They Just Didn't Care! Movie Mistakes

[kateln]

Jan 31, 2010 0:08:55 GMT -4 angelaudie said:

Ok, so my mom and I recently watched Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves on blu-ray yesterday. Now, as I stated in the unpopular movie opinions thread I do enjoy this movie even though I probably shouldn't. But OMG! It is screw ups galore! It's obvious the writers and producers never bothered to crack up a history book or learn anything about what life was like in that time!

Let's start with the obvious. Robin is born and raised in England yet he has an American accent. Same thing with Will Scarlet. Was a dialect coach too expensive to hire?

Nottingham makes a big deal out of needing to marry Marian because she's the king's cousin and if he's married to her he can overthrow Richard and become king. Ummm, writers? Remember a guy named Prince John? He's mentioned many times in Robin Hood tales. He was also Richard's younger brother and next in line to the throne. He signed a document called the Magna Carta. REMEMBER HIM?! I have a feeling if Nottingham strolled in and was all, "Hey, I married Marian so I'm the king now!" John would have been "Oh hell to the no! If anyone in this room is going to overthrow Richard it's going to be me! You know the guy next in line to the throne!"

Ok, Hollywood I get portraying Celts as barbarians that do not take baths, are all hairy, painted blue, and practicing paganism is much more fun but by the 12th century we were taking baths, stopped paining ourselves blue, and were even learning about this dude named Jesus.

Azeem is an amazing guy. Somehow he is managed to bring a telescope to England even though it wasn't invented yet! Though I kinda let this one slide since I think it was supposed to demonstrate the Islamic world was more advanced than the so-called learned Christians.

After Robin makes a big speech about fighting Nottingham they have this sequence showing the peasants making weapons. The first thing you see in this sequence is them making metal arrowheads. I have a feeling ores just isn't that easy to find in Sherwood Forest and even if they did stumble upon some it's not easy to get the metal out! A fire (yellow flames no less!) isn't going to do it. Also, I don't think they nylon string for the bows had been invented yet!

There are many more but these are the ones that jump to mind right off hand.

Stuff like this? Is why I watch the movie in fast forward. If Alan Rickman is on screen, I stop--enjoy the scene, root for him to win, and then fast forward again when he's not there.

[sumire]

When RH:PoT came out, I remember watching a making-of promo special on TV, and they were very self-congratulatory about their attention to historical accuracy--to wit, the filmmakers learned that in that time period, cows in England were much smaller than they are today, so they put out a call for short cows.

I can never get my post-office box combination lock to work on the first try, yet I still have this rattling around in my head? FML, as the young people say.

[Deleted]

Jan 31, 2010 0:08:55 GMT -4 angelaudie said:

Ok, so my mom and I recently watched Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves on blu-ray yesterday. Now, as I stated in the unpopular movie opinions thread I do enjoy this movie even though I probably shouldn't. But OMG! It is screw ups galore! It's obvious the writers and producers never bothered to crack up a history book or learn anything about what life was like in that time!

Let's start with the obvious. Robin is born and raised in England yet he has an American accent. Same thing with Will Scarlet. Was a dialect coach too expensive to hire?

While the accents in the movie are inconsistent, none of the accents would be what English people from that era sounded like. Early Medieval Britons did not sound like Alan Rickman. Linguists have been arguing for years about what they did sound like (someone speaking Old English probably sounded a bit Dutch or German) but they're all in agreement that the posh, RP, or Oxbridgian accents didn't develop in England until the late 18th or early 19th century. Some American accents, like the New England Pepperidge Faaahm bray and the Hootin' Holler hillbilly accent are believed to be holdovers from English accents circa the colonial era.

So Kevin Costner's accent actually makes as much historical sense as anyone else's in that film.

[angelaudie]

When RH:PoT came out, I remember watching a making-of promo special on TV, and they were very self-congratulatory about their attention to historical accuracy--to wit, the filmmakers learned that in that time period, cows in England were much smaller than they are today, so they put out a call for short cows.

OMG! I think that special is on the blu-ray! The extra is titled something along the lines of "History of Robin Hood" and since I'm a geek about these things I decided to watch it. It was basically, "Ummm yeah Robin Hood may have existed. There's a John Little buried in England and Marian probably didn't exist. And let us tell you just how wonderfully we recreated history..." I couldn't finish it because they filmmakers were giving themselves such a tongue bath. Though it did provide me a laugh when the director declared what a devoted family man Costner was. Seriously, dude the tabs had been reporting his womanizing for years by then!

