Profpointy
Legendary Member
Phew, we seem to be in violent agreement. Was afraid I was reading what I was thinking rather than wot I rote
Inconsistencies or plot holes in films
- Thread starter Drago
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Phew, we seem to be in violent agreement. Was afraid I was reading what I was thinking rather than wot I rote
OP
OP
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Lone Survivor.
The patrol are carrying the SIG MCX when in reality they used the Colt Canada version of the M4 with the 203 grenade launcher. This made me very angry.
The patrol are carrying the SIG MCX when in reality they used the Colt Canada version of the M4 with the 203 grenade launcher. This made me very angry.
midlife
Guru
OP
OP
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
It depends on which movie database you ask.
ebikeerwidnes
Guru
- Location
- Z’ha’dum
Yup - depends on your experience and areas of expertise
I am banned from commenting on sail setting in film with sailing boats and on several computing topics - apparently it is annoying!!!
Oh - and types of cars in things based in the 1960s -1980s - including busses!!
Star Wars episode 4 (ie the original movie), Obi Wan to Luke: “…and look at these blast points, too accurate for sandpeople. Only Imperial troops are so precise”.
Rest of franchise: imperial troops can’t hit a damn thing.
Any sci-fi movie with space battles where you can hear anything at all outside your own craft.
Rest of franchise: imperial troops can’t hit a damn thing.
Any sci-fi movie with space battles where you can hear anything at all outside your own craft.
midlife
Guru
Best place for info can be the places that sell props and replicas from the movies. They are selling to nerds so usually correct
Unlike Lone Survivor........ the fim and true story seem to be based on half truths, lies and obfuscation about where he pitched up and what happened to the rescue missions....
cougie uk
Guru
And why are all the space ships the same way up ? There's no gravity - they should be all over the dial.
Joey Shabadoo
My pronouns are "He", "Him" and "buggerlugs"
The Expanse was better with the science but still had the nonsense of roaring engines and explosions in space.
Joey Shabadoo
My pronouns are "He", "Him" and "buggerlugs"
In Band of Brothers, during training at Currahee, Captain Sobel berates a trooper for having a rusty bayonet (no euph). He brandishes it around Easy Company to give everyone a good look. Except it's a 10" bayonet that only came into service in 1943 to replace the previous 16" bayonet. As the training takes place in 1942, it would have been impossible for the recruits to have the bayonet that Sobel brandishes in the drama.
I play a bit of Elite: Dangerous and it's quite funny when you meet another ship and for a couple of seconds you think why is that ship upside down? Also when approaching a planet it's better for visibility to have it filling your cockpit view. This means you're probably the wrong way up relative to the planet and have to flip over at some point to land.
It's the way we evolved, on a surface where "up" and "down" are very clearly defined.
figbat
Slippery scientist
- Location
- South Oxfordshire, UK
How about in many space-based films and TV series, you see an external shot of the ship in deep space... and that's the point, how would you see an external view of the ship in deep space with no local illumination? Yet there it is, lit by some inexplicable off-camera light source.
Discounting dubious handwavy physics for FTL travel, the way spaceships move is always all wrong.
No air resistance = once you're travelling at x velocity you'll stay at that velocity so don't need engines. And the fastest way to travel between two points is to accelerate full power for half the distance, then decelerate at the same power. This means unless your ship has engines both ends, you need to flip over halfway and travel the second half backwards. It also means no unscheduled diversions. If you see an interesting planet on the way, there's no physical way to stop. If you don't flip over in time and fire your engines at max, or lose a bit of power during deceleration, even if it's fixed after a few minutes, that's it you're going to crash into the planet or overshoot it.
But people expect space battles to be like WW2 plane dogfights.
Because a shot of a starfield with a black shape where the ship is blocking out some stars, plus total silence, doesn't make a good film.
Does make a nice dramatic establishing shot though!
No air resistance = once you're travelling at x velocity you'll stay at that velocity so don't need engines. And the fastest way to travel between two points is to accelerate full power for half the distance, then decelerate at the same power. This means unless your ship has engines both ends, you need to flip over halfway and travel the second half backwards. It also means no unscheduled diversions. If you see an interesting planet on the way, there's no physical way to stop. If you don't flip over in time and fire your engines at max, or lose a bit of power during deceleration, even if it's fixed after a few minutes, that's it you're going to crash into the planet or overshoot it.
But people expect space battles to be like WW2 plane dogfights.
Because a shot of a starfield with a black shape where the ship is blocking out some stars, plus total silence, doesn't make a good film.
Does make a nice dramatic establishing shot though!
Last edited:
matticus
Guru
This stuff must REALLY irritate genuine space-battle veterans. 
figbat
Slippery scientist
- Location
- South Oxfordshire, UK
Which means not only aerodynamic-style manoeuvring but also close-quarters ray guns. Today we can fire-and-forget missiles over the horizon at unseen targets but in space it seems we'll be dogfighting with guns again.
