I wonder what people think about factual inaccuracies in screen/stage/novel etc? For example- I just saw the last episode of a Brit TV drama that I'd loved, but in this episode, at the very end, one main character is about to fly off into the sunset. When he goes to the ticket desk at the airport, he says; 'This ticket is in my mates name, but it's been transferred to me', and gives the checkin girl/boy his passport etc. Now we all know that since September 11 (or even before?) that just ain't possible... and while this didn't destroy the drama for me, it was disappointing because it jarred me back into the real world, and it seemed sloppy in an otherwise tightly written, funny, etc piece of work. Am I being overly picky or do these things really matter? I'm struggling with this on a film at the moment, so any thtoughts will be of interest.

I think factual inaacuracies and lack of continuity spoil so many otherwise good pieces.

classic examples are the use of trains were the engine coaches change in mid journey . Trains leave from the wrong station.

The Jimmy Savill advert for BR clearly had a train going bacwards out of a tunnel ( the red rear lights were coming towards the viewer but perhaps that was profound deja vu)

digital watches in period pieces. vehicles being used out o f their time period.

Wa it not POldark were you can see a jet flying across in the sky line and the Onedin line there is a brief glimpse of a container ship

costume and hair style changes mid way through a scene or even a sentence

incorrect period costume being used ( yes people do notice)

funnily enough I was having a converstaion this evening about novel writing and somebody mentioned that they had met Douglas Reeman an dhe was asked about research. Reeman is reported to have said that whilst his first book sold very well he was slated about the factual inaccurcies in it. He for every subsequent novel spent months on research to the point of ensuring the menu in Lyons Corner House was right for the period, his train timetables were accurate etc.

Surely if you spend time writing the piece and intend it to be sold you owe it to yourself as much as your public to make sur ethings are accurate.

apologies for the typos have just bought new glasses and cant see the screen with them guess what I will be doing tomorrow

If you're writing smething based in reality, then factual accuracy is essential. You can put a load of inaccuracies into, say, a novel, and almost nobody will actually notice. But then someone will come along who picks it up, and finds the whole story somewhat unlikely, or dummied down, or eve assuming thr reader knows nothing on the subject and so the author can get away with writing whatever he/she likes about something.

Like in Jurassic Park where the Velociraptors ('Raptors) were all 6-7 feet tall, when in reality they could barely have looked a 6-year old in the eye. Deinonychus was a similar creature, though much larger, which would have fit the profile, but they wouldn't have managed the whole "Oooh, Raptor means 'bird of prey'" line. Regardless of the fact that 'Raptor' is actually latin for 'thief', and velociraptor in whole means "fast thief" as it was a very small carnivore which likely specialised in stealing eggs from other creatures nests and running off with them.

Now, millions of people will have blissfully allowed those small facts to fly ignorantly over their heads, but me... well, I found myself questioning the author's knowledge of the subject.

I fully agree. I hate inaccuracies and continuity mistakes of any sort, and I think that if you spot a mistake in an area where you have some expertise, you notice it even more and it really spoils the enjoyment of the film/TV show. For example, I know far more about cars than is good for me, and if I see one more instance of a car crashing when it doesn't have an engine, or of something driving down the street in a period piece when it wouldn't yet have been made, it drives me mad. There's a brilliant example of the latter in the Agatha Christie adaptation of The Mirror Crack'd with Kim Novak and Liz Taylor, where, in the opening scene, a 1959 Cadillac pulls up as a caption appears reading "1953"... Right, that's my rant over. Will go back my trainspotting now...

Ah, but you see, I don't think those are writer's errors, they are down to continuity/production/designers, I think... for instance, if a character in a play or screenplay made or staged now referred to the Twin Towers as still being there, you'd know it was down to the writer having lived on Mars for the last 2 years. But if the production designer included a background set that had the towers still there, that wouldn't be the writers fault. Yes? But then, the writer's name is still stamped all over the finished product. We are a nation of trainspotters at heart aren't we?

