When they just get it wrong historically. (1 Viewer)

[MatthewA]

Pete from Pete's Dragon had the same hairdo Ann Romano did on One Day at a Time. I didn't know 1900s Maine had that in common with 1970s Indianapolis! Likewise, Julie Christie's bouffant in Doctor Zhivago made her look like a Russian version of Dusty Springfield.

If I do isolate a couple of things that grate on me, I'll have to mention films of recent decades that try to recreate the 1950s/60s/70s. They drive me a bit batty, because they'll take place in a certain year, and the set-decoration for backdrops will always be so overdone. Like everything in sight, from home interiors to office spaces to diners, will always be cutting-edge from that specific year, stylistically speaking. Reality, as I always experienced it, was always more of a composite of past and present... more mixture, more mundane. Hence, when I run across these modern films depicting those earlier eras, I find them too distractingly cartoonish to take seriously. Like a baby-boomer fever dream. They become strangely irritating and unpalatable to me.

I've noticed this in movies and on TV, too. When I was a child in the 1980s, there was still some holdover from the 1970s and even the late 1960s in terms of home and office decor, clothing, and hair styles both on TV and in real-life. You never see this in movies or TV shows that depict the era in hindsight. Even when the styles we typically associate with "The Eighties" (i.e. making everything look like a teenage girl's Trapper Keeper with Lisa Frank stickers and "Mrs. [insert teen idol du jour here]" all over it) were in full swing, this was the case. We had a lime green refrigerator and stove until we moved to a new house in 1987, where the first thing Mom did was have it remodeled to redo the hideously ugly wallpaper and floor. And she didn't stop there; that house has had more work done to it than Cher, Joan Rivers, and Phyllis Diller put together!

Another thing that I've noticed is that everyone has a new car, and almost no one drives a vintage car or a beat-up rust bucket.

 

[Tony Bensley]

In general, minor historical inaccuracies never bothered me too much, although I'm quite apt to notice them, often with amusement. I think it's because I never quite 'buy into' period pieces as historical records, no matter how hard they try. I'm always observing films from the perspective in which they reflect the era in which they were produced, as opposed to what they are depicting. That's always at the forefront of my mind, along with the necessary suspension of disbelief to enjoy the proceedings. Westerns, costume dramas, period pieces... I love them to death, but I just never really equate them to historical reality. It's all fantasy-hokum to me, so little flubs generally don't get under my skin. On the other hand, I admit things like "Happy Days" or "MASH" were so blatantly ludicrous to me in their presentation of the past that I could never even remotely view them in those terms.

If I do isolate a couple of things that grate on me, I'll have to mention films of recent decades that try to recreate the 1950s/60s/70s. They drive me a bit batty, because they'll take place in a certain year, and the set-decoration for backdrops will always be so overdone. Like everything in sight, from home interiors to office spaces to diners, will always be cutting-edge from that specific year, stylistically speaking. Reality, as I always experienced it, was always more of a composite of past and present... more mixture, more mundane. Hence, when I run across these modern films depicting those earlier eras, I find them too distractingly cartoonish to take seriously. Like a baby-boomer fever dream. They become strangely irritating and unpalatable to me.

In a slightly related way, I also occasionally have a problem with modern actors in pre-1950s period stories, who invariably bring with them certain elements of contemporary comportment that seem jarringly out-of-place. Much of this has its origins in clothing, but due to vintage fashions from mens' vest/suits and ladies' foundations, people back then had a different gait, a different stand. Modern actors might be accurately fitted for clothing for a vintage time-period, but they still have a kind of hang-dog slouch, and even certain facial expressions more indicative of that postmodern 'detached irony' look. It bugs me when I see this. Eh, I know few people probably even notice such things, as this is the everyday soup we live in, but for me it can actually undercut a lot of those otherwise solid efforts filmmakers go to while trying to recreate a past era.

I believe this is referred to as being too on the nose.

When George Lucas worked on AMERICAN GRAFFITI (1973), his main goal was to make sure of no post "Summer of '62" references. Anything predating that era was fair game for inclusion (IE. Music, Automobiles.), which in my opinion, lends itself to a more realistic depiction.

CHEERS!

 

[Bryan^H]

Modern-period food/beverage containers bugged me often (particularly in That '70s Show). If they can't get those sorts of things right, I'd rather they have their stuff in a bowl. Seeing a modern Funyuns bag, for instance, really takes me right out of the show.

Of course, back in the day, the generic food packages (where a brand name was covered up/altered slightly) used to annoy me, too. I figured better not to show it at all!

I'd give a hundred likes to this if I could. A pet peeve of mine.

Whenever I see a plastic squeezable Heinz ketchup bottle in a show trying to replicate the 70's(only glass bottles), I'm immediately taken out of the show, likewise with modern slang used 40 years ago. I'm sure there are prop houses that specialize in "authentic" looking containers from that time period, why don't they use them?

 

[MartinP.]

^^^

You, and others, are assuming there is money to be thrown at every inaccuracy one has noticed.

I just read all the posts so far and I have to say, in reference to a lot of the things mentioned up to now -- you know who doesn't get a lot of the money that goes into making TV series and many movies? The set decorators and art directors. I know some people who have worked in those areas and they do what they can with the budgets they're given. In the case of TV series, you're not given a lot of time to prepare for each episode and couple that with lack of a decent budget, then things won't always be 100% accurate and especially for repeated viewings. Nowadays if there's a piece of art or painting or the like on a set it has to be run through a "can we use it or show it or whatever" process, so as not to incur lawsuits. It ain't easy.

Also, many things we might notice as mistakes are because we are really familiar with the subject, place or period in question than most people would be generally. I remember Tommy LaSorda saying he hates baseball movies because you can tell the actors aren't really baseball players. I'm sure that's true for him. He's lived it. He looks for things or notices things the rest of us wouldn't, just as the poster who talked about the guy who knows everything about war machinery. I notice some things occasionally from films and tv series because I'm really familiar with Los Angeles. I remember a TV movie set in the early 50's that showed the exterior of Grauman's Chinese Theatre and the Walk of Fame stars were visible, not in your face visible, but I noticed it. They didn't begin to be installed until around 1960. I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't notice this. So, the production didn't need to spend money covering them up. Of course, they can do things like that with computers now, though I have no idea of the cost of doing that.

P.S.: Remember the movie Krakatoa: East of Java. (It's west.)

 

[MatthewA]

^^^
P.S.: Remember the movie Krakatoa: East of Java. (It's west.)

They took the scenic route.

 

[Malcolm R]

I'm more apt to notice poor writing or illogical actions in scenes, rather than any historical inaccuracies with props or costumes. I doubt I'd even notice a plastic vs. glass ketchup bottle.

 

[Blimpoy06]

If you ever listened to the audio commentary from the first Criterion laserdisc of Dr. No, film editor Peter Hunt points out several items on screen that don't match or logically belong. He makes a specific point of an insert of a speedometer in a car that doesn't match the interior. He's says that his job is to make you notice the speed, not the color. Compromises like this are made all the time by film makers.

If I'm invested in the story, I don't notice the anachronisms of the production. I do notice when there is too much effort in the details of the period, as I mentioned earlier about Mad Men. It looks as artificial as the ads they are creating. When I recently watched the credits of The FBI from 1965, there are several cars from the 50's on the road as well. Everyone isn't driving a new car.

 

[MartinP.]

I do notice when there is too much effort in the details of the period, as I mentioned earlier about Mad Men. It looks as artificial as the ads they are creating.

That just might be the point. Part of the enjoyment of Mad Men is exactly the effort put in to the details of the series. Frankly, b&w isn't realistic if you want to get right down to it, but no one is going to dismiss all b&w films for looking artificial are they?

Too much? Not enough? I don't know, I have no problem with Mad Men, though. I think a lot of films and TV series right now look artificial and don't look realistic, always filming everything in dark blues & grays or browns and yellows. Compare the look of the film someone mentioned earlier, The Battle of the Bulge, with the recent WWII film Fury, for example, Compare The TIme Tunnel to Timeless. Some of this is only our own particular preferences.

 

[The Obsolete Man]

^^^


Also, many things we might notice as mistakes are because we are really familiar with the subject, place or period in question than most people would be generally.

That's exactly what it is.

I know comic books, I know music (to a degree), historical inaccuracies in those areas would stand out to me.

But I don't know a damn thing about when Heinz switched to plastic bottles (for example), so I don't notice. Maybe I could tell you if a show in the 70s was using a 1990s Pepsi can, though.

And as you said, they only have so much of a budget to get things right, and 95% of the audience won't notice. But it gives us other 5% something to do, so what the hell, eh?

That is one good thing about The Goldbergs, though. They firmly set it in 1980-something, and it's clearly a pastiche of the decade instead of tying themselves down to one year. So you can have the Carter/Reagan election and Ghostbusters II side by side in an episode and it doesn't matter, because the years all blur together and it's just remembered as 1980something.

 

[RobertR]

I think when Happy Days started to be filmed in front of a live studio audience is when it really began abandon most of its historical accuracy. Granted, it was never all that period correct from the beginning, but at least in the first couple of years it was trying to look 50s. Once Arnold's burned down, just about all historical detail went out the window. I would have to say that somewhere in 1979 or early 1980 the show finally thew the history book in the trash for good.

Not only did they dump any pretense of historical accuracy, they essentially dumped any pretense that the show was even about the 50s.

 

[MishaLauenstein]

When I recently watched the credits of The FBI from 1965, there are several cars from the 50's on the road as well. Everyone isn't driving a new car.

