Hollywood Faux Pas

  • Thread starter mugaliens
  • Start date
  • #1
mugaliens
193
1
While watching Sanctuary Season 2, Episode 9, "Penance," I saw three potentially dangerous blunders in one scene!

Faux pas: When the girl was shot, the guy said, "we've got to get the bullet out or you'll bleed to death." Adding injury, he used a fairly large pocket knife!

Truth: Upon entry into the human body, bullets are fairly warm. How warm depends on the calibur, but they're upwards of 180 deg and more, which is relatively sterile, so "getting the bullet out to prevent infection" is bogus. The best bet is leaving it in until you get to a hospital, where your system can be monitored and kept stable during removal of the bullet and any shrapnel. The other issue is that they tend to leave a fair amount of tissue damage, but the body's response to trauma is to swell the tissue, effectively acting as pressue which aids to reduce bleeding and allowing clotting to take place. As for the area immediately surrounding the bullet, the best pressure is coming from the bullet itself. Removing it removes that pressure, reinjures the tissue, breaks clots, and results in significantly more bleeding than leaving it in place. The correct answer is to leave it in!

Faux pas: When the girl stopped breathing due to the pain (hey, it's possible, due to shock), he administered CPR, but left out the cardio part. Just did the mouth to mouth, and failed to check for a pulse.

Truth: This is much the reverse of modern CPR, at least one technique of which no longer requires. mouth to mouth. Thirty years ago it was 5:1 (compressions/breath). About fifteen years ago it was 15:2. Now it's 30:2 (ILCOR), though some medical institutions are sticking with the 15:2, and others advocate compression-only resuscitation, as ventilation continues to occur with chest compression. Best bet is to follow ILCOR or the Red Cross' guidance. If you don't know CPR, take a class. Taught at least one Saturday a month at several locations near you.

Faux pas: The girl, shot, exhausted from adrenaline overload, closed her eyes. The guy kept talking to her to keep her awake.

Truth: This falsehood comes from a doctor's/nurse's need to periodically evaluate patients for responsiveness. It's actually a delicate balance, as patients also need to sleep, particularly after various forms of trauma. Even something as simple as my scratching my cornea last Saturday resulted in my sleeping ten hours out of twenty four, broken up between my usual seven hours and an additional three-hours a day in the form of a nap! I usually just sleep the seven hours. The fact is, sleep is one of the best forms of therapy for a patient. All sorts of healing occurs, and at significantly faster rates, when one is sleeping than when one is awake, and this goes double for head trauma victims. Yes, doctors need to evaluate responsiveness, but they can do something about it if a victim is sliding under. We can't. Best thing to do if someone who is injured wants to sleep is to let them sleep.

Thoughts? Comments?

And please add your own faux pas excerpts from Hollywood! Hopefully the writers will read this page and use it as a resource of what NOT to do, as well as what to include that's actually correct. I do know some TV shows bend over backwards to break down the falsehoods that are floating out there instead of negligently perpetuating them.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Borek
Mentor
29,101
3,716
Not sure if it counts as Hollywood, but so far I have seen one episode of Dr. House. There was a lot of hype around so I decided to take a look. It was a pilot, with girl that was finally diagnosed with some kind of tapeworm. At some point docs performed tracheotomy to save her. Later she is shown with an adhesive bandage - on a larynx. As far as I know it should be definitely lower.

Somehow I didn't want to watch the next episode.
 
  • #3
Jimmy Snyder
1,095
19
Try http://www.nitpickers.com" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
leroyjenkens
610
49
They always get blood wrong. It's either too dark, too light, too thick or too thin. I've seen it about as thick as honey before.
By now you'd think they could have developed fake blood that looks like blood and could also coagulate like blood. Instead, I think they're still using water and red food coloring. Or honey and red food coloring.

You mention bullets; I always hate when someone gets shot in a movie and it catapults them backwards. I also hate when someone gets shot and blood immediately sprays out of the wound.
It also looks so fake when someone gets slashed with a knife and right afterward you see just a line of red on them. I've gotten cut before and seen other people get cut and it doesn't bleed immediately, and when it does bleed, it bleeds more than just one line along the cut.
 
  • #5
Danger
Gold Member
9,756
253
It also looks so fake when someone gets slashed with a knife and right afterward you see just a line of red on them. I've gotten cut before and seen other people get cut and it doesn't bleed immediately, and when it does bleed, it bleeds more than just one line along the cut.

This latter is due to the fact that most cuts are faked by using a binary chemical, half of which is on the skin and the other half on the fake knife. When they combine, they turn red.

