MovieChat Forums > Airport (1970) Discussion > Change a "goof" that isn't?

Change a "goof" that isn't?

posted 10 years ago by almostfm-1
19 replies | jump to latest

In the "goofs" section, there is one that says "The pilot asks to descend and they dial in 7700 replacing 7000, actually increasing their altitude."

The problem is that what we see isn't a goof, and IMDB doesn't let me change it (if I tell it I want to change an item, this one doesn't show on the list). The pilot isn't changing the altitude setting on the autopilot--he's dialing in "7700" on the transponder, which is the international code for an emergency condition. It makes the "blip" on the radar screen much more visible, so ATC knows at a glance which plane is in trouble. Right after the change, they cut to a radar screen where the plane's signal suddenly becomes much larger and more visible.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

I just went onto the Goofs page and if you click the link onto its edit page the item does show on the list. However, it's at the bottom -- the very last "goof" shown, not at the top as it is on the basic Goofs page. That must be why you missed it.

I didn't make the change because it's your catch and you know best how to handle it, but it is there and it can be changed or deleted.

While there I spotted a non-goof which I submitted a deletion request for. It's the one where some idiot said the copyright on the film reads MCMLXIX, which is 1969, not 1970, the film's release year. This is correct, but it's not a goof -- lots of films have copyright dates of other than their release years, a very basic fact about which whoever submitted this alleged "goof" is obviously clueless. (As is whoever okayed it at IMDb.) Point being, you can make and submit changes, corrections or deletions, including for the non-goof you found. Good luck.

[–] rorysa 10 years ago

IMDB Goofs are often dumb. Here's another one from this film that I simply disagree with, having watched the scene numerous times and looking for it:

"When Captain Demerest explains to the flight attendant that his copilot is required to wear an oxygen mask whenever the captain is absent from the flight deck, the flight attendant silently mouths his dialog as he speaks."

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Oh, yes, I glanced at that one. You're absolutely right, she doesn't silently mouth his dialogue, and even if she had it isn't necessarily a goof (she might have been directed to do so). I'd submit it for deletion, rorysa.

[–] almostfm-1 10 years ago

Thanks, hobnob! I went in and made the correction just now.

I swear I looked at that list for an hour and didn't see it.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Great, almostfm! I know what you mean. I was sure I'd missed it and actually had to go back through the list a second time before finding it. I don't know why the goofs come out differently on the corrections page than on their main page -- although since IMDb reorganized the main goofs pages to group the goofs together by type, that probably made the difference.

Now let's hope they accept your submission! Stay tuned....

Addendum: I just went to check to see if they'd removed the so-called "goof" I found, about the film's copyright date (1969) vs. its release date (1970). And yes, they have! Quick work. So your find should be accepted pretty soon, I'd expect.

[–] Rudd-12 9 years ago

I may have found another one, lol but I'd like some concensus.

Under factual errors the "goof" argues that the pilot is told to land on "Rnwy 29 with with winds gusting "from" 15" and tries to make the argument that the wind gusts direction is "15" (150 degrees) and therefore the plane should be landing on Rnwy 10. but I think the wind gusts are 15 knots, not a direction. Besides, a gust is a change in wind speed (increase). ATC would not clear you to land on a runway not in to the prevailing wind. In other words, you wouldn't change the runway of the prevailing wind just for a gust running 180 degrees nominally (even if that were possible or even likely).

I haven't verified the script yet.

EDIT: ok. I've just verified. The actual dialog is as follows and not as stated in the "goof"

"Cleared to land runway 29. Winds are one-five gusting two-five" which is not a goof. ATC is telling the pilot the wind speed is 15 knots gusting to 25 knots.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

That's right, Rudd. I didn't remember that dialogue but the moment I read "from 15" in your post it was obvious they were talking about the range of the wind's speed, with 15 being its minimum velocity.

Definitely submit this. I'm beginning to be amazed at how many people don't seem to understand or pay attention to what's going on in this movie and submit all these inaccurate "goofs".

[–] Rudd-12 9 years ago

Hehe. Yeah I submitted it AND found another one, lol. There really are some nitpicky "goof" spotters as well.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

What's the other one, and did you submit a correct-or-remove?

