"NTD" The Massive Movie Holes Thread!

[Pulpmariachi]

I think Spielberg was leaning towards Deinonicus, then they found the Utahraptor and used that dinosaur, just changing the name. All the raptor dinosaurs are essentially the same save for their dimensions.

Another Jurassic Park thing, nearly all the dinosaurs in the film (save the Brachiosaur and Diliphosaur, I believe) were apart of the Cretaceous Era. Gasp.

[Quorthon]

pulpmariachi said:

I think Spielberg was leaning towards Deinonicus, then they found the Utahraptor and used that dinosaur, just changing the name. All the raptor dinosaurs are essentially the same save for their dimensions.

Another Jurassic Park thing, nearly all the dinosaurs in the film (save the Brachiosaur and Diliphosaur, I believe) were apart of the Cretaceous Era. Gasp.

I think they just wanted a "Dino Zoo" with a general collection from all three eras. Or rather, the Jurassic and Cretateous periods. I think "Jurassic Park" just rolled off the tongue a little better, than, say, "Triassic Park"

[Pulpmariachi]

Yeah I know. Just a joke on my part.

[Quorthon]

That's what I thought...

[Quorthon]

I just remembered another Jurassic Park hole:

The T-Rex's site was, in reality, not based on movement. Oh yes, he could see Dr. Grant and the kid standing outside that over-turned SUV. They just must not have smelled like food.

[spacer]

By the way, a flick or rather series of them which tried to be as accurate as possible including all the knowledge possessed about dinos until the time of release was a series made by BBC.
I enjoyed them a lot. Action plus Accuracy (As we know it for now) Rare thing.
Have you seen it guys? If not I recommend it strongly.

Broadcast in 1999, Walking with Dinosaurs set out to create the most accurate portrayal of prehistoric animals ever seen on the screen. Combining fact and informed speculation with cutting-edge computer graphics and animatronics effects, the series took two years to make.
Commentary from www.bbc.co.uk

[Quorthon]

I've seen Walking With Dinosaurs--it aired on the Discovery Channel over here.

Also: I thought of a huge movie hole that Heineken won't want to hear:

Star Wars Episode III, opening sequence. It's not the often-touted-as-inaccurate look of the space battle that I'm referring to here. It's when Obi-Wan and Anakin are inside General Grevous's ship. At one point, the ship swings violently sideways, causing everyone to fall across the floor as the wall (side) becomes the new "bottom" of the ship. Now, as we all know, in free "open" space, there is no gravity. So, in theory, the artifical gravity of the ship would always be oriented to the floor. Even if the ship "turned on it's side," the gravity would still be oriented to the floor--people may be jostled around, but it wouldn't so extreme as suddenly turning a building on it's side--or even upside-down--in a matter of seconds. Unless, of course, for some needlessly inane reason, the ship's gravity is oriented to a point outside of itself--like oriented to the planet below. But that would be an extremely foolish thing to do, now wouldn't it? Simply moving around in spatial three-dimensions would constantly switch the direction of gravitational pull on any people--or objects--within the ship. For as much as I liked that movie, that part of it just really annoyed the hell outta me.

[spacer]

A very smart observation Quorth!
It maybe seems so obvious to you (hats off) but most people watching it haven't seen it.
Indeed, in the outer space there is so called micro-gravity
(gravity does not vanish it is just way weaker when interacting with comparatively small objects like spaceships) which is often for the sake of simplicity labeled as "no gravity".
Anyway, you are fully right. Rapid changes of velocity or sudden turns might cause some disturbances but cannot cause sudden change of the gravity direction.
Let's be straight. Lucas looked for good-looking F/X and his imagination was unable to go beyond Earth.
Such F/X are good for trains or cars not for space action.
But to tell the truth Lucas always had 2D imagination while for space battles we definitely crave for 3D one!
(I know I'll be crucified for that sentence by Heineken ;D)

And I may pre-answer the reply that it would be otherwise impossible to show such a spectacle.
No, Lucas could add a line or a few ones eg:
Oh, shit the artificial gravity is not holding up.
or
Gravity fluctuates..
By this brief comment he could even create much more dynamic scene with wild changes of gravity.
He didn't do it cause he treated the spaceship as the dumb building.