I've seen far too many factual or continuity errors to even remember—literally thousands. Sometimes you just have to shake your head and move on. Dwelling upon them can drive you batty.
 
  • #6
JaredJames
2,817
22
Best place I've found:

www.moviemistakes.com

Aside from the annoying ads, they have the best collection of mistakes. Although they do spoil a lot of films for me. Anytime I see a new one I have to look it up and see what people have put.
 
  • #7
nismaratwork
353
0
While watching Sanctuary Season 2, Episode 9, "Penance," I saw three potentially dangerous blunders in one scene!

Faux pas: When the girl was shot, the guy said, "we've got to get the bullet out or you'll bleed to death." Adding injury, he used a fairly large pocket knife!

Truth: Upon entry into the human body, bullets are fairly warm. How warm depends on the calibur, but they're upwards of 180 deg and more, which is relatively sterile, so "getting the bullet out to prevent infection" is bogus. The best bet is leaving it in until you get to a hospital, where your system can be monitored and kept stable during removal of the bullet and any shrapnel. The other issue is that they tend to leave a fair amount of tissue damage, but the body's response to trauma is to swell the tissue, effectively acting as pressue which aids to reduce bleeding and allowing clotting to take place. As for the area immediately surrounding the bullet, the best pressure is coming from the bullet itself. Removing it removes that pressure, reinjures the tissue, breaks clots, and results in significantly more bleeding than leaving it in place. The correct answer is to leave it in!

Faux pas: When the girl stopped breathing due to the pain (hey, it's possible, due to shock), he administered CPR, but left out the cardio part. Just did the mouth to mouth, and failed to check for a pulse.

Truth: This is much the reverse of modern CPR, at least one technique of which no longer requires. mouth to mouth. Thirty years ago it was 5:1 (compressions/breath). About fifteen years ago it was 15:2. Now it's 30:2 (ILCOR), though some medical institutions are sticking with the 15:2, and others advocate compression-only resuscitation, as ventilation continues to occur with chest compression. Best bet is to follow ILCOR or the Red Cross' guidance. If you don't know CPR, take a class. Taught at least one Saturday a month at several locations near you.

Faux pas: The girl, shot, exhausted from adrenaline overload, closed her eyes. The guy kept talking to her to keep her awake.

Truth: This falsehood comes from a doctor's/nurse's need to periodically evaluate patients for responsiveness. It's actually a delicate balance, as patients also need to sleep, particularly after various forms of trauma. Even something as simple as my scratching my cornea last Saturday resulted in my sleeping ten hours out of twenty four, broken up between my usual seven hours and an additional three-hours a day in the form of a nap! I usually just sleep the seven hours. The fact is, sleep is one of the best forms of therapy for a patient. All sorts of healing occurs, and at significantly faster rates, when one is sleeping than when one is awake, and this goes double for head trauma victims. Yes, doctors need to evaluate responsiveness, but they can do something about it if a victim is sliding under. We can't. Best thing to do if someone who is injured wants to sleep is to let them sleep.

Thoughts? Comments?

And please add your own faux pas excerpts from Hollywood! Hopefully the writers will read this page and use it as a resource of what NOT to do, as well as what to include that's actually correct. I do know some TV shows bend over backwards to break down the falsehoods that are floating out there instead of negligently perpetuating them.

This sounds like a carefully concocted plan to ensure secondary infection, then suck her face a bit. There was a time (med-school) when these kinds of things drove me insane, but after a while you just let it go. I also enjoy research into NBC (not the network) weapons and their effects, which are usually butchered in movies and TV. Another fine example that drives me nuts to this day are: Flamethrowers!

1.) I CAN TELL THAT'S PROPANE... and not thickened fuel.
2.) Modern throwers have impressive range, and will bounce around some corners... but in movies they have to use crop-burners (usually for sugarcane), and they are rather different.
3.) Inevitably, the tank(s) are shot with a handgun, and the soldier/criminal/hero/terrorist EXPLODES. Wow, I didn't realize everyone carried incendiary rounds in their pistol, and knew to shoot the fuel tank and not the nitrogen tank.

That... is ONE weapon. Another great medical one is the "injection anywhere in the body..." myth.

1.) In a truly unlikely "asylum" somebody becomes violent and the doctor appear with a preloaded syringe and gives them an IM (IntraMuscular) injection and within seconds... calm returns. *rubs temples*
2.) Every other iteration of the IM injection of sedative, from blowgun darts on.

And many mooooooore...

Danger is right, at some point you just let go if you enjoy the story, and either way it's not worth dwelling on. The disturbing part is that so few people seem aware of the massive inconstancy between real life, and movies/TV at the technical level. What can you do though?... nothing, that's what! :tongue2:
 
  • #8
Danger
Gold Member
9,756
253
I've always loved the one about shooting the gas tank of an escaping car, then tossing down a cigarette and watching the car explode.
When Mythbusters finally got around to trying it, they couldn't light the bloody gas for anything even after waiting for a proper air/fuel mixture to develop. I think that they finally put a blowtorch to it and achieved ignition. Even then, the flame pursued the car at about 5 km/h. They then let the fire catch up to the tank, whereup it went out.
 
  • #9
leroyjenkens
610
49
2.) Every other iteration of the IM injection of sedative, from blowgun darts on.
It seems to work on bears.
 
  • #10
berkeman
Mentor
63,251
14,214
It seems to work on bears.

But his point is that it takes a while. You don't shoot a charging bear with a tranq dart and live to tell about it...
 
  • #11
leroyjenkens
610
49
But his point is that it takes a while. You don't shoot a charging bear with a tranq dart and live to tell about it...

In the videos, they shoot the bear, then cut to the bear falling out of the tree. I forgot they do that.
 
  • #12
DaveC426913
Gold Member
21,066
4,434
This thread would be a LOT shorter if we simply listed films and TV shows that did NOT have egregious technical errors.

I only know of one film that could ever hope for that honour.
 
  • #13
JaredJames
2,817
22
This thread would be a LOT shorter if we simply listed films and TV shows that did NOT have egregious technical errors.

I only know of one film that could ever hope for that honour.

Star Trek???
 
  • #14
DaveC426913
Gold Member
21,066
4,434
Star Trek???

[sarcasm so obvious, it need not be marked up]
Yeah.
[/sarcasm so obvious, it need not be marked up]

2001.
 
  • #15
JaredJames
2,817
22
[sarcasm so obvious, it need not be marked up]
Yeah.
[/sarcasm so obvious, it need not be marked up]

2001.

Science it may have got mostly right, but I thought the film itself was poor. Just didn't enjoy it.

Personally, I'm happy to suspend my beliefs to enjoy a film.
 
  • #16
DaveC426913
Gold Member
21,066
4,434
Science it may have got mostly right, but I thought the film itself was poor. Just didn't enjoy it.

You're young. It's forgiveable.

Just you wait until the next generation younger than you starts dissing <popular recent sci-fi "classic" flick>.
 
  • #17
nismaratwork
353
0
But his point is that it takes a while. You don't shoot a charging bear with a tranq dart and live to tell about it...

Yeah, but it probably makes for an interesting story. :biggrin:

Anyway, I'd add that if you watch some wildlife shows you'll see how long it takes (2-5 minutes at least) to take down large game with a dart. Usually the drug is Widlnil (carfentanil citrate) which is ridiculously potent. There's a good reason that they carry plenty of Naloxone just in case of respiratory arrest. Carfentanil is about 10,000 times as potent as Morphine, which makes it a hell of a lot stronger than fentanyl, sufentanil, and even 3-methylfentanyl which is possibly what was used in the Russian Theater (only 4000-6000 x Morphine).

Even then, with an IM dosage, you're talking minutes to get a bear, rhino, moose, or similar animal down. If you took that same dosage and administered it parenterally (IV in this case) you'd be killing the bear without a HUGE dose of a reversal agent. If you want to incapacitate someone or an animal "instantly" you need to come very close to killing it with a nerve agent, or hit a vein. Maybe a cocktail of a deliriant, a benzodiazapine, and a fatal dose of carfentanil in a dart would do the trick in well under a minute, but you'd probably just kill the person. Either way, you'd need to reverse the cholinergic agent, and the opioid IMMEDIATELY.

Anyway... that kind of research is generally banned by treaty in use as a weapon of war, and impractical or illegal within a country. I could go on, but this isn't a "how to stun a moose" thread. :tongue2:
 
  • #18
rolerbe
104
3
Just watched the recent 'Star Trek' again last night (the kiddie Kirk/Spock etc.)

They use one drop of 'red matter' to create a black hole that consumes the planet Vulcan. Planet gone in seconds. Later, they use a meter diameter ball of the stuff to create a black hole that sucks in the bad guys mining space ship (assumed to be much smaller than a planet). It takes several minutes to slowly, and agonizingly suck in the ship. Which retains all of its structural integrity in the process. And allows the romulan bad guys ample time to sit calmly at their comm console and hurl epithets across to Kirk and Spock on the Enterprise. Excruciating.
 
  • #19
JaredJames
2,817
22
Just watched the recent 'Star Trek' again last night (the kiddie Kirk/Spock etc.)