Watching 77 Sunset Strip I am constantly shocked by how old the cars look, even into the early mid-sixties episodes. Like "Adventures of Superman" old -- what I think of as holdovers from 1940s style.

 

[Sky King]

Not only did they dump any pretense of historical accuracy, they essentially dumped any pretense that the show was even about the 50s.

Happy Days did try initially, to capture the early 60's era. However as the seasons progressed, the male actors grew their hair longer matching the current 70's hairstyle and with the plots getting sillier, I stopped watching after season 2.
Also...if you look at the 1956 Thunderbird In American Graffiti, it was fitted with side marker lights which were popular in the 70's and not available when this movie was supposed to take place...1962.

 

[AndrewCrossett]

Watching "That 70's Show" (and the short-lived "That 80's Show") was as cringe-worthy for me as watching "Happy Days" was for my parents.

Another one is when you watch older science fiction shows, supposedly set hundreds of years in the future, and the tech is already light years behind what we have today. Like the original Star Trek... you would think a society capable of interstellar travel and teleportation would have digital readouts on their computers, instead of spinning mechanical number wheels.

They did get cell phones more or less right, though.

 

[Regulus]

There a lot of science-fiction TV Shows and movies that predicted things happening that we now take for granted.

Here are a few of them.

Star Trek:

Floppy Disks

CD-ROM/DVD

"Stealth" Technology

Cell Phones

Thunderbirds:

Senior Citizen Scooters

Tunnel-Boring Machines

Laptop Computers

Lost In Space:

Internet Marketing

How many things have you noticed that are no longer science-fiction

Post away my friends!

 

[BobO'Link]

Another one is when you watch older science fiction shows, supposedly set hundreds of years in the future, and the tech is already light years behind what we have today. Like the original Star Trek... you would think a society capable of interstellar travel and teleportation would have digital readouts on their computers, instead of spinning mechanical number wheels.

They did get cell phones more or less right, though.

Star Trek invented quite a lot of today's technology. There were no digital readouts on computers, or even consumer electronics, in the late 60s. LEDs were introduced in ~1968 and were very rudimentary, usually requiring a plastic lens above them to be read. Most computers were punch card types and few had a CRT attached. If there was a display at all it would typically be a series of LEDs or lights indicating a condition of some type, not text. The onboard computer with the data chip/cartridge inspired floppy discs. The first flip-phone was designed that way because of the Star Trek communicator. The Tricorder has inspired dozens of medical and scientific scanning devices.

 

[The Obsolete Man]

Star Trek invented quite a lot of today's technology. There were no digital readouts on computers, or even consumer electronics, in the late 60s. LEDs were introduced in ~1968 and were very rudimentary, usually requiring a plastic lens above them to be read. Most computers were punch card types and few had a CRT attached. If there was a display at all it would typically be a series of LEDs or lights indicating a condition of some type, not text. The onboard computer with the data chip/cartridge inspired floppy discs. The first flip-phone was designed that way because of the Star Trek communicator. The Tricorder has inspired dozens of medical and scientific scanning devices.

Before I bought the big piece of glass iphone (which, BTW, had to be a TNG inspired thing... it's basically a PADD!), I was always disappointed I could never find a flip phone that was easily and casually flipped open like Kirk's communicator.

 

[BobO'Link]

Before I bought the big piece of glass iphone (which, BTW, had to be a TNG inspired thing... it's basically a PADD!), I was always disappointed I could never find a flip phone that was easily and casually flipped open like Kirk's communicator.

I had one that came close. It had a button on the hinge you could press as you pulled it out/off of the holster causing it to open as you brought it up. Very nice... was a work phone and some people complained they couldn't hear with it (they couldn't grasp the speaker was at the very top of the display and would put the display against their ear rather than just the top part at the ear canal - of course you can't hear well if you hold it that way!!!) so they were all replaced with a model you have to thumb open. Same sort of speaker placement but suddenly they could hear the other person! I wanted to keep mine but was told "No... it's an exchange with the phone company and they said all or none."

 

[jcroy]

That's exactly what it is.

I know comic books, I know music (to a degree), historical inaccuracies in those areas would stand out to me.

In my situation, I have the worst of both worlds.

My main interest is in scifi type stuff, and I have some in-depth knowledge of the hard sciences (and engineering to a lesser extent).

A lot of things I notice immediately in scifi shows/movies (and books), is the type of stuff which many other folks either "let it slide" or are in complete ignorance.

 

[Ethan Riley]

Star Trek TOS had women in the future wearing 1960s bouffant hairstyles, eye liner, short skirts and go go boots.

 

[BobO'Link]

Star Trek TOS had women in the future wearing 1960s bouffant hairstyles, eye liner, short skirts and go go boots.

That's called "Retro."

 

[Malcolm R]

Star Trek TOS had women in the future wearing 1960s bouffant hairstyles, eye liner, short skirts and go go boots.

Fashion is cyclical. Who's to say that's not going to be accurate.