War movie editing errors

[Effingham]

I dunno. Probably because I'm one of the .1% that notices and I figure if you're going to go that far into detail on something, might as well go the whole nine yards.

This is my argument with so many things in movies.

If you're gonna make over the top sets and costumes -- why NOT try to make them right? It's not going to cost MORE to make them look proper, and (especially if you're doing a historical piece) you will avoid the risk of alienating a major market -- people who KNOW and care about that period.

I'm looking at YOU, Tudors, and Elizabeth, and Kingdom of Heaven....

 

[Atomic Age]

This is my argument with so many things in movies.

If you're gonna make over the top sets and costumes -- why NOT try to make them right? It's not going to cost MORE to make them look proper, and (especially if you're doing a historical piece) you will avoid the risk of alienating a major market -- people who KNOW and care about that period.

I'm looking at YOU, Tudors, and Elizabeth, and Kingdom of Heaven....

But you see thats just it, it DOES cost more, and the people who know AREN'T a major market. They may represent $100,000 at the box office for a movie that has to make $200 million.

There is a famous story about David O. Selznick. On Gone with the Wind, one of the actresses thought was crazy that they were using real silk petty coats under the dresses. She thought they could get the same effect with cotton, so she asked Selznick why use silk when no one will know the difference. He replied, "You will know". Now of course thats a great story, but its also the reason that Selznick was always on the verge of bankruptcy.

The point being if you put that kind of attention to detail in to EVERYTHING, you end up making the most expensive movie ever made. Movies already cost too much to make. You just can't put that much time and money into something that only a tiny fraction of your audience is going to notice.

Doug

 

[Wally_Hood]

But you see thats just it, it DOES cost more, and the people who know AREN'T a major market. They may represent $100,000 at the box office for a movie that has to make $200 million.

There is a famous story about David O. Selznick. On Gone with the Wind, one of the actresses thought was crazy that they were using real silk petty coats under the dresses. She thought they could get the same effect with cotton, so she asked Selznick why use silk when no one will know the difference. He replied, "You will know". Now of course thats a great story, but its also the reason that Selznick was always on the verge of bankruptcy.

The point being if you put that kind of attention to detail in to EVERYTHING, you end up making the most expensive movie ever made. Movies already cost too much to make. You just can't put that much time and money into something that only a tiny fraction of your audience is going to notice.

Doug

Well put, sir.

I went to an auction in the early seventies at a movie studio that was unloading costumes, props, etc. My buddy and I found some fringed shirts that looked like the stuff worn in Northwest Passage. It was not leather or even a heavy duty fabric, but something akin to felt or cotton. Additionally, we saw a belt with a pouch, sort of reminescent of Civil War military gear; it was a block of wood painted black with a fabric flap attached. I think the button was glued on. If your going to produce a couple hundred of these things, and the extras wearing it aren't going to be in close-up, you forsake historical accuracy for the most economical approximation.

 

[Effingham]

That's not the kind of thing I mean. The BBC is famous for penny-pinchingly doing magic. The ermine in "The Six Wives of Henry VIII" and "Elizabeth R", for example, was white rabbit with bits dipped in black ink to imitate the ermine tails. See, *they* are trying. But when the characters in "Kingdom of Heaven" wear PANTS and boots and short tunics, instead of the proper longer tunics and hosen, (which wouldn't have cost more) it detracts appeal from those who KNOW, and who would probably want to see the film several times and buy the DVD.

It's the visual equivalent (to those who know) of having both sides in a WW2 desert movie use the same Vietnam-war-era tanks with different paint jobs, or of putting all your civil war film soldiers in blue suits (easier on the costumer) or making a WW1 flyboy movie and putting all the Germans into the Red Baron's Fokker DR1 so the idiots will all recognize them as German. It doesn't really help, and it annoys the people who would otherwise be the most vocal supporters of a cool product.

And, after all, that is what this thread is about...

 

[Atomic Age]

That's not the kind of thing I mean. The BBC is famous for penny-pinchingly doing magic. The ermine in "The Six Wives of Henry VIII" and "Elizabeth R", for example, was white rabbit with bits dipped in black ink to imitate the ermine tails. See, *they* are trying. But when the characters in "Kingdom of Heaven" wear PANTS and boots and short tunics, instead of the proper longer tunics and hosen, (which wouldn't have cost more) it detracts appeal from those who KNOW, and who would probably want to see the film several times and buy the DVD.

It's the visual equivalent (to those who know) of having both sides in a WW2 desert movie use the same Vietnam-war-era tanks with different paint jobs, or of putting all your civil war film soldiers in blue suits (easier on the costumer) or making a WW1 flyboy movie and putting all the Germans into the Red Baron's Fokker DR1 so the idiots will all recognize them as German. It doesn't really help, and it annoys the people who would otherwise be the most vocal supporters of a cool product.

And, after all, that is what this thread is about...

Yes but in the case of Kingdom of Heaven, they are going more with modern taste than historical accuracy. They know full well what they are doing isn't correct, but are doing it because they think the correct version will be thought to look silly by a modern audience, and they are probably right. They put men in hosen and the majority of your 18 to 35 audience will laugh and not come to see the movie a second time, which is where movies REALLY make their money, second and third viewings.

Honestly the arm chair historians are NOT the audience that filmmakers are going for when they make a major motion picture. They don't make any money off of them. Unfortunately this is a side effect of the fact that the average movie now costs about $68 million dollars. They have to get the widest audience possible.

