nanook 1 #51 February 2, 2011 Don't. Get. Me. Started. On. Navy. Movies. (cough, cough, hak, hak. . .Top Gun) Shit, the only realistic move so far was "Operation Petticoat" and that was because of the ingenious ways the crew got the shit equipment to work._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tf15 0 #52 February 2, 2011 "Fighter Squadron" uses P51s as Me109s, and all the dogfight scenes are obviously shot over the California desert instead of the northern European plain. Three times is enemy action Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #53 February 2, 2011 Quote "Fighter Squadron" uses P51s as Me109s, and all the dogfight scenes are obviously shot over the California desert instead of the northern European plain. Because, you know, there were so many surplus Me109s available for shooting in 1948. Sometimes you HAVE to forgive certain realities especially when you consider that the movies really couldn't have been made with 100% accuracy. Obvious things they could have fixed, sure, sometimes that drives me nuts too, but if a film company back in the days when they actually FLEW real aircraft for film had to to use a different aircraft to represent one that simply wasn't available, I think you have to cut them some slack.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #54 February 2, 2011 Quote I'm working on a film that includes BASE in it, and it won't be accurate either. It's a MOW, so 99% of the viewers will love what they see, follow the story well, and won't care that he exits the object with one kind of rig and is in another rig during the flying portions. Skydivers and BASE jumpers will care. Ya, they'll probably hate Sanctum to.$$$ Mark Warner is the man!Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #55 February 2, 2011 QuotePfft! I know! It's like when Hamlet talks to his father's ghost! Totally unreal. Right? Not as unreal as one with Paris Hilton in it....THAT'S unreal AND a serious flaw.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #56 February 2, 2011 QuoteDon't. Get. Me. Started. On. Navy. Movies. (cough, cough, hak, hak. . .Top Gun) Shit, the only realistic move so far was "Operation Petticoat" and that was because of the ingenious ways the crew got the shit equipment to work. LOL Unauthorized flyby when the pattern is full = Time in LevenworthI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #57 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Why do actors portraying decorated soldiers in uniform wear their ribbons in the wrong order and other parts of uniform do not make sense? [/rant] This is a requirement if they want the advice/assistance of the military. The actor has to have something wrong with the uniform. Yeah, in the older movies there were painfully obvious! These days they make it as subtle as possible, and I'm always checking out Marine uniforms to see what's wrong. It can be as simple as wearing a ribbon upside down or with the wrong device. One good one was on JAG: Catherine Bell usually wore her Marine Corps insignias on her service uniform on the wrong sides (anchors facing outboard). That's correct, it has to be intentionally done. Some are more obvious than others, my theory is that it depends on if they have a good military advisor or just a costume prop person pinning what they think looks cool on the uniforms. I saw two misstatements of fact in a row and had to respond. I hope someone else already caught this, but here it is... 10 USC 771(f) allows wearing of military uniforms by actors in a theatrical production. It is not necessary to make mistakes. They may be making them intentionally, but not because of the law. I suspect they are merely incompetent. Personally, I am only offended that they do not put the effort into wearing it correctly. Within the military, it is considered disrespectful to wear it incorrectly.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #58 February 2, 2011 Although I like Will Smith as an actor, his 'soul patch' in Independence Day annoyed me. He was an Air Force fighter pilot. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned one of the more obvious things...when hit with any bullet, the recipient tends to fly backwards (sometimes lifted off their feet). Oddly, the equal and opposite reaction does not happen to the one firing the weapon. This interesting suspension of Newton's law happens in movies quite often. I also find it interesting that the shooter who could not miss throughout the movie is unable to hit the bad guy with several shots. The law on this must be related to how unimportant characters die instantly on being hit while stars survive or linger long enough to deliver a few more lines. And if you really like movies with impossible stuff...Mission Impossible 2. Too much to list.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raftman 12 #59 February 2, 2011 Top Gun is gay!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,146 #60 February 2, 2011 Excuse me. Top Gun has a great scene with lots of buff shirtless guys playing volleyball, and other scenes of buff guys in uniform, strutting. It's a fabulous movie Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FB1609 0 #61 February 2, 2011 Shawshank. I was wondering how Andy got the poster back up on the wall of his cell after crawling head first into the tunnel. If only the top was attached it would have made more sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,397 #62 February 2, 2011 Quote Excuse me. Top Gun has a great scene with lots of buff shirtless guys playing volleyball, and other scenes of buff guys in uniform, strutting. It's a fabulous movie Wendy P. Nope, it's gay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzY9a-WmE6o"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #63 February 2, 2011 QuoteAlthough I like Will Smith as an actor, his 'soul patch' in Independence Day annoyed me. He was an Air Force fighter pilot. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned one of the more obvious things...when hit with any bullet, the recipient tends to fly backwards (sometimes lifted off their feet). Oddly, the equal and opposite reaction does not happen to the one firing the weapon. This interesting suspension of Newton's law happens in movies quite often. I also find it interesting that the shooter who could not miss throughout the movie is unable to hit the bad guy with several shots. The law on this must be related to how unimportant characters die instantly on being hit while stars survive or linger long enough to deliver a few more lines. And if you really like movies with impossible stuff...Mission Impossible 2. Too much to list. Uh Negative Will Smith played Captain Steven Hiller USMC and his squadron was flying F-18's Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Herky 0 #64 February 2, 2011 Ferris Bueller complains about not having a car. But his synthesizer cost 8,000 dollars at the time.(1985). Bet that would have got a decent car back then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #65 February 2, 2011 Hey I mess with Newton's 3rd at willRecoil is greatly dissipated, all you need to do is change the direction Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
James525 0 #66 February 2, 2011 The only thing that gets me, and it happens time and again, is car chases. Some classic car or 4wd keeps pace with a ferrari. Goldeneye, Bad Boys II, I'm looking at you.My skydiving - http://unstable-exits.blogspot.com/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #67 February 2, 2011 Sometimes even a faster car cannot outrun one that is nimble and can handle to road conditions as well. That is why a rally car is so damned fast, in the conditions most roads are in, other cars cannot handle it. High speed cars are OK as long as the conditions are good. You would not want a formula 1 car on a country road with potholes or gravel. But I do agree with you. Besides, real bad guys wold allow the cops to get close and then erase the occupants in a few quick bursts through the windshield or firewall with some 7.62NATO Only in the movies do real bad guys fall prey to being rammed. The others that have training would relish the opportunity, One five gallon bucket of small metal triangular objects (forgot the name right now) will stop anyone following. So will rifle rounds passing through the car, a vest, trauma plate and then exiting the car through the rear. Moral of the story, follow and observe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skygypsie 2 #68 February 2, 2011 My cinema pet peave: Why doesn't the chick being chased by the bad guy while wearing spiked heels; going click, click, click on the pavement & on the stairs...never stop & kick them off, & save her breath, instead of screaming the entire chase ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #69 February 2, 2011 Because women need to be portrayed as helpless victims in order to please the majority of the audience. It would not be very entertaining for the vast majority of morons to see an attacker chase someone like a few of our dz.com women. They would simply drop him with a few shots to the head or chest. Then call the cops after making damn sure he isn't moving anymore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #70 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteAlthough I like Will Smith as an actor, his 'soul patch' in Independence Day annoyed me. He was an Air Force fighter pilot. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned one of the more obvious things...when hit with any bullet, the recipient tends to fly backwards (sometimes lifted off their feet). Oddly, the equal and opposite reaction does not happen to the one firing the weapon. This interesting suspension of Newton's law happens in movies quite often. I also find it interesting that the shooter who could not miss throughout the movie is unable to hit the bad guy with several shots. The law on this must be related to how unimportant characters die instantly on being hit while stars survive or linger long enough to deliver a few more lines. And if you really like movies with impossible stuff...Mission Impossible 2. Too much to list. Uh Negative Will Smith played Captain Steven Hiller USMC and his squadron was flying F-18's Woops! You're right. That makes the mistake a little worse.