Totally wrong scenes in films when someone should know better.

There was some rubbish on last night where the american pilot was supposedly flying an F-16 but when he landed he climbed down from a Hungarian Mig-29.

If you mean aviation scenes then that Bond scene with the AN-225 going down… with both Halle Berry and Bond struggling with the controls… on a fly by wire aircraft… 😀
Sure there is some feedback but requireing two people to pull on the stick might have been realistic on a hydraulics driven flight control, but with FBW it wouldn’t make a difference.

Also Enemy at the Gates always annoys me… the old one soldier gets the ammo, one soldier gets the rifle scenes… purpetuated in the Call of Duty video game… by Stalingrad if they didn’t have enough rifles and ammo for each soldier how the hell did they equip the million plus reserves awaiting to execute a pincer movement to trap the germans in Stalingrad?
The reality is that frontal charges had already been banned from Soviet tactics as too costly and the vast majority of weapons used in Stalingrad were the PPSh SMG, the humble handgrenade and the anti tank rifle. The latter used mainly in street fighting through walls and through the roofs of vehicles of all types.

There’s quite a few goofs in Mercy Mission…the rescue of flight 771
In real life, Gordon Vette retired from Air New Zealand in the early eighties (1981 or 1982), so even in the movie, the event should have been depicted before that time, when the Boeing 767 was not yet on commercial service… nor the 747-400s seen at San Francisco, bearing a fresher United Airlines color scheme (larger and more “squeezed” characters).
Prior to departure, many planes are seen from the cockpit, among them a few Ansett Australia planes bearing the “Australian Flag”, when the action occured in the early eighties (at the time Ansett used the “Star” livery).
I see an Australian Airlines plane in the ground cockpit scene at Fiji. Has Australian Airlines ever flown to Fiji? Did it even exist when the incident occured (early eighties)? Or was it still called TAA?
During the cockpit sequence, the engine needles (EPR, N1, N2) in the central video screens do not move, even though Captain Vette applies full thrust.
Air New Zealand Flight 308 is a Boeing 767-200 in all sequences (mostly stock footage from ANZ), except on take-off when it becomes a Boeing 737-200, and at the Auckland Airport apron, where it is a Boeing 737-300/400 of Australian Airlines. The titles are barely visible since the scene is at night. Additionally, the hangar where Vette challenges one of his supervisors, in one of the first scenes, hosts a couple of Australian Airlines aircraft, minus titles.
In all the daylight sequences, the clouds seen from the inside the cockpit of the 767 are perfectly still. A poster was probably used. For the night sequences however, the clouds really move. In the case of the Cessna, the clouds from the outside are moving, but the use of background film is obvious.
The First Officer touches too many random and irrelevant buttons during the flight operations. For example, he sets the autopilot heading or course during the very final approach!
The take-off cockpit sequence was done (obviously) in a flight simulator.

In about continuity its films in.

What????? To understand what’s going on or to learn to spell!!!! 😀 😀 😀 Only joking Simon 😀 😀 😀

It is to debate all the things wrong with films and take the micky out of them for making such mistakes……LOL 😀 😀 😀 I think!!!! 😀

ive just started using this website and allreadi i havent got a clue whats going on…..someone pleasa help me!!!!!!!1:confused:

I agree. Whilst the man on the Clapham omnibus might not be able to tell a Mark I Spit from a Mark IX, he can see when a big four-engined plane has suddenly shrunk to a smaller one with two, then got bigger again and grown another engine on the tail. If they repeated the same laziness and contempt for the viewer’s intelligence in other ways, the film would be laughed out of the cinema; imagine, say, someone getting into a Golf, driving along in a Jag, and getting out of a Ka.

If it wasn’t so sloppy such things might almost be funny. As has been said before, such sloppiness is unforgivable when it is so easy to get it right.

Something that irritates me is continuity or rather a lack of it sometimes. i.e show a character boarding say a 747, show a 737 in a sunset type scene than a dc10 landing. Black rain was an example of this.