While the accents in the movie are inconsistent, none of the accents would be what English people from that era sounded like. Early Medieval Britons did not sound like Alan Rickman. Linguists have been arguing for years about what they did sound like (someone speaking Old English probably sounded a bit Dutch or German) but they're all in agreement that the posh, RP, or Oxbridgian accents didn't develop in England until the late 18th or early 19th century. Some American accents, like the New England Pepperidge Faaahm bray and the Hootin' Holler hillbilly accent are believed to be holdovers from English accents circa the colonial era.

I think that's comparing apples to oranges. Yeah, I doubt anyone from that period spoke with modern day accents but I'm not going to hold it against the actors for not having time machines to go back and learn the accent of the period (especially in a case where linguists can't even agree what the accent of the time was). If we did that we would be slamming practically every period production ever made. I do think, however, I can slam an actor for being too lazy to at least learn how to the modern British accent to blend in with the rest of the actors and not leave the audience thinking, "Wait a minute. I thought Robin was from England!" I especially think the actor is asking for it when the producers are bragging they paid such close to attention to detail they demanded small cows.

[Deleted]

I think the issue with Costner was that he started out doing an English accent but it was so bad that the director insisted he stop. Regardless, it's one of those so bad it's good movies for me so I love it. Any movie with Alan Rickman camping it up plus Michael McShane doing his best drunk friar is alright by me.

[smockery]

Feb 1, 2010 1:19:36 GMT -4 sumire said:

When RH:PoT came out, I remember watching a making-of promo special on TV, and they were very self-congratulatory about their attention to historical accuracy--to wit, the filmmakers learned that in that time period, cows in England were much smaller than they are today, so they put out a call for short cows.

I can never get my post-office box combination lock to work on the first try, yet I still have this rattling around in my head? FML, as the young people say.

I just want to know if the filmmakers also learned that the people were quite short then as well? Why not put out a call for short actors as well if they're going for accuracy? Short answer, because they really weren't.

[Mugsy]

Well, if they had all short actors, how could you tell that the cows are extra short?

I like RH:POT and have always thought of it as a dramatic comedy. The historical accuracy, including Rickman's "And cancel Christmas!", is irrelevant to enjoying a silly movie. It does make life more fun.

What gets me about many of the afore-mentioned errors, especially in serious and big budget movies, is that this is their job. They have all day and oodles of money and still make glaring errors.

Geez, I've been a director of school plays (volunteer), working with children and a ten-dollar budget and made sure details were consistent. When someone would roll their eyes and whine, "Who cares?" I'd just say, "Someone will notice." Surely, someone getting paid millions and doing it as their job could be equally as careful.

[Mugsy]

Double post, but it's been over a week.

I watched Wedding Crashers the other day (what? I like it) and two things occurred to me:
Minor thing - Vince Vaughn and Isla Fisher have sex on the beach during the wedding reception and miss the toasts/speeches. I've been to many weddings and there is not a chance in hell that the sister of the bride, who is also a bridesmaid, would be allowed to be absent for this. Yes, I know she's the flaky one but still. Why not have their sex romp during the casual part of the reception?

Major thing - The crashers' story is that they're "Uncle Ned's boys" as to why they're at the wedding. Wouldn't that make them related to the women they pursue? Sure, it might work for a wedding where they pick up some random guest, but why claim to be a relative and then go after the bride's sisters? Isn't that like trying to pick up your cousin? And if the guys didn't think that through, you'd think the women would at least have thought, "Oh, well, I guess you're my second cousin then."

[susyhomewrecker]

Well, you have to suspend disbelief enough to think that the bride's family wouldn't notice that they don't even have an Uncle Ned, but I guess they could have thought that Uncle Ned was Aunt So-and-So's husband and the guys were his sons from a previous marriage.

Independence Day is a great movie for really obvious errors. Some of the characters' outfits change in the middle of scenes (between close-ups and wide shots).

[bklynred]

There was a pretty obvious one in Shutter Island (no spoilers): DiCaprio's character is interviewing a female patient at the hospital they're at, She drinks some water, and to my eye,the glass she drains in one gulp is mysteriously refilled later in the same scene. Even stranger, the cup itself seems to switch between glass and plastic.