Your single most annoying thing/mistake in a movie!
Discussion
Clockwork Cupcake said:
My #1 aviation-related bugbear, and one that I have mentioned in this thread before, is in Full Metal Jacket.
They are riding along in a honking great transport helicopter*, and we cut to an exterior shot of the shadow of the helicopter travelling over the trees, then back to the interior. However, the shadow is of a small scout helicopter, which is almost certainly the helicopter used to do the filming. Probably a Jet Ranger as these were very prevalent at the time.
To put it in motoring terms, it would be like a truck casting the shadow of a small car.
(* - If you want to get really nerdy, even the transport helicopter is wrong; it's a Westland Wessex pretending to be a Sikorsky H-34 Choctaw. But that doesn't annoy me too much.)
The "Get Some" scene? This is, indeed, a "fair one". Although the Bell OH-58A Kiowa did serve in Vietnam, 'Full Metal Jacket' is set between December 1966 and February 1968. The Kiowa (sharing the silhouette of the Jet Ranger) didn't arrive in Vietnam until August 1969, and then were limited to training flights with the manufacturer-backed NETT (New Equipment Training Team). So even the argument that what you're seeing is the shadow cast by "Little Bird" Kiowas accompanying the larger H-34 helicopters falls down. But even though I'd class myself as a grade 1 military nerd when it comes to movie mistakes, this one doesn't distract me when I watch it, and so I don't, personally, find it annoying at all. They are riding along in a honking great transport helicopter*, and we cut to an exterior shot of the shadow of the helicopter travelling over the trees, then back to the interior. However, the shadow is of a small scout helicopter, which is almost certainly the helicopter used to do the filming. Probably a Jet Ranger as these were very prevalent at the time.
To put it in motoring terms, it would be like a truck casting the shadow of a small car.
(* - If you want to get really nerdy, even the transport helicopter is wrong; it's a Westland Wessex pretending to be a Sikorsky H-34 Choctaw. But that doesn't annoy me too much.)
The 'offending' shadow is literally only on screen for the first two seconds of that scene anyway, and is an establishing shot filmed a long way from the actual filming location (the UK) over a real forest/jungle. It may even have been lifted from something already 'in the can' for another movie. Two minutes later we see another shadow out of the door of the 'Choctaw', but this time it is the shadow cast by the actual helicopter in which the scene is being filmed...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q39_pLPTmDA
yellowjack said:
The "Get Some" scene? This is, indeed, a "fair one". Although the Bell OH-58A Kiowa did serve in Vietnam, 'Full Metal Jacket' is set between December 1966 and February 1968. The Kiowa (sharing the silhouette of the Jet Ranger) didn't arrive in Vietnam until August 1969, and then were limited to training flights with the manufacturer-backed NETT (New Equipment Training Team). So even the argument that what you're seeing is the shadow cast by "Little Bird" Kiowas accompanying the larger H-34 helicopters falls down. But even though I'd class myself as a grade 1 military nerd when it comes to movie mistakes, this one doesn't distract me when I watch it, and so I don't, personally, find it annoying at all.
Fair enough, and fair points. For some reason, though, it irritates me enormously whenever I see the film even though, as you say, it is only on screen for a few seconds. I'm usually fairly tolerant of movie mistakes, but for some reason this one really jars with me.
Oh, useless fact snippet, the "Get Some" gunner was originally hired to be the drill instructor that ended by being portrayed by R. Lee Emery, who had been originally only hired as an advisor. But he was so brilliant at it that they ended up promoting him to cast and relegated the original actor to the "Get Some" gunner.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Fair enough, and fair points. For some reason, though, it irritates me enormously whenever I see the film even though, as you say, it is only on screen for a few seconds.
I'm usually fairly tolerant of movie mistakes, but for some reason this one really jars with me.
I totally agree. There are some really bizarre little errors which have no real plot significance, yet I can't let them slide. It drives my wife nuts when I point them out and even then she still doesn't "get" what my problem is.I'm usually fairly tolerant of movie mistakes, but for some reason this one really jars with me.
It's like the use of bomber-nosed versions of the De Havilland Mosquito in '633 Sqn' and 'Mosquito Squadron' to represent Fighter/Bomber versions. The plexiglass bomb aimer's window is clearly still in place, simply "wrapped" or painted over, and fake gun barrels fitted to the nose. You can't really criticise the producers for this as there weren't any FB variants airworthy by the time the films were made. I'm pretty sure they used Target Tug variants for the filming. But it still bothers me for some reason.
yellowjack said:
I totally agree. There are some really bizarre little errors which have no real plot significance, yet I can't let them slide. It drives my wife nuts when I point them out and even then she still doesn't "get" what my problem is.
It's like the use of bomber-nosed versions of the De Havilland Mosquito in '633 Sqn' and 'Mosquito Squadron' to represent Fighter/Bomber versions. The plexiglass bomb aimer's window is clearly still in place, simply "wrapped" or painted over, and fake gun barrels fitted to the nose. You can't really criticise the producers for this as there weren't any FB variants airworthy by the time the films were made. I'm pretty sure they used Target Tug variants for the filming. But it still bothers me for some reason.
Now, you see, that doesn't bother me as much, because the film makers have clearly done their best under the circumstances. Although I can certainly see why it would irritate you. It's like the use of bomber-nosed versions of the De Havilland Mosquito in '633 Sqn' and 'Mosquito Squadron' to represent Fighter/Bomber versions. The plexiglass bomb aimer's window is clearly still in place, simply "wrapped" or painted over, and fake gun barrels fitted to the nose. You can't really criticise the producers for this as there weren't any FB variants airworthy by the time the films were made. I'm pretty sure they used Target Tug variants for the filming. But it still bothers me for some reason.
It just goes to show that we are all different.
Just watching law and order special victims and it’s reminded me, it’s in plenty of movies too
That hitman the American and end if girl with dragon tattoo.
Bikes against cars. No you can’t make a large car or 4x4 stop. You are toast on a bike
On the tv now they rode in front of a 4x4 and it stoped they got off and are trashing the car.
Well I’ve seen what happens in real life in that situation on the news and live with my own eyes,
News flash bikers lose.
That hitman the American and end if girl with dragon tattoo.
Bikes against cars. No you can’t make a large car or 4x4 stop. You are toast on a bike
On the tv now they rode in front of a 4x4 and it stoped they got off and are trashing the car.
Well I’ve seen what happens in real life in that situation on the news and live with my own eyes,
News flash bikers lose.
Edited by Pesty on Friday 21st February 23:43
Frank7 said:
Not a mistake I hope, but channel surfing this early evening I landed on an episode of “The Sweeney”, Inspector Regan walked into a pub and asked for a bottle of Scotch.
The publican produced one from out the back and said, “That’ll be £3.31 please.”
I thought, ‘£3.31, f***ing hell!’
Haha - yeah Regan orders a couple of pints, whisky chasers and a packet of fags, the Batman says that’ll be 70p Jack. 70p??? Gawd, prices these days!The publican produced one from out the back and said, “That’ll be £3.31 please.”
I thought, ‘£3.31, f***ing hell!’
Antony Moxey said:
Just watching Revenge of the Sith and the battle between Yoda and Palpatine towards the end of the film. Both are able to shoot lightning from their fingertips so why do they need lightsabres?
Yoda can't, he absorbs the Emperor's stuff and fires it back. Emperor has a lightsabre as it's a necessity against sorts like Mace WIndu and also it's a rite to make your own on.Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff