by Michael S. Kaplan, published on 2006/05/09 10:45 -04:00, original URI: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/michkap/archive/2006/05/09/593658.aspx
Raymond Chen pointed out a few mis-steps on the road to a movie that was researched properly for accuracy in scenes that are supposedly internationally located in his post Why doesn't Ethan Hunt have to wear identification?
Now I can understand how this sort of thing can happen in movies that are not targetting heavy worldwide releases. But can we really believe that they don't plan to try to sell the movie in some of the markets that clearly didn't do their homework on?
Ah well, they'll get their money, so I suppose they don't really care much if people in Shanghai notice the problems in the Shanghai scenes, or if people in Rome wonder who the hell wouldn't expect their city to be in Italy.
But as we become more aware of the world around us, we can spot the mistakes no matter where we sit. Hollywood might need to start getting it right....
BlakeHandler on 9 May 2006 12:21 PM:
I’m still trying to get over the facts that:
1) In the original TV show Mr. Phelps was the GOOD guy. He was in charge of the Mission Impossible Force and would NEVER be a BAD guy. But Tom made Mr. Phelps' character BAD, so Tom Cruise could take over!
2) The Mission Impossible TV Show was ALWAYS about the TEAM – there were no “hot shots” – Tom ruined the team-work of the MIF!
3) Lalo Shifrin’s original music was written in 5/4 time – but that’s too hard for today’s musicians. So the remakes are ruined by playing the song in 4/4
4) Lalo Shifrin also wrote great incidental music for the TV show that isn’t used (cool snare drum cadence with trombones)
OK, I feel better now (^_^)
bg on 9 May 2006 12:30 PM:
dude - it's just a film (and not a very good one), if u believe tom cruise can act then It should'nt be very hard to ignore a few stupid mistakes.
Carlos on 9 May 2006 12:53 PM:
I don't see any reason to let someone off the hook because it's an action film or any other genre. These are things that someone thinking for half a second would notice, so it's obvious that the filmmakers didn't spend even that much time.
Laziness is laziness and it's no more excusable in a summer blockbuster than in an art house flick. In the end, it's just an indication for contempt for the audience.
Michael S. Kaplan on 9 May 2006 1:46 PM:
Hi bg --
I have to agree with Carlos here -- with the additional responsibility of a film that will without shame sell in a market, some minimal work here is really required....
Michael S. Kaplan on 9 May 2006 1:48 PM:
Hi BlakeHandler --
I agree with all of your points, and definitely miss the show. The movie is a poor heir to the name. :-(
Michael Dunn_ on 9 May 2006 8:52 PM:
On the subject of technical accuracy, I always chuckle when characters on 24 start talking in computer terms. They use real words, but the words are strung together in meaningless sentences.
go to newer or older post, or back to index or month or day