They use one drop of 'red matter' to create a black hole that consumes the planet Vulcan. Planet gone in seconds. Later, they use a meter diameter ball of the stuff to create a black hole that sucks in the bad guys mining space ship (assumed to be much smaller than a planet). It takes several minutes to slowly, and agonizingly suck in the ship. Which retains all of its structural integrity in the process. And allows the romulan bad guys ample time to sit calmly at their comm console and hurl epithets across to Kirk and Spock on the Enterprise. Excruciating.

Yeah but if it had been sucked straight in instantly on creation of the black hole, I don't think it would have had quite the same effect. After all, they have to show kirk offering to save them (he's the good guy after all).

I can live with things like that, because it doesn't hurt the film so much if I'm fully immersed in it.

The biggest thing that annoys me is people and guns. Unlimited ammo, no need to reload, until right at the end when they need just one bullet to take care of the good/bad guy.
 
  • #20
Pianoman14
21
0
One really annoying one I can think of is in The Dark Night. The antagonist fires an RPG-7 at a hospital convoy about 20 ft. from him and

1) The RPG didn't penetrate the vehicle. It isn't even heavily armored (e.g. M1-Abrahms).

2) The antagonist doesn't get hit by shrapnel. Huh? Kill radius for a normal m60 frag grenade is 30m, and he's much closer than that.

3) His cronies are standing behind him (in a closed semi trailer) and they don't get fried by the backblast.

Best movie weapon-wise I've seen was Blackhawk Down. Not so with Batman.
 
  • #21
JaredJames
2,817
22
One really annoying one I can think of is in The Dark Night. The antagonist fires an RPG-7 at a hospital convoy about 20 ft. from him and

1) The RPG didn't penetrate the vehicle. It isn't even heavily armored (e.g. M1-Abrahms).

2) The antagonist doesn't get hit by shrapnel. Huh? Kill radius for a normal m60 frag grenade is 30m, and he's much closer than that.

3) His cronies are standing behind him (in a closed semi trailer) and they don't get fried by the backblast.

Best movie weapon-wise I've seen was Blackhawk Down. Not so with Batman.

Hospital convoy? I thought they shot the RPG at the swat vans when they were transporting Harvey Dent? Those vans (at least in the movie) were heavily armored and withstanding close range shotgun blasts. And I thought he shot the front of the vehicle? Regardless, your points 2 and 3 stand.

Biggest one in that film for me is when he shoots the cable from his bike (at some incredibly strong lamp posts or something) and the lorry does a forward somersault. Physically impossible. It would have sliced into it and snapped the cable before that happened.

Here is a funny music video about continuity in The Dark Knight:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
rolerbe
104
3
Best movie weapon-wise I've seen was Blackhawk Down. Not so with Batman.

I agree. That one was almost too realistic! Definitely gives you a sense of the fear factor of real combat.
 
  • #23
DaveC426913
Gold Member
21,066
4,434
Just watched the recent 'Star Trek' again last night (the kiddie Kirk/Spock etc.)

They use one drop of 'red matter'...
You need not go beyond this point.

The events beyond this are not wrong; they are fictional. We do not know what red matter does. It is wrong to assume that it "simply" makes a black hole and all physics after that should behave as expected. (This is the entire point of using a fictional plot device.)
 
  • #24
rolerbe
104
3
Well, my problem wasn't with the red matter. It was with the vastly different results, in the same movie, from its use. I can suspend disbelief. You can bend, break, or otherwise fashion your own rules. But then you ought to generally play within those new rules.
 
  • #25
JaredJames
2,817
22
But they never said what increasing the amount of red matter does? (or did I miss that?)

And as such, it could dampen the creation of the black hole and make a far less powerful one than the smaller drop.

As Dave said, it's fiction and that's what matters. They can play the rules however they want. Especially when the whole premise is invented in the first place.

The only time I expect things to be 'realistic' is for things such as the need to reload a weapon, or as above, tranquillizers working too quickly etc.
 
  • #26
leroyjenkens
610
49
As Dave said, it's fiction and that's what matters. They can play the rules however they want. Especially when the whole premise is invented in the first place.

The only time I expect things to be 'realistic' is for things such as the need to reload a weapon, or as above, tranquillizers working too quickly etc.
Do they ever say what kind of chemical is in the tranquillizer?
 
  • #27
JaredJames
2,817
22
Do they ever say what kind of chemical is in the tranquillizer?

No, but then as pointed out previously, it just isn't realistic without dangerous doses. Unless it's the unobtanium of the tranquillizer world. Some top secret government formula used by the CIA no less.
 
  • #28
nismaratwork
353
0
No, but then as pointed out previously, it just isn't realistic without dangerous doses. Unless it's the unobtanium of the tranquillizer world. Some top secret government formula used by the CIA no less.

