Movie Mistakes

[jjrakman]

http://www.moviemistakes.com/tv4725

[martok2112]

LOL! I shall have to rewatch SASW again, more closely. :)


There is another continuity error.

When Apollo and Starbuck are daring to go after the basestar over Carillon, Apollo first is holding his flight hand up high (as if to indicate to the audience that that is indeed where the control stick sits---something which has always irked me, because I think we all know that the flight stick sits low in the canopy), and in another shot, his hand is gone, and then in a following shot, his hand is back up controlling the stick that doesn't exist.

[jewels]

I wonder if the folks that find these things ever enjoy the movies they watch! LOL.

[Damocles]

http://www.edwards.af.mil/archive/2004/images/engine1_sm.jpg

Let's look at that f-100 jet engine.

Notice the articulated vanes that form the walls of the exhaust nozzle?

See those hydraulic pistons atached to the vanes?

those pistons move the vanes in and out, either flaring or restricting the exhaust .

We do the same for constant propellant flow variable specific impulse rockets. Those flow restrictors are also complemented by this;

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f35/f35_schem_07.jpg

That big fat jet engine flow diverter swivel nozzle is called a "GIMBAL".

I couldn't use these terms in 1978 TV science fiction and have my audience understand what I meant.,

Factual error: When Apollo decides he and Zac will attack the Cylons that are following them, he tells Zac to "hit your reverse thrusters and maximum braking flaps", but they aren't in an atmosphere. Brake flaps would have no effect in the vacuum of space.

Brake flaps could be flow diverters in a rocket's gas flow exhaust. Reversing thrusters would be exactly that-flipping the propellant mass flow through a 180 degree vector shift by minimally using flow diverters(braking vane flaps in the rocket's gas exhaust ).

I know that is probably not what the writer intended in an aeronautical sense, but you can always plausibly explain your gaffes in Roddenberry CBG. You can't do that with Lucas Wars(TM) as easily or Berman Drek(TM) at all.

As always;

[jjrakman]

I wonder if the folks that find these things ever enjoy the movies they watch! LOL.

Yeah, sometimes it's fun to spot these. But I think it's also fun to try to take these kinds of errors, and try to figure out a way why they work. Like why Vipers have "wings". :)

If you click on the different pages at the bottom, they also go through other episodes.

[martok2112]

I wonder if the folks that find these things ever enjoy the movies they watch! LOL.


I enjoy those flicks. :) It is indeed fun, and funny though, to find the errors...regardless where they lie...continuity, editing, etc. :)

[skippercollecto]

The obvious mistakes aren't even listed. I'm talking about Rigel's changing hairstyle during The Living Legend. It also happened to Cassie, sort of. If you recall, Laurette Spang got her hair cut halfway through the series. When the TV movies with the combined episodes were shown in syndication in the early 1980s, one of the movies was a combination of both an earlier and later episode. Cassie's hairstyle keeps switching back and forth and it's quite obvious.
Mary

[JLHurley]

If I remember correctly, Starbuck's hair alternated between long and short in several parts of "Gun on Ice Planet Zero," too.

(And let's face it: no one can pick out Battlestar booboos like its fans.)

[martok2112]

If I remember correctly, Starbuck's hair alternated between long and short in several parts of "Gun on Ice Planet Zero," too.

(And let's face it: no one can pick out Battlestar booboos like its fans.)


So, would a gigantic error be a "Booboostar"? :D

Booboostar Correctica. :D

Irreverently,
Martok2112 :salute:

[jewels]

aaaauuuuugh.

Say Goodnight, Martock, and get some shut eye. ;)

[martok2112]

aaaauuuuugh.

Say Goodnight, Martock, and get some shut eye. ;)


I plan on it. :D

[bsg1fan1975]

So, would a gigantic error be a "Booboostar"? :D

Booboostar Correctica. :D

Irreverently,
Martok2112 :salute:


oh no! he's at it again!

I know what you mean about its fun spotting the errors. I showed my hubby a mistake in Gladiator that was quite obvious to the viewer if you knew what you were looking for.

I did the same with TOS. I caught a booboo of theirs concerning the pressure suits for the pilots. Athena is seen wearing one in the scene in Saga where she is changing when Starbuck walks in and then they make the error in LPOTG where Apollo says that the women are not used to wearing one but in fact it is wrong as Athena was seen wearing one before.

[spcglider]

Yeah, sometimes it's fun to spot these. But I think it's also fun to try to take these kinds of errors, and try to figure out a way why they work. Like why Vipers have "wings". :)

If you click on the different pages at the bottom, they also go through other episodes.

If you're going to ask why Vipers have wings, then you should ask why X-wings have wings. They came first.

No matter what the wings look like or their surface area to lift ratio, both fighter craft are "designed", in their respective universes, to make planetary landings and take-offs.

Planetary landings and take-offs = need for atmospheric lift = WINGS. It doesn't matter whether or not they are useful in space. The NASA Shuttle has wings too.

I still don't understand why people have such a hard time with this.

The BIG question should be: If Vipers need "wings" for planetary landings and take-offs, then what's the deal with the great "brick"... the Colonial Shuttlecraft? No wings there... and obviously capable of planetary action. Different engine/drive/lift system?

-Gordon :salute:

[jjrakman]

If you're going to ask why Vipers have wings, then you should ask why X-wings have wings. They came first.

No matter what the wings look like or their surface area to lift ratio, both fighter craft are "designed", in their respective universes, to make planetary landings and take-offs.

Planetary landings and take-offs = need for atmospheric lift = WINGS. It doesn't matter whether or not they are useful in space. The NASA Shuttle has wings too.

I still don't understand why people have such a hard time with this.

