Inaccuracies in Movies

Discussion in 'Archive: The Amphitheatre' started by Melyanna, Jun 24, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TremontiFan23 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 2002
    star 3
    Wow, thanks that clears up a lot of things about U-571. I consider myself a history buff, but my brother's the military expert, he'd probably know half the stuff you're talking about.

    Now, back on topic, as previously mentioned, there's definitely a line bordering the two extremes of inaccuracies. Just missing something and intentionally doing something wrong are completely different. What matters is intent.

    However, I believe the Matrix thing to be completely idiotic. I love the movie, don't get me wrong, but that is a major plot hole in the foundation of the story. Granted, the movie is science fiction and fantasy and all, but it's based on a possible reality, or what it claims to be a possible reality. The first time I saw the movie I chuckled when he mentioned the human electricity supply system. Might've irritated a few people, but that's just too much for me.
  2. Ghost_of_Caesar Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 27, 2000
    star 4
    Darth_Tim, I could swear I heard Captain Miller say "Tiger tank 2, Panther tanks 2" - but that's just me. I can't recall nicknames for German AFVs right now, but a Jagdpanther did exist. The open topped tank destroyers in SPR were Marder IIIs. I can understand why Jackson might have made a distinction about Tigers in the assault force - the Tiger adn the Tiger 2 were the most formidable tanks fielded by the Germans - they surpassed anything the Americans fielded, and were extremely difficult to knock out. Earlier marks of panzers would have been easier to knock out (as we saw with the molotov cocktails used against the Marder IIIs), and the knowledge might have called for an impromptu change of plans in a real life scenario.

    As for Matrix, I freely admit that I just didn't get that film. I saw it, didn't think much of it, saw it again, and wondered why I wasted my time with the second attempt.
  3. DarthPhelps Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2002
    star 5
    Well, now I'm feeling rather silly for enjoying the Matrix.


    Being an 'out there' sci-fi film, the human battery thing didn't bother me at all. Actually I get the point of it. You know that the whole man vs. machine has been a sci-fi staple for some time, and I feel that this is just another twist on it. I thought (at least in a philosophical sense) that it was clever.
  4. Darth_Tim Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 26, 2002
    star 4
    Darth_Tim, I could swear I heard Captain Miller say "Tiger tank 2, Panther tanks 2" - but that's just me.>>

    I thought he said "PanZer" but Panther and Panzer sound alike.

    I can't recall nicknames for German AFVs right now, but a Jagdpanther did exist.>>

    Yep. Panther chassis with the Tiger II's 88L71 gun.

    As for Matrix, I freely admit that I just didn't get that film. I saw it, didn't think much of it, saw it again, and wondered why I wasted my time with the second attempt. >>

    I refuse to acknowledge any film starring Kenau "DUUUUUUDE" Reeves as thought provoking. LOL

    -Tim
  5. Rogue1-and-a-half Manager Emeritus who is writing his masterpiece

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 8
    Regards the Matrix, coming from a scientific standpoint, perhaps the idea of machines using humans as batteries is a bit far out, but then, the whole out with a film like that is that of course it seems far out to us. The Matrix makes us think that. It's obviously not going to reveal it's secrets to us.

    Seriously, though, the whole notion of a realistic science fiction film seems a bit nit-picky in my opinion. Aren't they supposed to take all existing technology and take it a step farther?

    And, yeah, the Matrix was a fun thrill ride and was a neat mind bending experience. I'd call it a great film, but then I despise people who hate Keanu Reeves. :p Seen the Devil's Advocate lately? ;)
  6. TremontiFan23 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 2002
    star 3
    Yes, it is sci-fi and supposedly thought provoking. But humans could never be used as batteries in any type of film, it just isn't possible.
  7. Moeskywalker64 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2002
    star 4
    "Being an 'out there' sci-fi film, the human battery thing didn't bother me at all. Actually I get the point of it. You know that the whole man vs. machine has been a sci-fi staple for some time, and I feel that this is just another twist on it. I thought (at least in a philosophical sense) that it was clever."

