On 15/07/2022 09:12, Recliner wrote:
> Yes, aircraft continuity errors are even worse than trains, because they
> rely so much on library clips or images.

Showing the wrong type of aircraft, particularly between different
scenes, is just poor continuity.

But the real nerds will look up the aircraft registration (or train
number) and get upset because the aircraft was not registered until
shortly after the date of the scene.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 15/07/2022 09:12, Recliner wrote:
>> Yes, aircraft continuity errors are even worse than trains, because they
>> rely so much on library clips or images.
>
> Showing the wrong type of aircraft, particularly between different
> scenes, is just poor continuity.

Yes, but it comes from having to rely on library clips, because they can't
afford to commission in-flight sequences, let alone air-to-air shoots. So
you see the actual actors boarding a real plane at a real airport, but they
then walk into an aircraft interior studio mock-up, while the in-flight
exterior sequences are all library clips.

So you see them boarding a modern A320 (say), but watch a 747 take off,
while they act out the story line inside a 767 fuselage mock-up.

>
> But the real nerds will look up the aircraft registration (or train
> number) and get upset because the aircraft was not registered until
> shortly after the date of the scene.

I guess aircraft registrations are easy to hide, or simply not include in
the shot.

In message <taq5im$2qv6l$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:32:55 on Thu, 14 Jul
2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 14/07/2022 22:12, Recliner wrote:
>> That can cause some hilarious gaffes in the eyes of
>> rail enthusiasts:
>
>Does it matter?
>
>I am sure there are films and programmes that you watch and enjoy but
>someone with knowledge of the area or some specialist knowledge will
>see glaring errors.

I think the first time I got interested in this particular 'hobby' was
watching late-80's episodes of "Dallas" with a Dallas resident, who
would shout at the TV because outdoor summer scenes had green grass,
which while plausible outside the studios in Los Angeles, was unknown in
Texas at that time of year.

They also pointed out that "product placement" of shots of aircraft
taking off or landing were almost always American Airlines, who had
people whose job it wasto make thathappen.

<Thread convergence> a bit like Apple laptops in more recent times.

And the majority of new cars in TV dramas (people never seem to query
why otherwise down-at-heel TV cops always drove brand new cars) almost
always were Fords with Mid-Essex numberplates (where Ford Europe's HQ
was).

And talking of TV cops with placement cars (such as John Nettles in
Midsomer Murders, which were Volvos I think) one episode of Bergerac had
a central character go through the door of a relatively small but
picturesque holiday rental I had stayed in, and Tardis-Style inside it
morphed into a stately home.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <taq5im$2qv6l$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:32:55 on Thu, 14 Jul
> 2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>> On 14/07/2022 22:12, Recliner wrote:
>>> That can cause some hilarious gaffes in the eyes of
>>> rail enthusiasts:
>>
>> Does it matter?
>>
>> I am sure there are films and programmes that you watch and enjoy but
>> someone with knowledge of the area or some specialist knowledge will
>> see glaring errors.
>
> I think the first time I got interested in this particular 'hobby' was
> watching late-80's episodes of "Dallas" with a Dallas resident, who
> would shout at the TV because outdoor summer scenes had green grass,
> which while plausible outside the studios in Los Angeles, was unknown in
> Texas at that time of year.
>
> They also pointed out that "product placement" of shots of aircraft
> taking off or landing were almost always American Airlines, who had
> people whose job it wasto make thathappen.
>
> <Thread convergence> a bit like Apple laptops in more recent times.
>
> And the majority of new cars in TV dramas (people never seem to query
> why otherwise down-at-heel TV cops always drove brand new cars) almost
> always were Fords with Mid-Essex numberplates (where Ford Europe's HQ
> was).
>
> And talking of TV cops with placement cars (such as John Nettles in
> Midsomer Murders, which were Volvos I think) one episode of Bergerac had
> a central character go through the door of a relatively small but
> picturesque holiday rental I had stayed in, and Tardis-Style inside it
> morphed into a stately home.

