Hollywood, just like every one else, makes mistakes from time to time.

shaunpain

New member
It's been too long (for me, anyway) since I've seen one of those gun goofs in movies threads and call me crazy, but I love 'em. I was watching The Darwin Awards on Netflix and had to double take on this scene. This is a flashback scene where David Arquette is buying military surplus stuff at a shop.

darwinawards.png


Notice anything wrong with this picture? It all seems to me so frustratingly lazy!!!
 
That is both hilarious and terrible. If that was what 9mm was and could fit in a sub-compact pocket pistol, I'd buy one right now!

I can't figure out for the life of me why movie and T.V. writers/directors/producers can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes on the internet fact checking things that I look up for fun on a daily basis.
 
Considering some of what we've seen come out of Hollywood, I think it probably best that the primers are omitted.

I assume the primers were omitted for safety purposes; it really would be a bad idea to allow live ammunition on a movie set.
 
well primers would help.

the tin says 9mm, so the only rifle cartridges I know that come close to 9mm are the 35 Rem, 358 Win, 350Rem Mag, 35 Whelen, 357 Mag.
But those don't look like them.
 
I can't figure out for the life of me why movie and T.V. writers/directors/producers can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes on the internet fact checking things that I look up for fun on a daily basis.

To play the devil's advocate here:

This was likely a minor shot that spent less than a second on screen and that even most of the gun community would not have caught. If you were making a movie where a character has to use a cell phone and there's a brief close up shot of the phone, would you go to research that the model number and brand matches the phone on screen? Would you research the flashlight strapped to the belt of some security guard in the background to make sure it's in fact a Surefire?
They can take 5 minutes to research the markings on that ammo can, then the cellphone and flashlight enthusiasts come along and start complaining. These people are on a schedule and a budget. You can't honestly expect them to spend 5 minutes researching every minor prop and miscellaneous item in every single shot. Those minutes will start to add up and you have to pay for them.

Imagine if the prop of a fancy $150 pen the character is using is writing like a 25 cent BIC. The pen enthusiasts will have your head. And don't be mistaken, I can guarantee you there are pen enthusiasts out there. :p
 
Hollywood learned a long time ago when the actor receives a letter, it had better have the right postage stamps on it or the stamp collectors raise hell, and the coin the cowboy tosses on the bar in the saloon has to be the right one, a dime not a dollar, and if we see it up close it had better not have a president on it. They're trying hard to get the guns right, lots of historical pieces in the films now, but lots of busts, as well. I just watched two films at home, "Zulu" and "Hell is for Heroes", the one has Enfield No. 4's being used as Martini-Henrys in some scenes, and the other has a German MG42 firing '9mm light' ammo. What the heck, just enjoy the film and suspend our intellect for a while. Remember the German Shepards in "The Killer Shrews"?
 
Nickel Plated,

I understand that sentiment about time and money, however any prop that says on it what it is should actually be that prop. For most small props (aside from historical things I guess), they can simply not name what it is and nobody would have anything to complain about. But if it says what it is, either in writing or from a character's mouth, it should actually be that item. And yes that doesn't pertain just to firearms.

The solution here (and it doesn't seem that difficult to me) would be to admit they really don't know and don't have time to check on such things and therefore take the shot from such an angle or distance as to not be able to read the writing. Not having seen this particular show, I can't vouch for the feasibility of this solution in this particular case but I know of many instances that it could be done and isn't.
 
It's not that big a deal. It's set dressing for a surplus store scene, not a documentary about WWI logistics.

And honestly, you guys have been to these places. Not every ammo can and rocket crate is full of what's stenciled on the outside.
 
But the producers and studios don't make up batches of this stuff new for every film. They rent the stuff from prop houses. The prop houses should be providing the correct props, and the movie's technical advisor(s) should be ensuring that this happens.
 
My son is working for a small studio now (this is the same son who was a tanker in Iraq) and mentioned in his last call about visiting a prop house that had a warehouse full of weapons and vehicles. I don't remember his exact words but historical authenticity and accuracy are not that high on the list of priorities. I suspect that actual, historically correct weapons are probably too rare and expensive to use.

Moviemakers have always used substitute weapons, mainly because of scarcity of the correct weapons. In Gunga Din, you probably noticed that the British were using Krag rifles. In Zulu, some Martinis were used but the men in the back had Lee-Enfields.

Sometimes they are lucky. In the pre-war production of The Four Feathers, which was set in, I think, the Sudan around 1900, they just pulled original uniforms out of storage in Egypt. On the other hand, they can sometimes have trouble with up to the minute stuff, although you wouldn't know it until twenty years later. In WWII movies made during the war, the Germans were often seen wearing the WWI style helmet instead of the later, correct version.

There are lots of historically accurate costumes that have never gone out of production since being introduced a hundred years ago, too, but costumes are easy. Charlton Heston's costume for some movie he was in was made by the same taylor who made the original character's unforms a hundred years earlier. He (Gordon, I think it was) and Heston were the same size. But judging from a lot of movies I've seen, it is next to impossible to get hair styles right.
 
Devil's advocate: I see surplus stores selling ammunition of many calibers in surplus cans that don't match what's inside. Ammo cans are convenient and look military, so I've seen bulk ammo from .22 LR to 8mm Mauser sold in US ammo cans.

The primer thing is the laugh-getter, though. Don't think I'd buy that ammo myself.
 
It's not that big a deal. It's set dressing for a surplus store scene, not a documentary about WWI logistics.

And honestly, you guys have been to these places. Not every ammo can and rocket crate is full of what's stenciled on the outside.

+1,000
 
I got a good laugh at the Matrix where they show Keanu shooting a pair of Skorpions; the empty shell casings appear to be .223 or .308:

35005tk.jpg

29534n5.jpg


HA!
 
See, I think it's just... LAZY!!!! Thanks for the posts, everyone! I just wouldn't be able to stomach it if I were a part of the production crew. IMDB has shown us that people notice mistakes, especially mistakes such as these, and they are pointed out by everyone all over the internet. Terry Gilliam will wait an entire day to film a scene to make sure it's right (IE: 12 Monkeys; trying to get the mouse to run it's wheel!) so why can't other film makers? No director would let it happen if they knew/cared. Regardless of time/prop constraints, this is on the director. That's my 2 cents (which is really worth like 2/100ths of a cent, because I don't make much sense to begin with!).
 
Cost sometimes remains a consideration when producing TV shows and motion pictures. Everything can't be perfectly accurate. Even Shakespeare made mistakes in his plays.
 
Back
Top