Exactly. I derive amusement, not contempt, from seeing these gliches. I
wonder too whether I would do any better if I worked in Hollywood and had
to dress the set with airplanes or automobiles, of which I don't know
much. Trains, yes; airplanes, not necessarily.

Regards,
William Bryk

On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...> wrote:

**


Exactly. People just don't seem to realize that the movie is about the
*story*, not the scenery. I see similar discussions on the military
modeling groups whenever a war movie comes out. Everybody thinks their
little arcane corner of life should be presented with absolute accuracy,
regardless of cost, effort, or effect on the film.

If you want an idea of what these threads look like to normal people,
imagine reading . . .

"Did you see "The Red Caper"? It was OK, but, my gosh, don't the producers
know anything? It was supposed to be set in 1949, but the lead character
was wearing a Bulova "Cubic" watch - which wasn't released until 1956!! I
mean, it would be so easy to just ask someone who knows something about
watches! Instead they just show whatever stock jewelry they have in the
prop trailer - It's like they don't even care."

KL

Tim O'Connor wrote:

I recall an episode of Star Trek where they "time travelled" to
Detroit and suddenly in one scene you can see mountains in the
distance! Ya just
gotta love Hollywood. I don't think anyone in the biz has ever taken
a geography class.

Not true at all, Tim. In fact, there is typically a whole crew
of "continuity" and "scene dressing" people, who are forever deciding
what is important enough to do correctly and what isn't. That we train
enthusiasts often find a train discrepancy just means it was regarded
as not important, and you can be sure that an awful lot of the public
would agree. And besides, it provides entertainment for us. <g>

--
William Bryk
Attorney and Counsellor-at-Law
578 74th Street
Brooklyn, New York 11209-2614
Tel/Fax: (347) 497-5972


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]