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouDiamond 1 #71 February 3, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Why do actors portraying decorated soldiers in uniform wear their ribbons in the wrong order and other parts of uniform do not make sense? [/rant] This is a requirement if they want the advice/assistance of the military. The actor has to have something wrong with the uniform. Yeah, in the older movies there were painfully obvious! These days they make it as subtle as possible, and I'm always checking out Marine uniforms to see what's wrong. It can be as simple as wearing a ribbon upside down or with the wrong device. One good one was on JAG: Catherine Bell usually wore her Marine Corps insignias on her service uniform on the wrong sides (anchors facing outboard). That's correct, it has to be intentionally done. Some are more obvious than others, my theory is that it depends on if they have a good military advisor or just a costume prop person pinning what they think looks cool on the uniforms. I saw two misstatements of fact in a row and had to respond. I hope someone else already caught this, but here it is... 10 USC 771(f) allows wearing of military uniforms by actors in a theatrical production. It is not necessary to make mistakes. They may be making them intentionally, but not because of the law. I suspect they are merely incompetent. Personally, I am only offended that they do not put the effort into wearing it correctly. Within the military, it is considered disrespectful to wear it incorrectly. I am not a lawyer but if you read the historical changes to 772 (not 771 as you listed) (f), you will see they changed some of the previous wording which reads/sounds to be the opposite. Which leads me to believe that this used to be true but has since changed to allow for it. Like wise if you look at the beginning of Title 10 USC 771 it reads as follows (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+452+26++%28wearing%20of%20the%20military%20uniform%29%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20): 10 USC Sec. 771 02/01/2010 -EXPCITE- TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES Subtitle A - General Military Law PART II - PERSONNEL CHAPTER 45 - THE UNIFORM -HEAD- Sec. 771. Unauthorized wearing prohibited -STATUTE- Except as otherwise provided by law, no person except a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, as the case may be, may wear - (1) the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform, of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps; or (2) a uniform any part of which is similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps. -SOURCE- (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 34.) -MISC1- HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES -------------------------------------------------------------------- Revised Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at section Large) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 771 10:1393 (1st par., less June 3, 1916, ch. 134, provisos). Sec. 125 (1st par., less provisos), 39 Stat. 216. -------------------------------------------------------------------- The words "Except as otherwise provided by law" are inserted to give effect to exceptions in other revised sections of this title and to provisions of other laws giving such organizations as the Coast and Geodetic Survey and the Public Health Service permission to wear military uniforms under certain conditions. Because there is this contradiction and a noted change, I am going to say that 772 (f) is probably correct but I know there is more info out there and this may not be entirely correct."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #72 February 3, 2011 I pulled the citation from a US Supreme Court case.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skygypsie 2 #73 February 3, 2011 Quote Because women need to be portrayed as helpless victims in order to please the majority of the audience. It would not be very entertaining for the vast majority of morons to see an attacker chase someone like a few of our dz.com women. They would simply drop him with a few shots to the head or chest. Then call the cops after making damn sure he isn't moving anymore. --------------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skygypsie 2 #74 February 5, 2011 Quote Because women need to be portrayed as helpless victims in order to please the majority of the audience. It would not be very entertaining for the vast majority of morons to see an attacker chase someone like a few of our dz.com women. They would simply drop him with a few shots to the head or chest. Then call the cops after making damn sure he isn't moving anymore. That's exactly why I've always worked & played in a male dominated arena ( i.e. drywall hangar, finisher for 15 years, only female to bid on working the docks & airlines as a USPS clerk in Anchorage, hunt, fish, hunter safety qualified, pretty accurate with a 708 ( 7mm), & most pistols, ride a Harley with the best of them, & can pack circles around the youngest of male colleagues ). I despise the 'damsel in distress syndrome' & can get pretty ugly with a female's ongoing screams after her 1st tandem, especially while packing my ass off, & have; & always will, pay my own way ! Guys make for my best friends & I'm not very tolerant of most, in the female human species...I'm just saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #75 February 5, 2011 Today, I caught the last 30 minutes of the movie Redeye on tv. The female lead was not surprisingly athletic and did not have special martial arts training. Typical attractive victim. However, she took things into her own hands and saved the day. She overcame the villain and fought back in a manner that a normal person would, with weapons of convenience. Not a bad change. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
