Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen with Prime Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > comedy discussion forum

lack of research and mistakes in movies

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 72 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 16 May 2012 07:33:01 BDT
Sou'Wester says:
Not sure if this is true but I seem to recall reading that Merchant Seamen stopped being entitled to pay if their ship was sunk by enemy action during World War Two.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 May 2012 04:51:16 BDT
I can live with that. How many times did Moe drag a saw across Curly's head or hit it with a sledge hammer, leaving the appliances ruined but not a mark on Curly.

The Laurel and Hardy case and The Three Stooges illustrate fun and circumstances that, in real life, would be fatal. How about when Moe, Larry and Curley were on the end of a flagpole on a building hundreds of feet above the ground. They lost their grips and fell, landing on an awning above the front door then rolling off onto the foorpath. In the real world they'd have been dead but fortunately for our funny bones and laughter in general their comedy was not the real world.

Posted on 31 May 2012 14:34:12 BDT
Master Card says:
Bit harsh that Roger, in that it was proibably meant as a comedy rather than a documentary or medical training film ......
Having said that, there have been instances in WW2 where airmen`s parachutes failed, and their fall of tens of thousand feet were saved by lucky landings in trees, snowdrifts etc, etc.

Posted on 6 Jun 2012 09:45:05 BDT
In "The English Patient" there is a scene where Kirsten Scott Thomas is overcome with heat exhaustion while serving Christmas dinner in Cairo. Having spent many Christmases in Cairo wearing coats and scarves, I can assure you that there is no danger of feeling like fainting from the heat. It may not snow, but it is chilly and windy in December.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jun 2012 09:48:23 BDT
Cartimand says:
"Mammoths in Eygpt in 10000BC? Galling to say the least. "

Why? The mammoth is thought to have originated in North Africa and was very probably still around 14,000 years ago. Interestingly, a mural in the Tomb of Rekhmire in Egypt (approx 1470 BC) even appear to show a juvenile wooly mammoth, thus fuelling speculation that such creatures survived into far more recent times.

Not as interesting, I know, but I spotted a Citroen 2CV in Tintin, when these iconic little French cars shouldn't yet have been on sale.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jun 2012 10:22:12 BDT
Master Card says:
Crikey, for a moment I thought you were going to say there is a Citroen 2CV in Egypt in 10,000BC - now that would be an error !

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jun 2012 11:04:51 BDT
Cartimand says:
Lol! Well I spotted what looks suspiciously like a Fiat 500 in the background of Deathstalker II (a Conan - style heroic fantasy).

Posted on 24 Jul 2012 20:43:44 BDT
Last edited by the author on 25 Jul 2012 15:02:36 BDT
Dogmatix says:
Sometimes there is unintentionable comedy in films, many years ago there were double features, in this instance, the B film was a Western, I can't remember what it was now but it was in black and white, in this one scene the cow hands were in a cabin and suddenly a man staggers in with two or three arrows in him, straight faced and deadly serious, one of the characters turns to another and says, " I think this mans hurt ".
well the cinema just erupted

Posted on 25 Jul 2012 08:56:30 BDT
Cartimand says:
Vikings: Severed Ways has anachronistic dialog, such as one Viking saying to another "If we stay here, we're toast", when AFAIK that expression doesn't pre-date the television era.

But anyway I'm sure it was used ironically in this strange but enjoyable little film.

Posted on 25 Jul 2012 12:40:34 BDT
Neil says:
While I appreciate the most basic of research and attention in keeping things correct(ish) both historically and continuity-wise, it really should come well down the list of concerns to good story, crisp cinematography and decent acting. Even the most carefully researched film is a fantasy version of events. When we are looking at complete fiction, then just relax and try to go with it. Roman solider with a digital watch at the time of Jesus ... hilarious. Adds a whole new dimension to the film .. pretend he is a time traveler ...

