Nothing makes a "period" movie feel less authentic than glaring anachronisms, and this one was wrought with them.
My main one was the fact that Brad Pitt's character wore a Padres hat which had not been introduced yet. They specifically chose the hat to be a Padres hat, and nobody realized that the Padres had completely different colors in the 80s, it just shows a lack of attention to detail.
[deleted]
Really? Not only are you stalking me, but you're being completely moronic in the way you're doing it. Way to completely eliminate any kind of credibility you will ever have on this website, genius.
shareThis movie is full of attention to detail - I've watched this movie probably a half dozen times, and notice new nuances and layers every time.
Sure, this (Padres hat) may have been a detail they missed, but most people (all the production crew obviously) didn't notice this detail. Sorry that it ruined the movie for you, but I think that if this is the most glaring anachronism you see, then they did a pretty good job.
And I guess for me, the details of the movie were less about the "period" setting (it used the Vietnam war as a backdrop rather than as the point of the movie, in my opinion) and more about the details of how the characters interacted, and how they (Redford especially) used their knowledge of systems and their surroundings to manipulate outcomes. There may be other problems with the "period" setting, but it was good enough for me to get lost in the details of the plot and characters, which are more important to me. Maybe you can take a look at the movie not as a period piece, but as a character piece.
I'm with red here. I really don't think this is an issue especially if, like me, (and probably heaps of other people) you're not a "padres" fan and wouldn't have the faintest idea what their caps looked like in the early 90's. The computers looked early 90's, Muir faxed instead of emailed, the guy on the roof had a brick for a "mobile phone". It looked 90's to me except when it was the 70's or the 80's. The story was plausible with well drawn characters and great acting. I think Spy Game is up there with Tony Scott's best films.
shareI noticed many anachronisms in this film. The mobil phones were a big one for me as I know what those phones looked like in 1991 (kinda like the ones used in the Viet Nam section of the movie). It's logical to assume that Bishop is a Padres fan as he states he's from Hemet, CA. I kind of liked the hat he was wearing as the hats, and unis, the Padres did wear in the mid 80's were possibly the ugliest things I've ever seen on a ball field. That includes majors, minors, little leage & beer league softball.
I almost numchucked you, you don't even realize!
The hat was just so glaring to me because of how ugly the old Padres uniforms and hats were. It was like someone said "that hat is too ugly, let's just use the current one because it looks better". There were others, but I saw the film so long ago that the Padres hat is the one I remember most.
shareThat hat thing bugged me too. It didn't ruin it for me. Not just the color and logo either but the style. Nobody had nice fitted hats like that in the 80s. If it didn't have a net style back, it would have at least had a pins and holes style adjuster.
Also not just what the cell phones looked like but use of the term "on my cell" jumped out as a little wrong.
Not big issues, but worth mentioning.
[deleted]
The hat was sloppy, but I've seen worse: Some film I saw, title forgotten, parts take place in WWII in England, c.1943, and at a club there's a party for soldiers with 3 big flags part of the decorations, US, UK, and Canada. And they used the red maple leaf flag that flew for the first time in Feb. 1965. Oops. Only a couple of decades off.
I have seen enough to know I have seen too much. -- ALOTOshare
I never followed the padres. Didn't bother me at all.
shareIf anything killed the movie it was the spy training section and especially tip about reflective surfaces. Its quite awkward, makes me want to look away or stop the movie.
shareDon't be so petty.
Hat? Who-cares.
a Padres hat which had not been introduced yet.
Late nineties small, 'stylished' sunglasses worn in the seventies and eighties, when it was the time of the BIG sunglasses, was another anachronism that bugged me a lot.
Then I realized this movie only pretends to be serious, and is yet another "we don't care about the details, believability, consistency, story, etc. as long as there's (injected) ROMANCE in it, and women flock to see it"-scenario.
What else is new.
I can see how it happened; "Um.. we can't use these sunglasses, this kind of style wasn't invented in the seventies/eighties. - Don't worry about it - come on, this movie has BRAD PITT! Do you really think these stupid audiences are going to NOT see it because of some stupid sunglasses? Just put it in the movie, no one will notice it anyway! People will flock to see it because of big names, no matter what kind of sunglasses we use. Never mention this again, or you're fired! -Yes, sir."
Again an interesting premise completely spoiled by hollyweird's agenda and greed for money and female approval.
There was again so much potential and intrique.. all down the toilet, because the whole main core focus and point of EVERYTHING is just some ugly hag. SIGH and GROAN. HOW many times do we need to see this crap? How? How much is enough? Can we do it that much, and then never do it again?
For once, I'd like to see a big budget spy/action/sci-fi/etc.-movie without -any- romance, and even without -any- women whatsoever. I wonder what the experience would feel like, since I am not sure I have ever seen such a movie.
(Actually, 'Bad Taste' comes sort of close, though it still has woman actors, but no female characters, and thankfully, no romance whatsoever - but it's kind of hard movie to take seriously. It's budget was also not very big.)
This movie does have some really clever parts, but it all gets diluted by the hag+romance-combo. This could've been a great movie, now it's just a 'typical hollyweird mess'. Sigh.
So much promise and potential completely wasted. AGAIN.