IIRC The Prime Of Miss Jean Brodie has a scene where Maggie Smith walks
along an Edinburgh street. There is a front 3/4 shot which then cuts to a
similar shot from the other side and it’s suddenly a different street!

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 15/07/2022 11:25, Roland Perry wrote:
> They also pointed out that "product placement" of shots of aircraft
> taking off or landing were almost always American Airlines, who had
> people whose job it wasto make thathappen.

I wonder if it was the same person who went around with a pot of paint
to obliterate the name or emblem of the airline after a crash.

In message <tarmsc$324p6$2@dont-email.me>, at 13:34:14 on Fri, 15 Jul
2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 15/07/2022 11:25, Roland Perry wrote:
>> They also pointed out that "product placement" of shots of aircraft
>> taking off or landing were almost always American Airlines, who had
>> people whose job it wasto make thathappen.
>
>I wonder if it was the same person who went around with a pot of paint
>to obliterate the name or emblem of the airline after a crash.

Unlikely; the former are strategists - quite likely in an external PR
agency, which was where my friend worked on the AA account - the latter
(if they exist) operations.
--
Roland Perry

On 15/07/2022 09:12, Recliner wrote:
> Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>> Lots of British TV dramas involve railways, and they mostly have to be shot
>>> on preserved lines as access is rarely available to NR track and stations
>>> using current trains. That can cause some hilarious gaffes in the eyes of
>>> rail enthusiasts
>>
>> TV - and movies - are just as bad at planes as they are trains...
>> Not at all unexpected for the plane to be a 737 on the runway, an
>> A320 once it's in the air, and a twin-aisle widebody in all the
>> interior shots. Except the cockpit, which is from a
>> steam-powered 707.
>>
>> I watched a few episodes of a (terrible - don't bother) show on
>> Netflix recently called Manifest IIRC, in which the plane
>> constantly switches between a 737-NG and a 737-200 from scene to
>> scene - which may seem minor (it is!) but given the series
>> revolves entirely around this plane it's incredibly annoying.
>> (Albeit not the worst thing about the series - that would be the
>> "I can't believe I'm not in church" endless evangelical
>> god-bothering. I assume it was originally made for America's
>> Heartland Daytime TV.)
>>
>
> Yes, aircraft continuity errors are even worse than trains, because they
> rely so much on library clips or images. Clips of plane take-offs with the
> undercarriage retracting usually seem to be of 747s, because the
> choreography of four four-wheel main gears folding is so much more
> impressive than the simple, spindly 737 (etc) underpinnings.
>
> And, as you say, they favour 747s for interior shots. I assume the major
> studios have 747 interior mock-ups, possibly already fitted with camera
> tracks. Until recently, they often used to feature the old 747-200 nose,
> complete with spiral staircase, which Boeing stopped making about 35 years
> ago. This applied even to short-haul flights that never had 747s.
>
> The clips are also usually dated: many Heathrow shots illustrating current
> news stories still feature 747s from airlines that no longer operate them,
> such as BA and Virgin.
>