    Well the Matrix is one of my most favorite movies so I'll forgive it since it was entertaining...I mean would it have been fun it all the humans were killed and the machines just used the earth's internal heat for fuel? I still think that it would have been better if the machines enslaved humans so they can be entertained by the biological soap opera...
  8. anakin_skywalker_sct Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 18, 2001
    star 5
    "But humans could never be used as batteries in any type of film, it just isn't possible."

    Neither is making a feather float by yelling "wingardium leviosa" at it. Neither is making robots fly into a wall just by holding out the palm of your hand to them. Neither is teleporting to a magical world through a darn wardrobe. Why should this stuff get in the way of making a completely fictious movie or story?
  9. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    The three examples you gave were quite patently fantasy movies/books.

    I could be wrong, of course, but to me the MAtrix seems to be trying for Sci/fi.
  10. TremontiFan23 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 2002
    star 3
    Okay, I'll try to explain myself, again.

    The Matrix is a sci-fi movie, as is Harry Potter. However, The Matrix is based on what is supposed to be a possible reality. It's not scientifically possible. Does it get in the way of the movie? No, not really. Is it an inaccuracy? Yes, definitely.
  11. anakin_skywalker_sct Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 18, 2001
    star 5
    Ok, settle down, I wasn't aware that there was a difference between science FICTION and fictious fantasy that said it was so horribly wrong for there to be certain inaccuricies in the science in order to make the FICTION more interesting.

    Maybe I should explain myself, again. It's a bloody movie!! It's not a dramatisation or a documentary! It is just a story! :)
  12. ArnaKyle Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 12, 2000
    star 4
    It's apparent that almost all films suffer some historical innacuracy, but when innacuracies are a-blazin, it's hard to ignore. Let's face it, Disney = bad. Since someone brought up the issue of the change of Spider-Man, I figure fiction is somewhat fairplay.

    The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Disney style. I haven't had the desire to see the sequel, but when a movie screws up the "original version" that bad, then that's too much to be overlooked. For those of you not familiar, Hugo killed off Esmeralda and Quasimodo in the novel, while Disney has married Esmeralda off to Captain Phoebus (who, incidentally, married Fleur-de-Lys), and they have a kid that rings the bells with Quasimodo. They even managed to give the hunchback a girlfriend, how convenient...That's pushing the envelope, Hugo probably rolled over in his grave.

    I was miffed by PH's down-right stupid inaccuracies like Affleck getting on the train for England or the radios managing to run all the way from Japan to Pearl Harbor. Sure, I'll excuse the fact that the Cuba Gooding Jr. character was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross, but some things are too big to overlook.
  13. anakin_skywalker_sct Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 18, 2001
    star 5
    LOL, they sent Affleck on a TRAIN to England? I assumed that the train was just going to an air or sea port to transport them to England.
  14. Melyanna Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 19, 2001
    star 4
    Okay, let's get something clear here - Harry Potter is not science fiction.

    Science fiction is a specific form of speculative fiction. Speculative fiction is a form of fiction in which certain things are assumed to be changed from our world - in the case of scientific speculative fiction, the change is typically a projection of the future of our society, with some kind of advance in technology. Harry Potter is fantasy speculative fiction; the change in that case is that magic exists in our society. Speculation fiction can also include alternate history fiction, and it's usually (though not always) Earth-based in one way or another. It often has some kind of moral message involved as well, a warning to our society.

    Mel
  15. Mastadge Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 4, 1999
    star 7
    All fiction is speculative fiction. That's why it's fiction. It may be set in a real place, but it's a fictional character, doing fictional things that aren't actually being done, in the author's interpretation of that real place.
  16. TremontiFan23 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 2002
    star 3
    Eh, whatever, you knew what I meant.
  17. ArnaKyle Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 12, 2000
    star 4
    anakin_skywalker_sct -

    Okay, so things aren't cut and paste, but here's the rundown on the train business...When he's beating on the window like a maniac, notice the guy he sheepishly says "She loves me," to. He's not in military personnel, therefore, the train is for civilian transport. There were no commercial airplanes to England at the time and he would have been transported differently if he were going on a troop ship. Therefore, Affleck went to England on a train. ;)
  18. Sticks Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2001
    star 4
    What follows is a reply to the initial question, without reading most of the other replies in this thread. If it's out of context, that's why. ;)

    Generally, I can get past inaccuracies if the quality of the film itself is good enough. However, with wasted film like Pearl Harbor and Titanic (don't even get me started), I find it difficult to enjoy any part of it. But when it's as good as Fellowship of the Ring, I can overlook the liberties taken by the filmmakers* and wholeheartedly enjoy the movie.

