It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Military mistakes in movies

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:38 AM
link   
How many of you cringe when you see a movie screw up on a military scene or when portraying a piece of military hardware? I'm talking either an outright mistake or just general cheesiness. Almost every movie coming out of Hollywood is ridiculous when it comes to portraying the military. A couple of examples:

1. The F-18 Hornets in "Independence Day" with "U.S. Air Force" painted on the noses. Why?

2. The F-35 scene in "Die Hard with a Vengeance" was painful to watch. That thing was maneuvering like some kind of alien spacecraft. Very similar to the Harrier scene in "True Lies". Apparantly, you can stand up in the cockpit of a Harrier while in a hover, take your hands and feet off of the controls, and duel terrorists all at the same time.

3. The entire "Iron Eagle" series. Just bad.

4. Any movie where the hero is running from a hundred or so Russian troops, all firing automatic weapons at him and hitting everything BUT him. Are we to believe that the hero is just THAT good or that Russian troops don't EVER set foot on a rifle range? Cheesy.

Most of the ones I mentioned deal with aircraft but there are others. Respond with your favorite screw ups from movies. Also, feel free to respond with instances that you think they did it right. I can't think of many myself.


Did I mention that my friends hate going to see military movies with me?

[edit on 26-8-2007 by Vanguard223]




posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   
1)Standard Nato 30 round 5.56mm magazines that follow the principles of the TARDIS. That is they must be bigger on the inside because they just fired off a S**tload more than 30 rounds!
2) M203 grenade launchers that can fire additional rounds simply by pumping the breach open and closed shotgun style without actually placing a fresh round in.

3) A2A and S2A missiles, that have sustainer motors that continue to fire long after they should have burnt out, and the missile somehow manouvres without loosing energy. For example that movie where Owen Wilson gets shot down in a Rhino over Bosnia. Now that movie was a larf.


4)Hand grenades that somehow have increased burn time when thrown at a hero, but blow up bad guys right on time.

5) Recoil, or a complete lack of it. Any one who has ever tried firing a 7.62mm rifle on full auto knows what I mean.

As for movies that got a reasonable amount right. Blackhawk Down managed quite a few accurate scenes. The scene where an RPG slams into a wall and the soldier looses his hearing and youy can only hear ringing is true enough. Although no movie I have ever seen portrays just how deafening and painful on the ears it can be.

LEE.



[edit on 26-8-2007 by thebozeian]



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   
U571-: They had the Americans crack the enigma code when it was infact us Brits...
Cost that film alot of credibility...



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Great topic!

I get very irritated when I see blatant disregard for accuracy in films.

The one that comes immediately to mind is the movie G.I. Jane.
The last battle scene when the attack helicopters are firing their machine guns at the enemy troops on the beach and every round explodes



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   
The movie Shooter where the sniper snipes a target from 900 yards while moving 40 miles per hour.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 02:23 AM
link   
"G.I. Jane", the 1997 movie that starred Demi Moore as the first female Navy SEAL is one military movie that always irritates the hell out of me.

Aside from watching Demi Moore be put through her paces (which was, for some reason, rather enjoyable), I find that the entire premise of this film to be ludicrous. Worse still, is that I have spoken to women who actually believe that there are women in the SEALs.

Please don't get me wrong, I do believe that women do have a place in the military and that many women soldiers have performed admirably in their assigned roles. It's just that that the extraordinary physical regimen that SEALs must undergo as basic requirements simply preclude women from joining this elite military unit.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   
In Independance Day (they really must not have done their research in this movie. lol) The General says something along the lines of, "We have an AWAC off the coast....etc..." The problem is that it's AWACS - Airborn Warning And Control System. So whether you have 1 or 100 planes, it's always AWACS. 1 AWACS or 100 AWACS...the "S" does not make it plural. lol

One other thing that irritates me too is improper salutes...I've seen countless military movies where people salute like they've never been shown how to salute before. Now I know in the real military there are some sloppy salutes, but I'm talking more about parts where they have to "snap" to attention and what-not. Just kind of a pet peeve of mine.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I also love (hate) the part in Independence Day where they have to fly a B-2 to within visual range of the alien ship to launch a cruise missile at it. Why would they even need to use an aircraft for this, let alone fly it to within visual range?

I couldn't bring myself to even watch G.I. Jane....the premise is pure fantasy. On that note, what is this trend in Hollywood with young hot female action heros? I don't mind the visuals but are we to believe that these young (most in their early 20's), hot women spent their teen years in jump school, SEER school, and training in hand to hand combat vs. doing their makeup and worrying about what to wear to the prom? I have to laugh when I see someone like Jennifer Garner (all 120 pounds of her) just whooping some 200 pound Spetsnaz's ass.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   


fly a B-2 to within visual range of the alien ship to launch a cruise missile at it. Why would they even need to use an aircraft for this, let alone fly it to within visual range?



I was under the impression that it was a nuclear weapon of some sort, thats why the command vehicle in the area nearly gets blown away on an empty freeway, I think EMP is mentioned also.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I love watching the movie "Patton" with George C. Scott. What an awesome movie...except all the late-60's Armor done up in German Yellow.

Drives me batty everytime.

Cuhail



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Yes, Patton is one of my favorite movies of all time. Did you know it won 10 Oscars in 1970? Great movie.

I know what you mean about the 60's armor they used. I haven't seen the movie in a while but I'm pretty sure they were M-48 "Patton" tanks. Kind of funny that the German armor in the movie was represented by a tank named after General Patton.

I try to look past the use of M-48's since it would have been impossible to obtain Tigers, Panthers, and Panzer 4's in the amounts necessary to represent massed german armored formations. Still, like you, I cringe when I see Patton tanks with the German iron cross painted on the side.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   
transformers- in the scene where everybody takes orders from some squad leader and takes the allspark to the city where the transformers follow and begin a huge robot brawl crushing everything and everyone in the way. now why would the military put the lives of many civilians at stake like that?



new topics




 
1

log in

join