But I was annoyed by the way of showing the battle.
Again something happening in 3D was shown in a 2D way. It really sucked when I could see the spaceship spurting through the center of the battle and what you see? Do you see the battle chaos, rapid changes of ships positions. No, they all seem to be trapped in a jello. Hardly any ships moved in the background. Again it looked like a motorway shot when one vehicle is overtaking others. Really I was disappointed by that scene. I craved for a really ass kicking space battle. Unfortunately, no such thing in this movie.

Other thing which was shown in all parts:
Lucas shows planetary battles in a very narrow-minded way too. All of them are presented in a 19Century way. Almost all big land battle scenes remind the scenes from WWI or even more ancient times (static battle formations, static front line, individual skirmishes).
Remember the battle on the Jar Jar planet?
Battle formations looking like Roman legions using WWI cannons, only cannonballs were more sci-fi not to mention that hand weapons like catapult were used too. That was really ludicrous.
Germans during WWII fought much better and were much more mobile and inventive and showed much more battle skillfulness.
I'm waiting for a fierce reply from Heineken

[Quorthon]

Cripes, I never really thought about the poor battle dynamic! Marching forward into a spray of bullets while shooting another spray of bullets? Those were tactics that began failing the British in the 1700's when American Minutemen starting using more guerilla tactics. Yeah, that does seem a rather primitive method of war for a bunch of advanced peoples.

At least the Rebel Alliance was smart enough to use guerilla tactics... Or that may have been the other writers helping Lucas!

[spacer]

Sometimes movie blunders are made on purpose:
Found on www.usc.edu
Even in cases where accurate science could be introduced without modifying the story line, there is resistance to do anything that goes against the supposed expectations of the audience.
Chris Vogler, a former development executive at Fox 2000 and an instructor at the workshop, recounted the making of "Volcano," which shows Los Angeles on the verge of being destroyed.

Vogler says :
"I kept pointing out that lava makes bell-like sounds, but the studio would have none of it," .... "They wanted it to roar like a freight train. Volcanologists probably thought the movie was a comedy."

[Quorthon]

It occurs to me from your statement about how volcanologists likely thought Volcano was a comedy due to it's innacurracy.

As someone who grew up with a private and professional pilot in the house, I've been privy to countless incidents of innacurracy in airplanes in films. People who fly don't just make a hobby out of it--it's their whole world. So I've seen my Dad, world-class flyboy, laugh at films that even have minor mistakes about flying. Once, in an older film (don't recall which film), there was a dramatic scene of a pilot coming in to land on an aircraft carrier, but something was wrong--in the next shot, (stock footage), his plane crashed into the deck of the carrier. My Dad laughed and pointed out how those were two completely different planes in that scene.

In the old NES video game "1943" (might have been 1944), my Dad identified the airplane you play the game with as a P-38 lightning--then pointed out that they never were used on aircraft carriers--like they were in the game.

[slayrrr666]

This may be the most appropriate movie here, but a pretty big movie hole is the beginning of Jeepers Creepers 2. The corn stalks shown are not that full of corn until late Fall, and from the first movie, we know the Creeper only is able to hunt during the Spring. The corn is barely being planted in the Spring and would not be that tall when the Creeper shows up.

[Quorthon]

slayrrr666 said:

This may be the most appropriate movie here, but a pretty big movie hole is the beginning of Jeepers Creepers 2. The corn stalks shown are not that full of corn until late Fall, and from the first movie, we know the Creeper only is able to hunt during the Spring. The corn is barely being planted in the Spring and would not be that tall when the Creeper shows up.

Not only would they not be full of corn in the spring, but they'd be little more than sprouts a couple inches high. Good one!

[slayrrr666]

Thanks. Going to watch SW 3 tonight, so if I spot any more there, I'll let you guys know.

[spacer]

slayrrr666 said:

Thanks. Going to watch SW 3 tonight, so if I spot any more there, I'll let you guys know.

Good job Slayrrr, I'm waiting impatiently for your new remarks