    *Except for the whole Arwen thing. Really, what was up with that?

    EDIT: In some cases, inaccuracies actually help the film along. Case in point: Gladiator. That movie would have gone nowhere without the writers adding the bits about Rome conquering Germany (never happened--take that!) and later becoming a republic again. Yet it remains one of the most popular films of the last ten years. Why? Probably mostly due to Russel Crowe. But in any case, it's a darn good flick, and one exception to a rule.
  19. Tod Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 29, 1999
    star 4
    I've seen only two WW2 movie which gets ten points for using correct tanks and not some cheap modifications. First is old Clint Eastwood film Kelly's Heroes. Second is old Finnish film Tuntematon Sotilas ("Unknown Soldier") which uses correct russian tanks in few scenes and there's some real WW2 footage too.
  20. Mastadge Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 4, 1999
    star 7
    This thread reminds me of a joke:

    A writer and a producer are in a plane which crashes in a desert. They are the only survivors. They have no food, no water. Three days later, they're despairing, dying; trudging along through the interminable, hot desert. And then they come upon an oasis. Grass! Trees! A Breeze! And in the middle -- a beautiful pool of pure, clean, cool water! The writer runs and jumps into the water and starts drinking, but when he surfaces he sees the producers standing there peeing contendedly into the water. "What the hell are you doing?" the writer cries. The producer smiles smugly and says, "Making it better."
  21. MarkaRagnos Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Well, the serious plot hole is not that the race of sentient machines were using human beings as robots, i mean, they even said, combined with a form of fusion, just to make sure that we were not supposed to think that the machines had not thought this through just a tad, but the movie killers for me were: How did Cipher get into, and out of the Matrix alone, and keep people on board the Nebuchadnezzar(sorry for spelling, can never remember how to spell that guy's name) from watching him whilst he made a deal with Agent Smith? How is it that the training that Neo went through with Morpheus and even the realizations he made later could not be reduced to one of those simply injected and mastered training disks? Why is is that if how you appear in the Matrix is your "mental projection of your digital self", then why did not they meditate on being gigantic and stronger than they were or ten times as fast, so that when they were iside the Matrix they could be so? Why did they not use a small bit of construct to unify them eating the goop with them seeing and tasting what the hell ever that they wanted to to taste and see? Well, the list goes on for that movie, but i will rest this case for a while.
  22. Darth_Tim Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 26, 2002
    star 4
    I've seen only two WW2 movie which gets ten points for using correct tanks and not some cheap modifications. First is old Clint Eastwood film Kelly's Heroes. Second is old Finnish film Tuntematon Sotilas ("Unknown Soldier") which uses correct russian tanks in few scenes and there's some real WW2 footage too. >>

    However, I'll say in defense that there aren't exactly a lot of functional Tigers and Panthers around. Enemy at the Gates was close...they used T-34's, but they were the later model T-34/85's with the enlarged turret and 85mm gun, which weren't in service at the time the events in the film took place.

    -Tim
  23. Ki-Adi Bundi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2000
    star 4
    Wow, I never thought I would see someone comparing Harry Potter to The Matrix :p
  24. Obi Anne FF admin Celebrations, Europe

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Nov 4, 1998
    star 7
    Sticks, the thing with the Germans in Gladiator didn't bother me, after all the Romans tried to conquer the countries northeas of the Rhine, so I just took it as yet another border skirmish, maybe a bit bigger than usual but that was that.

    Sometimes you can also accept some inaccuracies. I saw a film called Druids, it's about the war against Ceasar and the Gauls. Totally inaccurate in the background, a lot of Irish and Viking symbols, but it was acceptable, since after all the film had a really low budget, and it's really hard to really know what it looked like in real life.
  25. Mastadge Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 4, 1999
    star 7
    Obi Anne,

    have you read the Morgan Llewellyn novel that Druids is based on? If so, how do they compare?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.