Nitpicking Inaccuracies

Roar, Nitpickers. Roar.

You know those websites that exist simply to point out the errors in films? Like this one: Moviemistakes.com. Seems pretty simple, to pick apart a movies accuracy in a number of fields. Today I was watching Jurassic Park, and I started thinking about why the 'mistakes' don't matter so much as the story, characters, and freaking dinosaurs.

The first mistake often pointed out in the 1993 film is that the paleontologists at the beginning of the movie dig up the velociraptor skeleton far too quickly. You know what's even more annoying than that inaccuracy? Watching them actually carefully pick apart every piece of real fossilized bone. The amount that was uncovered in the film could easily lapse a National Geographic series narrated by a dry old man who spent his entire life working on this one project.

The second is the various computer inaccuracies and debug lingo. Yes, we're all very proud of you for knowing so much about computers – but in layman's terms? Computers in 1993 are also boring. This is why the error message was an animated homunculus-Dennis Nedry saying “Uh-uh-uh, you didn't say the magic word!” when a wrong password is entered, which would never happen – but it's funny. It's a humor device in the plot, and how many people would know better at the time?

In order to better visualize the computer sequence at the end where they're frantically “searching” for the right file to restore security in the Jurassic Park compound, it's nice to have a visualization. Again, the system wouldn't be laid out on an easy-to-follow button grid, but it helped the people who didn't have computers in 1993 (think about it, did you?) get a general idea of what was going on.

The final mistake that I almost found myself nitpicking during the film was the shotgun that Grant shoots at the raptors through the window. It leaves bullet holes about the size of a .22, regardless of the very obvious shotgun shells lying on the ground next to the shotgun as they run for cover. But you know what looks really unimpressive? A .22 pistol pointed at a dinosaur. You know what looks not-like-a-bullet-hole? A shotgun blast through glass.

You know what else is inaccurate: Living, breathing dinosaurs. Yet we're willing to overlook a major “wait, what?” plot in favor of complaining about the little things, it's a strange phenomenon, really. I know there are other issues with this movie, like which side of the road the guest-car was pushed off of by the T-Rex (Who really cares? A truck was pushed over a cliff by a T-freaking-rex!)

Errors in movies often come on purpose for the sake of entertainment, yet some things “just get to us” for seemingly no reason. Nurses will have trouble with medical films or TV, gun nuts go nuts for gun inaccuracies, and science nerds can't stand inaccurate science.

The best I can come up with in defense of these types of inaccurate things is: That's not the purpose of this film or show. You're not going to watch Criminal Minds and learn how to really profile serial killers, or watch House and learn to be a doctor, and there was certainly some disappointment from me as I learned paleontologists don't really get to go to dinosaur zoo/theme parks. I was eight when that film came out, cut me some slack.

Really though, if you're using fictional mediums like TV shows or films (that do not say “documentary” anywhere) to learn valuable things, then you're probably an idiot who should be removed of television rights. I mostly blame you for the success of such shows as "Two and A Half Men" or "Mike and Molly" in an era that could thrive much more on smarter shows that don't rely on laugh tracks.

Remember in Galaxy Quest (1999) when the alien race called “Thermians” thought the TV show Gilligan's Island was real, and they grew somber thinking about “all those poor little people?” They called Television “Historical Documents” without realizing that we use fiction, and lies to tell stories that may be less than true. Based on truth, sure – but fiction is more than that. It uses the truth to explain situations (as used in many horror films, which focus heavily on human psychology and sociology of groups), but it uses lies to explore alternate possibilities in our world.

Television and Hollywood films are not real folks, sorry to be the one to break it to you. If there are blatant inaccuracies it is possibly one of two reasons: The writers didn't know better (because it's a common assumption or they don't do their fact checking, which is a bad writer) or they didn't think you'd know better so they used artistic license to do whatever they wanted for whatever reason – and they got paid for it either way.

That means that all of you who get upset because something realistic is changed in a film or TV show is the end of the world should look up Applied Phlebotinum. This phenomenon allows writers to make up things like the “Sonic Screwdriver” from Dr. Who in order to fill some function of the plot, or change the bullets that come out of a shotgun to emphasize a situation.

The point is, if you're going to complain about some inaccuracy in fiction, complain about all of them – or really, you're not allowed to enjoy any fiction at all and you're trying to screw it up for the rest of us. You're probably also the person that complains about how accurate Superman is in any of his many films, comics, deaths, and rebirths (he's an alien from a planet named after an Earth-element, a goofy Kansas man, and has been around since 1938, give him some wiggle-room to change once in a while), which really just makes you silly.

Now, go enjoy some fake science and write a story that makes people wonder why the owls are not what they seem. You'll feel better once you can let the nitpicking rest once in a while. You do believe in Transformers, after all.