The BIG question should be: If Vipers need "wings" for planetary landings and take-offs, then what's the deal with the great "brick"... the Colonial Shuttlecraft? No wings there... and obviously capable of planetary action. Different engine/drive/lift system?

-Gordon :salute:


I think you miseed my "I know why Vipers have wings" thread.

I wasn't really commenting on why vipers have wings here, so much as I was commenting on how it's fun to try to take something that might be comonly viewed as some kind of mistake, and turn it around so that it makes sense. I was merely using the "wings" issue as an example of this.

[KJ]

War of the Gods (1) (series 1)

When Boomer and Jolly return from Patrol, Boomer gives a report via video that is watched by Adama and Tigh. He then heads to where the bachelor party is gearing up for Apollo's arrival. He puts his helmet on a shelf, grabs a bottle of ale and a mug, pours the ale into the mug and before taking so much as a sip, becomes dizzy and falls to his knees. This fall is witnessed via video by Tigh, who chastises Boomer for being drunk. How can he think this when he knows Boomer was on patrol and returned only moments ago? (Timecode available) Submitted by John W Rosa



:wtf:

Seems all these so-called flubs were submitted by a person named John W Rosa? Pity he didn't pay attention to the flubs he was reporting though. Being the above quoted flub was from part 1 of Lost Planet Of The Gods and not at all from War Of The Gods!

No wonder William Shatner said get a life on SNL?

:(

Enjoy films in general and forget about the minor flubs/errors and other whatnot etc. It's only good to talk about movie plotholes and errors when they are so large you could fly a plane through them.

The ending of Tim Burton's Planet Of The Apes' comes to mind all of a sudden?

KJ

[bsg1fan1975]

I enjoy those flicks. :) It is indeed fun, and funny though, to find the errors...regardless where they lie...continuity, editing, etc. :)

same here.

[Damocles]

If you're going to ask why Vipers have wings, then you should ask why X-wings have wings. They came first.

No matter what the wings look like or their surface area to lift ratio, both fighter craft are "designed", in their respective universes, to make planetary landings and take-offs.

Planetary landings and take-offs = need for atmospheric lift = WINGS. It doesn't matter whether or not they are useful in space. The NASA Shuttle has wings too.

I still don't understand why people have such a hard time with this.

The BIG question should be: If Vipers need "wings" for planetary landings and take-offs, then what's the deal with the great "brick"... the Colonial Shuttlecraft? No wings there... and obviously capable of planetary action. Different engine/drive/lift system?

-Gordon :salute:


Heck, Gordon, I don't have problems with the Viper's stub wings. (Coolness factor!). I call them heat radiators and let it go! X wings could be actual airfoils, too. The area surface is large enough! The plane angle to the lift force vector is congruent too, so I have no problem calling the S foils wings.

Its this type of nonsense (see image below), that makes me want to throw an aeronautics manual at the boneheaded conceptual artists who put the crap on screen!

http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/Jedi-Starfighter.jpg

Why put the pilot where he can't see and put the droid where it will place its head in the path of the pilot's sight lines?

Plus if you look closely, if you use the inboard laser pulse cannons on that Jedi Starfighter, you'll blow the fighter's front winglets off!

Nice dragracer design for an aerospaceplane by the way.

I tell you this: the Millenium Falcon was/is way cooler plus being far more plausible-even though it too is designed WRONG. The Falcon just looks RIGHT(Coolness factor) as a smuggler's ship.

Frank

As always:

[spcglider]

I think you miseed my "I know why Vipers have wings" thread.

I wasn't really commenting on why vipers have wings here, so much as I was commenting on how it's fun to try to take something that might be comonly viewed as some kind of mistake, and turn it around so that it makes sense. I was merely using the "wings" issue as an example of this.

Understood. :salute:

-Gordon

[spcglider]

Heck, Gordon, I don't have problems with the Viper's stub wings. (Coolness factor!). I call them heat radiators and let it go! X wings could be actual airfoils, too. The area surface is large enough! The plane angle to the lift force vector is congruent too, so I have no problem calling the S foils wings.

Its this type of nonsense (see image below), that makes me want to throw an aeronautics manual at the boneheaded conceptual artists who put the crap on screen!

http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/Jedi-Starfighter.jpg

Why put the pilot where he can't see and put the droid where it will place its head in the path of the pilot's sight lines?

Plus if you look closely, if you use the inboard laser pulse cannons on that Jedi Starfighter, you'll blow the fighter's front winglets off!

Nice dragracer design for an aerospaceplane by the way.

I tell you this: the Millenium Falcon was/is way cooler plus being far more plausible-even though it too is designed WRONG. The Falcon just looks RIGHT(Coolness factor) as a smuggler's ship.

Frank

As always:

Yes, I never quite understood the "de-evolution" of the fighter craft in the Star Wars universe... especially since it was only 16 years or so since the end of "Revenge of Sith" to "New Hope". It looks to me that the Jedi fightercraft have it all over the standard TIE fighter. Even over Darth's "executive" TIE fighter.

And you're right... that pilot can see up and forward. His line of sight is pretty much blocked to the left and right completely.

And if you want to talk about astomechs, tell me WHERE R2's lower body disappears to when he hops in the socket!!!

-G

[spcglider]

Oh, and just so you know... the CHIEF BONEHEAD is good ol' uncle GEORGE. He's the one who okayed that design for film.


-G

[Damocles]

Oh, and just so you know... the CHIEF BONEHEAD is good ol' uncle GEORGE. He's the one who okayed that design for film.


-G

I know. He should have hired Tim Earls for the CGI and left the dialogue writing to Neal Gaiman.

George does best when he EXECUTIVE PRODUCES.
(Case in point; The Empire Strikes Back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_Brackett )

Sort of the way I think Glen Larsen should act now as regards to Bryan Singer and Tom Desanto......and a certain production.

Best wishes, Gordon;

Frank