Posted on 25 Jul 2012 13:23:48 BDT
Last edited by the author on 25 Jul 2012 16:11:53 BDT
Paul Norton says:
I think if a movie is historically based, there should be a reasonable level of research and accuracy carried out, and it should be fairly high on the list of priorities. Otherwise why try and make something historical? All you would see up on the screen would become a made up version of a time gone by. Pointless. There is a whole world of easily accesible historical research info out there, so its not rocket science to get it a least fairly correct. Its never going to be 100% but its one thing if its a fairly small thing that was wrong. Its something else if its a glaring (and uncaring?) error.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jul 2012 15:06:02 BDT
Last edited by the author on 25 Jul 2012 15:06:33 BDT
Sou'Wester says:
When we're going back so many centuries, it's quite impossible to do "accurate" language. For one thing, even if the subject was English history, we'd find it very difficult to understand what people were saying. Vikings were rough, tough warriors; almost certainly their everyday speech would have been full of colloquialisms and there'd be phrases of a similar vein to the "stay here and we're toast" remark. Indeed, we can't be absolutely certain that one of Hagar the Horrible's cronies didn't actually come up with this very comment, albeit in Old Norse!

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jul 2012 15:57:21 BDT
Cartimand says:
Fair point Sou'Wester, and I'd pretty well come to the same conclusion. Similarly, with Severed Ways [DVD] , I felt the heavy metal and electronic score added to the overall effect rather than seeming incongruous. The anachronisms did bug some reviewers though.

Posted on 1 Aug 2012 14:47:54 BDT
Last edited by the author on 1 Aug 2012 14:48:10 BDT
Sparky says:
Well Vikings have been speaking with American accents since the 1950's (probably earlier) so who's to say they didn't invent toast, and the word, for it as well.
I find these things quite amusing mostly and love to see guitarists who I know to be right-handed playing just like Jimi in TV documentaries but one thing that does get on my mammaries a bit is where people bowl up to wherever they are going (restaurant, theatre, sprotsground) in their cars and just jump out leaving the vehicle at the kerbside - not a yellow line in sight. Even in Eastenders this happens; now I was driving around the East End only last week and I'm telling you ...blah, blah

Posted on 4 Aug 2012 15:14:25 BDT
Andy B says:
Raiders Of The Lost Ark, you see a crate with Thailand written on it as it's destination when it was in the 30s called Siam. The dig sight swarming with Nazis in Cairo at a time when it was a British Colony. Oops!

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Aug 2012 22:47:45 BDT
As with the Measles, well spotted.

Posted on 24 Aug 2012 14:31:51 BDT
A tiny niggle: in "Gangs of New York" (a very fine movie IMHO) there is a street scene that shows a lady carrying what appears to be a Chihuahua--a breed unknown in the northern states of the USA in the early 1860s.
No one has yet mentioned "Braveheart", a movie riddled with historical inaccuracies too many to enumerate here.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Aug 2012 15:56:04 BDT
Sou'Wester says:
Hollywood has always played fast and loose with history; although we Brits can hardly complain seeing as Mr. Shakespeare set a precedent with his so-called history plays! It doesn't upset me personally - I don't expect a drama to be the same as a documentary - but it is worrying that a lot of people do take these plays and films as historically accurate. (Only this morning the BBC was talking about King Richard III," England's most infamous monarch", a Shakespearean view perhaps but not necessarily an objective historical one).

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Aug 2012 23:33:54 BDT
'The play's the thing'

Please don't get me started on The Bard and 'Richard III'. I have made extensive studies on this monarch and believe emphatically he did NOT murder his nephews nor any of the other characters to which the play attributes his intervention. George Duke of Clarence, as one example, was not murdered on Richard's orders in 1483 but lawfully condemned for Treason against his { and Richard's } brother King Edward IV in 1478.