Doug

 

[Phantomfixer]

And, after all, that is what this thread is about...[/QUOTE]

Actually the thread was more about editing erros than budget constraits. The two are connected, without arguement. But it is easier to rectify a .45 slide locked back and still shooting than it is to muster a squadron of Mitchell bombers. In my original post I used the example of a jeep with a vacuum wiper system in one scene. The same scene but different view showed the driver in a jeep with the manual wiper system. That is more the way I was leaning on this thread, Not really to get into a debate on originality of equipment used. Just make sure it is the same equipment in each scene. Going from a B-24 to a B-25 then to a C-130 makes no sense. But if all you have is B-24 footage then stick to it.

 

[John in Covina]

Possible that some of the errors occur because shots needed are not noted until filming is done is editing is underway. That's when in editing they fill in with the wrong stuff.

 

[Monsoon]

errors

Going from a B-24 to a B-25 then to a C-130 makes no sense. But if all you have is B-24 footage then stick to it.

You mean in "Midway", where you see a Corsair dive, a Vindicator drop the bomb, and a Corsair pull out?

 

[HodgePodge]

One I notice - or maybe intentionally look for - is when they decide to take a close-up of a belt-fed MG in action, from the front, and you can clearly see that the belt is loaded with blanks.

In general, I just don't watch the "classic" war movies on account of how corny they seem compared to the big budget effects of today. Then again, John Woo's "Wind Talkers" had big budget effects, but the way they used them made it cheesier than a gun battle from "The Dirty Dozen."

 

[Effingham]

Well, in that case, how about the opening titles of the old Six Million Dollar Man series? They show the launch of the HL-10 lifting body from the undercarriage of a bomber, but the crash of the M2F2 (one has two wings, one has three).

 

[Atomic Age]

I'm not trying to be an apologist for the filmmakers, however I am one so I see this from the perspective of the film makers. It is rarely a case of the film maker wanting to to present something wrong, but rather more often than not they simply don't have a choice. Often the film makers have to resort to using stock footage. The script, and or history, may call for a plane to crash. You may have a great flying shot of one plane, and great crash footage of another, but not both. Well at that point you have to use the mix and hope that most people don't notice. When you are shooting your WW2 epic in Spain (Patton) and the Spanish government is cooperating with you, you have to use the tanks they provide, even if they are circa late 50's rather than early 40's.

As I said I'm not saying that its not fun to point these things out, but the idea that they should, "just get it right" is often just not possible with the conditions under which a particular film was made. Even a film with the huge budget of Pearl Harbor has limitations on what they can do. Yes there are modern cruisers in the attack sequence, but its not like they could go out and build a fleet of reproduction late 1930's cruisers and destroyers. And doing that entire sequence as CGI would have been vastly too expensive. Having said that, I'm not going to defend Pearl Harbor for just being a bad movie!

Doug

 

[Atomic Age]

One I notice - or maybe intentionally look for - is when they decide to take a close-up of a belt-fed MG in action, from the front, and you can clearly see that the belt is loaded with blanks.

In general, I just don't watch the "classic" war movies on account of how corny they seem compared to the big budget effects of today. Then again, John Woo's "Wind Talkers" had big budget effects, but the way they used them made it cheesier than a gun battle from "The Dirty Dozen."

Of course, and possibly unfortunately, you can't shoot real bullets at your actors, as much as you might want to!

Doug

 

[Phantomfixer]

You mean in "Midway", where you see a Corsair dive, a Vindicator drop the bomb, and a Corsair pull out?

you got it!

 

[Spitfire]

No one has mentioned Pearl Harbor.

Isn't it because this whole movie was one big error?

 

[Shangas]

Pearl Harbor had so many errors. If not for the awesome harbor sequence I wouldn't watch it at all.

I hated how they butchered the "Infamy" speech.

 

[Treetopflyer]

In the movie Tuskegee Airmen, there is a scene when a group of P-51s’ are lined up in a field off in the distance and you can tell that they are plywood cut outs.

 

[Treetopflyer]

I agree that PH was “off the mark” so to speak, but after all it is a movie and not a documentary. They used CGI in so many of the scenes that you would think that they would use the period correct ships in those scenes. As I have pointed out, they CGI a modern carrier battle group. Why not CGI a WWII carrier battle group?
I also agree that Midway was terrible for editing. You can tell they simply used stock footage from Tora, Tora, Tora. They did however film it on the USS Lexington, a WWII ship.

 

[1961MJS]

Of course, and possibly unfortunately, you can't shoot real bullets at your actors, as much as you might want to!

Doug

Hi Doug

According to James Cagney's biography, they used to shoot real bullets close to the actor's. It "added realism". Honey, did we remember to send the stuntman with the Tommy gun a Xmas card?

Gives all new meaning to the term friends don't it?

 

[Atomic Age]

Hi Doug

According to James Cagney's biography, they used to shoot real bullets close to the actor's. It "added realism". Honey, did we remember to send the stuntman with the Tommy gun a Xmas card?

Gives all new meaning to the term friends don't it?

They used to use trip wires on horses too. You can't get away with that these days either. While I'm opposed to trip wires, I think live fire at some actors would be good for them. Turn them from nancy boys in to men. Its no wonder we have to go to places like Australia these days to find leading men. Most American actors these days are these sissified pretty boys.

Doug

 

[hatophile]

When you think about it, movies and stage productions are just a form of elaborate playacting, which is a suspension of reality. Hundreds of years ago, they even had men play women's parts because women weren't allowed to be actors. (I would not like to have been in those kissing scenes). As much as I would like to see more reality in historical war films, I realize that because of many of the reasons Atomic Age mentioned, total reproduction of
all types of aircraft and armory is downright impossible.

However, more importantly, I would like to see a more faithful recreation of the stories and facts behind them. This is commonly overlooked in many historical films from the Middle Ages to recent times.