Yeah, you'd really need a custom nerve agent of astonishing potency and novel action (not acetylcholine), which manages NOT to kill the target. Remember, if you want to capture someone alive and unconscious, you can't afford to kill even 1% of those you hit, right? If the only point is to quietly kill someone, then toxins are not the most effective means.
 
  • #29
Borek
Mentor
29,101
3,716
As Dave said, it's fiction and that's what matters. They can play the rules however they want. Especially when the whole premise is invented in the first place.

I have no problems with invented fiction, however, invented fiction has to be consistent with itself.
 
  • #30
JaredJames
2,817
22
I have no problems with invented fiction, however, invented fiction has to be consistent with itself.

Oh completely, but when they don't attempt to explain the physics behind what they are doing (red matter as per the original reply that quote comes from), you can't claim inconsistency. They didn't say what would happen with different amounts of the substance, and so to say "more of it should have made a larger black hole" just doesn't work. As I said previously, more could have the inverse effect. We just don't know because they didn't tell us. So any assumptions without knowing their 'science' are irrelevant.

Trying to explain the physics in science fiction can be the downfall the film so far as continuity goes. That is when problems occur and start to bug me because I'm trying to look at everything with their 'science' of the technology in mind.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
DaveC426913
Gold Member
21,066
4,434
I have no problems with invented fiction, however, invented fiction has to be consistent with itself.

What jj said.

BTW, do they actually say it's a black hole that's created? I know we're assuming it is, but is it as simple as that? Red matter catalyzes a BH but does not participate in it?
 
  • #32
JaredJames
2,817
22
BTW, do they actually say it's a black hole that's created? I know we're assuming it is, but is it as simple as that? Red matter catalyzes a BH but does not participate in it?

I can't remember what phrase they used exactly, it was either black hole or singularity. I was under the impression it simply created it, it wasn't the singularity itself. I shall have a look what they say about it and edit this post later.

EDIT: OK, the only thing they say is "using red matter I will create a black hole" and they are worried about "igniting the red matter". The sources of ignition in the film are the planets core (Vulcan), the sun (which destroys Romulus) and the ships colliding at the end. Now I have no intention of arguing the physics here, after all it's all fictional, but so far as the film goes, they don't explain red matter any further than I have indicated above and so there is no problem with the concept they use. The only problem that could occur is if a source of ignition wasn't present for one of the black holes created. Job done.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
JaredJames
2,817
22
One of my other pet hates:

Space ships always 'meet' each other in the same orientation. They are both travelling around the solar system / galaxy / universe (usually at the speed of light), slow down on approach to each other and amazingly are orientated like a pair of cars on a collision course.
 
  • #34
nismaratwork
353
0
One of my other pet hates:

Space ships always 'meet' each other in the same orientation. They are both travelling around the solar system / galaxy / universe (usually at the speed of light), slow down on approach to each other and amazingly are orientated like a pair of cars on a collision course.

Even more than that, ships are rarely in a shape you'd expect to maximize efficiency, shielding, weapons deployment and more... really the Borg are the only ones that fit that bill. With a few ships that need to make planet-fall, it makes sense, but for ships build IN space, FOR space, the aerodynamic "wings" and such seem extraneous. It also kills me that somehow "intertial dameners" are these basic systems even though they keep a ship together near lightspeed, but shields go down after a couple of shots! Still, at least that is self-consistent.

Oh, and am I the only one who notes that nanoweapons, biological weapons, and the like are so rarely used, even when you'd expect them to be like something out of 'The Diamond Age' by Neal Stephenson?
 
  • #35
JaredJames
2,817
22
Even more than that, ships are rarely in a shape you'd expect to maximize efficiency, shielding, weapons deployment and more... really the Borg are the only ones that fit that bill. With a few ships that need to make planet-fall, it makes sense, but for ships build IN space, FOR space, the aerodynamic "wings" and such seem extraneous. It also kills me that somehow "intertial dameners" are these basic systems even though they keep a ship together near lightspeed, but shields go down after a couple of shots! Still, at least that is self-consistent.

Oh yeah, the shield thing annoys me. I never see the point in shields if they disappear after two or three shots. Also, why can't the "inertial dampeners" by applied to the shields? A ship can go from zero to light speed in seconds without so much as a shudder, but one missile and the crew are thrown around like rag dolls.
 

Suggested for: Hollywood Faux Pas

Replies
3
Views
540
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
111
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
236
Replies
1
Views
146
Replies
1
Views
301
Replies
1
Views
298
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
517
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
544
Replies
19
Views
496
Top