Ah, but the Jurasic Park error was first in the book. Another (rather geeky) load of examples comes from the Star Wars books. Now, I know there are quite a few out there, but having read a lot of them, many of them tend to step on eachother's toes in a number of places. That's just simply down to the author's not knowing their stuff in regard to the extended Star Wars Universe.

Irritating.

If it's not correct, and you know it's not correct, then it can totally pull you out of the moment and ruin it for you.

But sometimes, when the author is right, but it just doesn't seem right, that can be just as bad. I can't think of a specific example right now, but I have read things set in the recent past, thinking that's not right... stopped reading to look it up, found it is right after all, but the moment has already passed.

Basically, if you read it back and it doesn't sound right (even if it is) it's probably best to change it. If you doubt it, amore knowledgeable reader certainly will, and we need keep potential readers on our side!

Absolutely agree with this. And that thing about pulling you as a reader/viewer out of the moment is fatal, I think, because you kind of lose faith in the world that's been created.

I wanted heavy snow over new year for a story I was writing and spent some time Googling trying to find where/when in the rough period I was writing in that this might have happened but I couldn't find a suitable year. I decided it didn't matter, but no doubt some people would sit up and think 'hang on, it rained all over new year in Storytown that year . . .'

However, in more instantly knowable cases, like the airline ticket example above, I think accuracy is important to avoid readers being jolted out of the story.

I wanted heavy snow over new year for a story I was writing

You and every Christmas card designer. Lack of real snow at that time of year in the UK has never prevented anyone from showing it like that. I've seen more Christmas/New Year snow in TV shows than I have in reality.

For me, it's a question of balance and proportion. I'm prepared to put up with a few subtle (i.e. non-obvious) factual inaccuracies, as long as the story's internal logic is self-consistent. It's when that doesn't happen that I find it jarring.

Alex

I have to say, Anna, the example you gave about the airline ticket seems to me to be less about innaccuracy and more about just plain laziness. I would have been chucking my shoes at the telly (and sending the bill for the repairs to the writer).

I think generally speaking, there's a sort of sliding scale for how important accuracy is depending on the type of story. Historical drama, for instance would be pretty high up the accuracy scale, while something like an action movie or a fantasy epic would probably get a lot more leeway. I mean, how many times have we seen cars spontaneously exploding the moment they hit anything in action movies? If they were like that in real life, I'd never do more than 2 miles an hour

I mean, how many times have we seen cars spontaneously exploding the moment they hit anything in action movies?

Or James Bond taking on 6 machine-gun-wielding soldiers, and killing them all with 6 shots from his Walther PPK without suffering even a flesh wound in return.

This is what I mean by balance and proportion: the extent to which inaccuracy is acceptable depends on both the genre and how seriously the story is meant to be taken. It also depends, to a degree, on whether the writer or series of novels/films has established that they have some leeway. The James Bond stories are an example of where considerable leeway has been 'negotiated' over the years (by the film makers, that is; the books themselves are much more realistic and believable). I've seen other films of a similar type where much closer correspondence with reality is maintained.

Nit-picking accuracy can have its own down-side, of course, in that it takes much longer for the story to be written. Jean M. Auel's Earths Children stories are breathtakingly realistic, in terms of the picture they paint of prehistoric humans. Each one has taken her about 10 years to write, though, and I suspect that many of her fans would gladly have sacrificed some accuracy just to be able to read the books quicker.

Alex

I wanted heavy snow over new year for a story I was writing You and every Christmas card designer.

I wanted it for story-telling reasons, not for some shallow, aesthetic effect.

No-one really expects accuracy in James Bond or other action films, the whole thing is so far from reality that accuracy is not an issue.

Jan

It's a question of context and suspension of disbelief, isn't it. James Bond has to be credible in the context of the world that's set up. But believing in that world in the first place requires a large suspension of disbelief.