the trunk of his car after he’d lain in an overheated cellar for a week. Yeccch! 
When it comes to language, I’m waiting for “Swell!” to make a comeback. As in “Gee, Judy, you’re a swell girl!” or “Sorry you missed the party, Andy. It was swell!”
Something like this is not anachronistic, as it is incorrect in the time it was filmed.
If anything, it’s science fiction. (In The Future, CA will allow 7 characters.) But it’s just a general mistake. Like having a dial tone sound after the other person hangs up (land lines only, for you young folk).
I’ve got to say, a lot of the entries in this thread are very picky minor things that only a specialist would notice. But in that vein, there was an episode of the 1970s TV show Kung Fu in which a deck of tarot cards was shown. Being someone interested in tarot cards at the time I first saw the episode, I noticed that the deck was a Rider deck. The Rider design was first published in 1909, while the show was set in the early 1870s.
It’s not even a mistake. They certainly weren’t going for accuracy and license plates are rarely accurate on tv shows.
Ladle and a funnel. Easy peasy.
The producers of Deadwood deliberately used modern profanity in dialogue because period-accurate profanity sounded too weird or comical to modern audiences.
This thread’s getting old. See post #92 onward.
I use it all the time. either as Clark or Dirty Harry. It it a term with multiple meanings.
“Say” is another expression that should be brought back. People just don’t use it much any more. As in “Say, mister, what’re you sellin’?” and “Say, how many eggs do you want?”
(From The Best Years of Our Lives and East of Eden, respectively.)
Back in the '80s, I was watching an episode of that awful Dirty Dozen TV series set during WWII, in which the unit was fighting Fascist cavalry in the Balkans. I switched it off when one of the GIs told his buddy “Man, you were awesome up there on that horse!”
I just started watching the show Sex Education on Netflix after hearing positive things about it. So far I’ve only watched the first two episodes, which I thought were good. But in episode 2 when one of the characters hosted a house party, I thought it was strange that all the music playing at the party was from the 1980s. That doesn’t seem like the sort of music modern teenagers would be playing at a party, unless it was specifically an 80s themed party or something (I don’t think it was, unless I missed something). In fact I vaguely recall the music being discussed in another thread about the show.
Basically the only thing the movie got right is that a Scot named William Wallace fought the English. Every single other thing you see and hear on screen is false—the timing of events, the clothing, the weaponry and armor, the biographies, the relationships, everything.
Starting with the title: William Wallace wasn’t “Braveheart.” That was Robert the Bruce.
Some of the biggest ones: Robert the Bruce wasn’t a traitor to the Scots; William Wallace was a nobleman, not a commoner who lived in a thatched hut; William Wallace never met Isabella of France, much less impregnate her (she would have been a child anyway); Edward I didn’t impose droit de seigneur/jus prima noctae on Scotland.
Oh, and Edward I didn’t throw any of his son’s friends out of a window to their deaths.
I understand the movie has become somewhat of an icon in Scotland. That would be too bad because it’s kind of reprehensible.
It’s also apparently set in an American high school that happens to be full of English people. I imagine that it just appeared like Brigadoon and all the English people just decided to use it and follow all the American customs.
I was actually wondering if schools in the UK actually had lockers like that.
And that was kind of my guess as to why they choose that music; that they were going for music that would appeal to the audience they were hoping to attract rather than accurately depicting what present day high schoolers would actually listen to.
It isn’t an icon in Scotland.
The problem there is that functional tanks of any kind from that era are rare and muy expensivo, so getting enough M47’s and M48’s would simply be out of the question because of the cost.
Is this the opposite of anachronistic?
This locomotive was dressed up to look older than it really was, with a wood-burning smokestack
And then it was used in several series, such as Petticoat Junction, set in times when locomotives regularly burned coal.
The opposite of anachronistic is also anachronistic.
I, uh, think you mean Shermans and German tanks.
Not an excuse, since tanks like M47s and M48s can easily be disguised with some sheets of plywood.
Something I’ve seen more than once is the appearance of floating balloons in movies supposedly set in the Renaissance or the Middle Ages. The only case I can recall right now is the Disney animated version of Robin Hood, where Sir Hiss gets a ride on what appears to be a red plastic or rubber balloon:
…thus simultaneously giving us the anachronisms of
1.) Use of plastic or rubber
2.) Use of a balloon
3.) Use of helium.
You could argue that they certainly did have bladders that could be inflated, and that they might be using hot air instead of helium, but that would make me lose all respect for you.
There is, of course, a similar scene in Shrek, when Shrek and Fiona inflate a frog and a snake.
I know I’ve seen other examples of Medieval Balloons, but I can’t recall the movies right now.