[–] Rudd-12 9 years ago

Another "goof" states:

"In the head-on view of the stuck 707, there is a car and piles of snow under the wing. In the side view, the car is gone along with the snow"

Some people aren't very observant. In that secene, there is no car under the wing. There is the bus picking up the passengers that is forward of the wing and there is snow piled in front of the wheels just at the base of the wings where they meet the fuselage. In the "side view" it is actually a quartering shot of the end of the wing including the engine looking aft at the tail. The vehicles and wheels of the aircraft are not visible and wouldnt be visible in this shot. They arenot "gone", you simply can't see them from this angle.

[–] rorysa 9 years ago

The filmmakers hired a pilot and ATC pro as technical advisers--I seriously doubt they were wrong and the goof-writers are right.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Yes, but most of these non-existent goofs aren't technical in nature, they're things any lay audience member should be able to see plainly. Rudd's most recent example above is a case in point. You don't need to be a pro to be able to tell a wrong camera angle or whether there's snow under a wing.

Besides, films with technical advisors make mistakes all the time, often to the consternation of those advisors. Oliver Stone hired a retired Dallas police detective who had been involved with the Kennedy assassination for his fantasy-lie JFK, and even kept checking with the advisor on crucial scenes as they went along -- paying absolutely no attention to the man's repeated warnings that nothing Stone depicted was correct. After Stone screened the finished film, he asked the advisor, "Well, were we accurate?", to which the man replied, "Well, you got the city right." Many filmmakers are just bent on doing what they want -- truth, accuracy and credibility be damned.

On that score, though, Airport seems to have done pretty well in listening to its experts.

[–] Rudd-12 9 years ago

Interesting that they got rid of the OPs goof and your goof so quickly, yet rorysa's goof is still there unchanged.

I submitted deletions for both mine but according to their priority system it could be a little while before they get to it.

It's funny because this is the first time I've actually done this. I've never paid a whole lot of attention to the goofs section of films before. I had alwaus assumed it was someone more or less "official" who was making these goof lists. I'm a little shocked to discover these are just basically submissions by any joe schmoe and subject to a lot of scrutiny.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

I've found many instances of the same goof (or trivia) being posted. Obviously no one checks for duplications let alone mistakes. On a few occasions a goof I've submitted hasn't been accepted even though it's definitely a goof. I've learned that persistence, logical writing and obvious possession of the facts helps a lot, whether posting a new entry or requesting a change in or deletion of an existing "goof".

[–] Rudd-12 9 years ago

Okay! There is a Santa Claus. All of my deletions/corrections were accepted. :)

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Yay!

Maybe the managers just wanted to get away early for the Labor Day weekend!

[–] gema6 9 years ago

I thought about starting a new thread, but it sounds like you people are the ones that have "goof" knowledge, so I thought I would put it out there for you.

When the stewardess, Ruth, is watching the doctor and nun work on Gwen, right after they put a splint on her arm, the doctor looks into Gwen's bandaged eyes with a flashlight.

It's not an important goof, but it is one nonetheless. At least it certainly looks like there is a bandage around her head from behind, and when you see her from the front, the bandage is around her eyes, not her forehead.

I thought I would post it here for confirmation before trying to add it, as I don't want to add the the list of unqualified goofs.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Yes, I believe you're right, gema6. I just looked at the scene on YouTube.

It's at 1:38:45. There's a bandage wrapped around her head covering her eyes, not her forehead. When the doctor shines the flashlight on her I guess he's supposed to be peering under the bandage -- for whatever good that might do -- but when you look he's actually shining the light up her nose -- he never moves it directly below her eyes. That makes it look even less like he's simply taking a quick glance beneath her bandages. Obviously he's supposed to be looking at her eyes but with them bandaged I don't know what he could see, since he never lifts the bandage to look -- quite apart from where he's aiming the light. I think the actor (Paul Picerni) is just making some vague motions without actually doing anything a real doctor would presumably need to. (Unless a quick glance under the bottom of the bandage would be of use -- which I doubt, though I'm certainly not a professional.)

Earlier (at 1:35:37) we have the scene where the doctor is first ministering to Gwen. There's no bandage wrapped around her head or eyes yet, but there is a small separate bandage covering her right eye. The doctor looks into her uncovered left eye with the light, then goes to look into the covered right eye. At that point he leans over so that her face is blocked by his body, so you can't completely tell whether he moves the bandage to look. It appears that he makes a motion of moving the bandage slightly to look, but we can't actually see anything, and when he moves back the bandage seems to be undisturbed. I don't think we can be sure enough to call that scene a goof, but I think you're right about the later one.

[–] gema6 9 years ago

Thanks, Hobnob...