As have stated before, anyone as badly deformed as Richard in the play would never has survived a medieval hand to hand battle, yet he fought at Barnet and Tewkesbury for Edward and also at his fatal encounter at Bosworth.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Aug 2012 11:46:08 BDT
Sou'Wester says:
Should have realised I was touching the blue touch paper with that comment about King Dick! However, what I was trying to stress is that liberties have always been taken in historical drama and fiction; there shouldn't be a problem with that as long as people are sensible enough not to take them too literally. Re Shakespeare: I think the history plays are all about power and its corrupting and corrosive character, which is why they are still so relevant today. I don't think he ever intended to give basic history lessons (he wouldn't have been allowed to depict Richard in a favourable light anyway).
I've long compared England during and after the Wars of the Roses with the 20th century gang warfare in American cities. Various gangs of thugs squabbling over territory, cheating on and murdering each other at every opportunity (along, alas, with many innocent bystanders) and generally making everyone's life a misery. I don't suppose Richard of York was any worse than the other gangsters he clashed with, but can't say I shed any tears over his demise or posthumous reputation.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Aug 2012 11:59:33 BDT
I read somewhere that Richard's "deformity" was simply an over-developed right shoulder--the result of intensive daily exercises with a heavy sword. A contemporary chronicler claimed that at Bosworth he disposed of "XIV tall men" as he tried to hack his way towards Henry Tudor. Maybe he really looked more like Arnie Schwarzenegger than Larry Olivier!

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Aug 2012 12:38:23 BDT
I don't imagine he was a 15th Century Arnie as his description is of a man much shorter than his brother Edward, who was to be Henry VIII's grandfather.

Edward IV was tall and fair, as was George and Richard was short and wiry. The OLIVIER depiction is the classic SHAKESPEARE / TUDOR depiction, totally wrong in all aspects and historically so far from accurate as to be ridiculous, yet this has been believed by people for centuries as the accurate Richard.

There is news that Richard's grave - believed to have been demolished in the Dissolution and his bones dispersed - may have been located under a car park on what was the site of Greyfriar's Monastery but is Leicester Council land. I hope they find it and give him decent burial, as was done with the ROMANOVS, murdered by the Bolshevik swine in 1918 and thrown into a trench to rot. The Czar and his family now rest in dignified honour in St Petersburg.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Aug 2012 12:41:55 BDT
American gangsters and the York / Lancaster feud for the crown { in which the House of York were the valid and legitimate claimants} - hardly a valid comparison.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Aug 2012 08:43:32 BDT
Sou'Wester says:
Personally I think the comparison between American Mafia families and British Nobility in times past perfectly valid; particularly in the corrupting struggle for power which - by the by - is what Shakespeare's so-called History plays are really all about.
As for the legitimacy of such and such a noble to be a monarch; even if one accepts the notion that absolute power should be granted to someone purely because of their parentage, there are so many inconsistencies, cover-ups, wangles etc. in the royal bloodline down the centuries that it all becomes rather a nonsense. Much seems to be made of the fact that illegitimacy should preclude inheritance of the crown; given that all our royalty is supposed to have come down from William The Conqueror - who was illegitimate - that's always struck me as odd!

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Aug 2012 09:34:28 BDT
There's a lot in what you say, Sou'Wester, but I would like to add to it the fact (or, rather, my opinion) that the nastiest ruler this country has ever had was not a king or queen but the regicide Oliver Cromwell.
I think the Windsors claim descent from some Anglo-Saxon ruler of Wessex (Cerdic, Cedric?), but how his bloodline somehow reached down to the Elector of Hanover (George I) is a mystery to me.
Trivia note: it has been claimed that all English people now living could trace their descent from Edward IV, who sired innumerable bastards.
And, of course, my own name, O'Neill, shows that I am descended from the High Kings of Ulster. Restore the Ulster monarchy now! (My tongue is firmly in my cheek.)
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the comedy discussion forum (177 discussions)


This discussion

Discussion in:  comedy discussion forum
Participants:  24
Total posts:  72
Initial post:  3 Apr 2011
Latest post:  10 Sep 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions