do you have a job/hobby/knowledge in a particular field that allows you to spot mistakes in movies?

[shootthebandit]

Basically I am an aircraft mechanic by trade and I often find that I cant help but notice stupid mistakes involving aircraft in a lot of movies. I noticed this when watching die hard 2. An example is when the bad guys shut down the ILS (instrument landing system) however the circling pilot hold at the outer marker which is a signal transmitted by the ILS

The terrorists also reset the glideslope on the ILS to -200 ft thus crashing an aircraft. However they completely ignored the fact that the aircraft is fitted with an altimeter

They also take the whole movie to realise that the terrorists were close to the parameter of the airport. As they set up thier own ILS beacon its fairly obvious that they must be close to the runway

So do you guys have a job or even a hobby or interest in a certain field that makes it kinda frustrating for you to watch movies based on that subject?

 

[Eamar]

I study ancient and medieval history, so a lot of films that claim to be in any way "historical" are pretty unwatchable for me for a whole host of reasons.

That said, I'm not one of those bizarre ancient historians who gets all hot and bothered about films based on Classical mythology. That never made sense to me, it's like complaining that the movie Thor isn't an "accurate" representation of the Eddas: 1) those myths are just the inspiration for the films, which aren't adaptations (if something actually is claiming to be an adaptation of the Iliad or whatever then fair enough) and 2) it's freakin' mythology. There are gods throwing lightning bolts about. You can't get that "historically wrong."

So basically, I can watch Immortals no problem; Gladiator not so much (the inaccuracies in that are particularly unforgivable since Ridley Scott was supposedly actually trying for greater historical accuracy).

 

[Trinab]

I'm also into medieval and ancient history, but I also study story structure, so I tend to not only notice historical inaccuracies, but also glaring plot holes.

Poorly written characters, bad motivations, abysmal pacing and structure bug me a lot more then historical accuracy.

 

[Vault101]

I know that one cannot look at a monitor and determine if a computer is a "12 core"

I also know one cannot get the "high score" in every single MMO ever unless they are a time lord

I also know that there has never been an Xbox convention in South Korea

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

I used to work in IT for quite a while, so yeah...pretty much any mistake involving computers is really easy to spot. But that's not uncommon around here, so I'll also mention that I'm pretty well-versed in Shakespeare and Elizabethan England, so I'm equipped to find mistakes in those areas. (Like that godawful Anonymous film from a while back...I'm not even going to go into how wrong it was.)

 

[Vegosiux]

Doubly yes. Interest in physics, have studied it, too, so that's one account. I also TVTrope a lot. Second, I happen to work in TV, so I also notice technical stuff if it's blatantly obvious (bad cuts, sloppy audio, etc).

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I took a bunch of courses in forensics in college, along with a couple of courses in criminalistics. Add to that the fact that I have a fascination with firearms and I can usually pick out the bullshit in most crime dramas.

My personal favorite is when there's a crime scene and the detective shines a black-light onto a floor to see if there's blood, and suddenly there's a bunch of blood shining white. Yeah, sorry guys that's not blood, that's probably sperm or urine. Blood doesn't show up white under a black-light, not unless it's been treated with a chemical like luminol and you don't actually need a black-light to see blood that's been treated with luminol, you can see it with just your naked eye in a darkened room.

 

[Little Woodsman]

Oh yeah....
Having worked in a blood center for years I just have to shake my head at the ideas about donated blood, blood transfusion, the blood supply and the drawing of blood that are propagated in fiction.

The entire supply of blood for 1 month for a hospital, along with the ice to keep it at the correct temperature fitting in a chest cooler of the size that you would take on a family picnic.

The very idea that hospitals only get blood delivered to them once a month.

Vampires drinking blood that has been drawn in to bags. Blood that is intended for transfusion or research or manufacture is drawn in to bags that have anticoagulant in them. This keeps the blood from becoming a gelid mass that wouldn't even flow down the tubes, and while the anticoagulant is non-toxic (citrus based) I can't imagine that it would taste *good* to a creature that drank blood. Blood that is drawn purely for therapeutic purposes is drawn in to a 'dry' bag--and becomes a gelid mass that doesn't flow and couldn't be drunk. Possibly could be eaten with a spoon.

I've never once seen anyone in a movie or on TV dispose of a used needle properly. Used needles have to be put in to special containers called 'sharps containers'. On one show I actually saw an ordinary wastebasket full of used needles and syringes. (Actually let out shriek of shock/revulsion when I saw that...)

I also have enough working knowledge of firearms that on an episode of Agents of SHIELD I almost fell out of my chair laughing during one scene where two of the agents disarmed a man carrying a shotgun. Then when threatening the captive while the agent who was now holding the shotgun was just off-screen, the sound effect of the pump action of a shotgun being worked was heard. The gun in question was a break-action model.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yeah, good way to ruin enjoyment of a film or TV show is to know something about what they are talking about.

People keep getting firearms wrong. Finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire. It's not like this is kept secret, people go out of their way to bludgeon people with gun safety rules.

 

[thedoclc]

I'm about to graduate med school and am a vet from an infantry unit, so I tend to notice many, many artistic licenses with both fields, since both are common topics for films.

Though I do suggest to the OP that you consider some of the "mistakes" to be artistic license. There's plenty of things that are done either to fulfill audience expectations, to make it easier to film a practical effect, to keep the budget down, or simply to look cooler.

 

[Dalisclock]

I used to work in a Nuclear Plant on a US Navy Aircraft Carrier.

So basically, it's hard for me to watch/play most of the following....

....Movies/Games with Nuclear Reactors.
....Movies/Games with the US Navy.

It's really obvious how little research anybody does concerning either of these. Don't get me started on the whole Aircraft Carrier part in Crysis.

 

[Dalisclock]

I study ancient and medieval history, so a lot of films that claim to be in any way "historical" are pretty unwatchable for me for a whole host of reasons.

That said, I'm not one of those bizarre ancient historians who gets all hot and bothered about films based on Classical mythology. That never made sense to me, it's like complaining that the movie Thor isn't an "accurate" representation of the Eddas: 1) those myths are just the inspiration for the films, which aren't adaptations (if something actually is claiming to be an adaptation of the Iliad or whatever then fair enough) and 2) it's freakin' mythology. There are gods throwing lightning bolts about. You can't get that "historically wrong."

I wasn't bothered by the lack of "Historical Accuracy" in Thor. I was bothered by the fact that they have all this norse myth to draw from and instead they give us a few really boring looking alien sets and the rest of the movie is set in New Mexico. I've heard the sequel is actually a lot more interesting in that regard but haven't seen it.

Then again, I want to watch the sequel just because Stringer Bell is in it.

 

[Sarge034]

I know a thing or two about firearms and I see the mistakes all the time. There is easy stuff like seeing a firearm held wrong (seriously people, a Glock is meant to fit snugly with your hand). To the difficult stuff like knowing a noise or terminology is wrong (ie pump sound on a non-pump shotgun, cycling the bolt when a round is already chambered, and my favorite "lock and load". Lock and load means the bolt is closed and the magazine is inserted. THERE IS NO ROUND IN THE CHAMBER!). To the obscure like the fire selector switch being set on semi-automatic but the firearm firing in fully-automatic. Some movies make an effort to get it right but most just go with the popular notion of firearms.

It doesn't make me hate the movie or show, but the ones that get it right make me love them all the more for it.

 

[Radeonx]

I work as a programmer for a fairly large corporation, so yeah. I know multiple languages, and a lot of times, whenever a movie has a "hacker" typing up elaborate code to take down some sort of database, it is complete bullshit. I don't really care that much anymore, but it is still a pleasant surprise when I catch a glimpse of movies showing code that actually may do something and isn't essentially complete gibberish.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I used to work on documentaries when I was younger and I have a hard time sitting through them now. Especially made for tv "documentary" shows where you can tell the person being interviewed is being fed their lines.
I've also studied martial arts quite a bit so fight scenes are oftentimes laughable too. But thankfully there aren't too many fight scenes in documentaries.

 

[EHKOS]

I tinker with computers so I catch the odd mistake there. It also really bugs me if someone cocks a handgun with a round already in the chamber, or something similar.

I think the most obvious thing ever was the Max Payne office scene with the SWAT guys. Max fires way too many rounds and it's painfully obvious. That was the first thing that popped into my head when I saw this.

I think we can all spot "Playing an exclusive game with the wrong controller" mishap.

The only other thing I can think of is when a movie isn't mixed/mastered right. I don't fully know the correct terminology because everything I know about music I taught myself. But I work with Audacity enough to notice. The one that irks me the most is the scene in Fight Club where The Narrator is having that fantasy about the plane ripping in half. I have to turn the volume way down because it gets WAY too loud.

 

[Zontar]

I used to work in a Nuclear Plant on a US Navy Aircraft Carrier.

So basically, it's hard for me to watch/play most of the following....

....Movies/Games with Nuclear Reactors.
....Movies/Games with the US Navy.

It's really obvious how little research anybody does concerning either of these. Don't get me started on the whole Aircraft Carrier part in Crysis.

And then there's anything written by Tom Clancy. The guy made interesting stories, but like hell if he knew what he was talking about.

OT: Anything regarding working on a frigate, corvette or cruiser. I actually remember a James Bond movie where the villain was on one, couldn't stop laughing when I saw the "secret weapon controls", what they where using wouldn't have done anything.

 

[Thaluikhain]

And then there's anything written by Tom Clancy. The guy made interesting stories, but like hell if he knew what he was talking about.

IIRC, he was once visited by the FBI, because one of the things he made up happened to be correct, and they wanted to know how he got hold of classified information.

He asked what in particular they were referring to, and they couldn't tell him.

 

[MorganL4]

I have been a Star Trek fan for most of my life, NOW I am about to finish up a degree in IT....... So yeah, any time they talk about computers on that show (TNG has especially bad technobabble) I start to think WAIT A MINUTE you just said you manually reconfigured something that is by definition a logical facet NOT a physical one....... HOW exactly is that accomplished?

DAMN you computer knowledge and your destruction of the illusion brought about by one of my favorite TV series.

 

[WarpZone]

Yeah, it's called EXISTING. Pa Kent could have made his point without killing himself needlessly. If the whole planet is about to blow up and you know about it and you obviously have very visible spaceships all over the place, you can and should evacuate as many people as possible using any means necessary. Being as quiet as possible while hiding from aliens that are attracted to sound and loudly murdering a crazy homeless man are mutually exclusive. Walking slowly away from an explosion does nothing to protect you from its effects. People don't hook up that easily. No, not even the ones more attractive and successful than me personally. Nobody talks loudly about things that both they and their listener already know. Timers on bombs do not mysteriously pause when nobody is looking directly at them. Criminals aren't that evil, businesses aren't that stupid, and cops aren't that lucky.

Pretty much everything that gets published is full of holes, and a lot of times you don't even need any special training or experience in order to spot the holes. A kid could do it. Even the good stuff has holes in it.

The trick is having something, anything, emotional, funny or cool to suck people in. When that element exists, and executive meddling doesn't neuter, destroy, or excise that special element, the show just works, regardless of how stupid the rest of the show is. You don't notice the flaws because you're wrapped in in the moment.

When no such element is present, congratulations, you're a live-action show on FOX. Six months from now nobody will recognize you.

Edit: Oh, sorry, I forgot we were talking about movies for a second there. Replace with "congratulations, you're a desperate franchise reboot or re-imagining with ten writers that will disappoint audiences and water down the franchise until you manage to choke your own beloved cash cow to death."