I agree. Whilst the man on the Clapham omnibus might not be able to tell a Mark I Spit from a Mark IX, he can see when a big four-engined plane has suddenly shrunk to a smaller one with two, then got bigger again and grown another engine on the tail. If they repeated the same laziness and contempt for the viewer’s intelligence in other ways, the film would be laughed out of the cinema; imagine, say, someone getting into a Golf, driving along in a Jag, and getting out of a Ka.

One that immediately springs to my mind is the scene in The Dambusters where the three Lancs are seen low flying (supposedly practising their low flying at the required height) carrying the Upkeep bomb when they haven’t even been introduced it or the mission

Do they often sing …and all I’m trying to say, is “Pearl Harbor” sucked, and I miss youuuuu…. over there? 😀

“I need you like Ben Affleck needs acting school….” 😀

Something that irritates me is continuity or rather a lack of it sometimes. i.e show a character boarding say a 747, show a 737 in a sunset type scene than a dc10 landing. Black rain was an example of this.

I’d have loved to have seen the outcry if they’d gone ahead and used a Spitfire XIV in the ‘Eagle Squadron’ sequences in Pearl Harbor – which was the original plan!

Mind you, they were going to use an authentic Bf109E (the former Santa Monica example – now in Canada) in those sequences, too…! :rolleyes:

OK films are entertainment for the ‘general public’ who cares little about whether the loco in the 39 Steps was built in the 50’s, but some directors spend so much time trying to get things meticoulusy right and I don’t see why that shouldn’t be the case across the board, the expense thing is crap, I happen to know that there were the correct period locos available for filming at Keighley for Housewife 49, so why didn’t they do it, bloody laziness, and lack of understanding.
I offer my services as cheapo film transport obtainer.

LMAO @ Daz 😀 😀 😀 Fair enough 😀

I hope this isn’t just gonna be a Pearl Harbor slag-fest – that’s what the Historic Aviation forum’s for! 😉

With regards to Pearl Harbor, didn’t the Spitfire’s and Hurricanes all have the letters RF for the squadron markings which were, I believe, were the markings of no.303 ‘Polish’ Squadron. The film claims that it is the Eagle Squadron but it only contains ONE american pilot (Ben Affleck) – all the rest are Scottish!!!!!!!

Just out of interest. What would a Polish eagle squadron full of scottish fighter pilots and ground crew be doing on the South Coast of England……..that seems a bit dodgy to me 😀 😀 😀

Also, not to mention the lack of these on the nose sections of the aircraft and that little duck 😀 😀 😀

I mean, did nobody in the production team of PH think to look at a book about the actual attack?? :rolleyes:

What, you mean they didn’t do any research to check whether they had got their facts right 😮 😮 Surely not! 😉

Whyever would they worry about letting the truth get in the way of a good(:rolleyes: ) story…..:diablo:

Paul F

You do have a point there, JB, but my main bug-bear is that they get things wrong when it’s not particularly difficult to get right!

I mean, did nobody in the production team of PH think to look at a book about the actual attack?? :rolleyes:

How about the people in Thunderbirds? No one walks like that!!!:rolleyes:

As has been pointed out…it’s “just” a film and 99% of the poeple don’t know or particularly care!!

But to add my two pence worth: The German marked Bell 47 (and a late model one at that) in Where Eagles Dare.
The script called for a Helicopter so someone at Pinewood (or somewhere) called up Biggin Hill (or somewhere) and ordered a helicopter. That’s how it works.

BTW: it’s also a function of money (of course)…As a producer, when you have the Spanish Army pretending to be the US Army circa 1944 in Patton, you don’t really care if their tanks are a bit newer or the Jeeps are slightly later models with one piece windscreens instead of two. Really…how many of you noticed that some Jeeps had a tailgate while WWII Jeeps had a solid panel with a spare tire on it?

Likewise in In Harms Way with the US Navy is providing assistance, what producer is going to refuse a Grumman Albatross and substitute a PBY that would cost a lot more to hire (instead of just paying the gas for the USN aircraft) or renting and transporting WWII Jeeps to the location instead of using the 1960’s vintage M151 Ford “jeeps” already there?

It’s worth pointing out that there is sometimes no excuse for getting things so simple so very, very wrong! The green Zeros in Pearl Harbor, being a prime example!!