There are a couple of retired 747s at Dunsfold (former home of Top Gear)
that were acquired specifically for use as film sets.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 15/07/2022 09:12, Recliner wrote:
>> Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>>> Lots of British TV dramas involve railways, and they mostly have to be shot
>>>> on preserved lines as access is rarely available to NR track and stations
>>>> using current trains. That can cause some hilarious gaffes in the eyes of
>>>> rail enthusiasts
>>>
>>> TV - and movies - are just as bad at planes as they are trains...
>>> Not at all unexpected for the plane to be a 737 on the runway, an
>>> A320 once it's in the air, and a twin-aisle widebody in all the
>>> interior shots. Except the cockpit, which is from a
>>> steam-powered 707.
>>>
>>> I watched a few episodes of a (terrible - don't bother) show on
>>> Netflix recently called Manifest IIRC, in which the plane
>>> constantly switches between a 737-NG and a 737-200 from scene to
>>> scene - which may seem minor (it is!) but given the series
>>> revolves entirely around this plane it's incredibly annoying.
>>> (Albeit not the worst thing about the series - that would be the
>>> "I can't believe I'm not in church" endless evangelical
>>> god-bothering. I assume it was originally made for America's
>>> Heartland Daytime TV.)
>>>
>>
>> Yes, aircraft continuity errors are even worse than trains, because they
>> rely so much on library clips or images. Clips of plane take-offs with the
>> undercarriage retracting usually seem to be of 747s, because the
>> choreography of four four-wheel main gears folding is so much more
>> impressive than the simple, spindly 737 (etc) underpinnings.
>>
>> And, as you say, they favour 747s for interior shots. I assume the major
>> studios have 747 interior mock-ups, possibly already fitted with camera
>> tracks. Until recently, they often used to feature the old 747-200 nose,
>> complete with spiral staircase, which Boeing stopped making about 35 years
>> ago. This applied even to short-haul flights that never had 747s.
>>
>> The clips are also usually dated: many Heathrow shots illustrating current
>> news stories still feature 747s from airlines that no longer operate them,
>> such as BA and Virgin.
>>
>
> There are a couple of retired 747s at Dunsfold (former home of Top Gear)
> that were acquired specifically for use as film sets.
>

Yes, that's a good use for them, rather than just scrapping them. Given
that they were retired a few years earlier than planned, they're probably
in reasonably good nick internally (assuming that BA didn't strip out the
seats?). Of course, they'll soon look dated internally, as BA is moving to
new Club class seats.

In message <tar71g$30i5q$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:04:00 on Fri, 15 Jul
2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:

>>I think I may have identified 'our' 92, with some pretty
>> good clues to why the brake pipe pressure was zero and why Rakusen felt the
>> need to Photoshop the external scene.
>
>Yes, and that shot pretty much shows why the exterior view is faked - the
>original would have had a nice view of the hoist tower holding the loco up.

Which raises the possibility it's meant to be a photo of the inside of
the cab, and not as later titled a locomotive stopped on the tracks.
--
Roland Perry

Sam Wilson wrote:

>IIRC The Prime Of Miss Jean Brodie has a scene where Maggie Smith walks
>along an Edinburgh street. There is a front 3/4 shot which then cuts to a
>similar shot from the other side and it’s suddenly a different street!

Back on the railway, Kind Hearts and Coronets has key scenes
around Copenhagen Tunnel, but other exteriors actually some
distance away.

<http://movie-locations.com/movies/l/Ladykillers-1955.php>

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

On 16/07/2022 09:19, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> Back on the railway, Kind Hearts and Coronets has key scenes
> around Copenhagen Tunnel, but other exteriors actually some
> distance away.

Not unusual, the Houston (or was it Dallas?) office scenes in Local Hero
were shot in Fort William.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <tar71g$30i5q$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:04:00 on Fri, 15 Jul
> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>> I think I may have identified 'our' 92, with some pretty
>>> good clues to why the brake pipe pressure was zero and why Rakusen felt the
>>> need to Photoshop the external scene.
>>
>> Yes, and that shot pretty much shows why the exterior view is faked - the
>> original would have had a nice view of the hoist tower holding the loco up.
>
> Which raises the possibility it's meant to be a photo of the inside of
> the cab, and not as later titled a locomotive stopped on the tracks.

Yes, he probably realised (maybe later, maybe immediately) that a composite
version with an outdoor railway scene (rather than the inside of a depot)
would sell better. He appears not to be a specialist railway photographer
(most of his images have other subjects), and so wanted an image that was
of more appeal to a general audience. The original depot version would
probably have been of more interest to a railway magazine, but they might
not have wanted a 'driver' blocking the view of the controls.

So he took a shot from a platform in his local large station and
photoshopped it in, not very carefully (eg, the shadows are the most
obvious give-away). He probably knows from experience that the generalist
media aren't particularly fussy about accuracy, so it's not worth wasting
time perfecting the composition. After all, time is money for a freelance
photographer.