MovieChat Forums > X Company (2015) Discussion > Four Errors in as many minutes

Four Errors in as many minutes

posted 10 years ago by emilne1
22 replies | jump to latest

That was all I could watch. I had hoped for a series that I would enjoy, but so many errors makes it impossible. First, there is talk of a "bombardier" of a downed British bomber, whereas the RAF had bomb-aimers. Bombardier was a rank in the Royal Artillery, equivalent to a corporal. One of the group identifies this person and gives his rank as "first lieutenant", which did not exist in the RAF. When he is found he is wearing pilot's wings and flight sergeant's stripes! There's nothing wrong with a f/sgt being a pilot, but the man is supposedly a 1/Lt bombardier! I changed the channel.

[–] Whatlarks 10 years ago

Hardly anyone cares about these trivialities, and for good reason.

[–] emilne1 10 years ago

I just seems to me that if something is worth doing it is worth doing right. It could be done so easily.

[–] Whatlarks 10 years ago

I tend to agree with you, being a detail person myself, but on a practical level only a tiny percentage of the audience would know those arcane facts and slight differences. Problems with story, not that stuff, would be the significant source for any channel-switching.

[–] Soulmai 9 years ago

I care about those trivialities, and for an even better reason.

If a show can't be at least partially accurate when dealing with historical events then it should make this obvious as it breeds stupidity amongst the common plebs who take it's drivel as gospel. You see them everywhere, those who think Cleopatra was white, that Mary (Queen of the Scots) wore mini skirts, and CSI has made them professional detectives.

It would be extremely easy for the show to simply advertise at the start of each episode that the events and equipment may not be historically accurate.

Every 7 seconds ......

[–] Whatlarks 9 years ago

You've confused historical "events" for decor -- insignia, the military labels of a certain armed forces, etc. That's not a sign of accuracy. And Cleopatra's race is debated, not confirmed. Again, not a sign of accuracy. Ironically, you're inaccurate with your own example that supposedly "breeds stupidity." In light of this, to be consistent you should take your own advice and advertise a similar warning at the start of each post.

To quibble over insignia and military labels is to miss the forest for the wood chips.

[–] Brock-11 10 years ago

I'll continue watching. I'll let you know if an RAF Squadron Leader is called a Major.

[–] Brock-11 10 years ago

MI9, the British Directorate of Military Intelligence Section 9, was a department of the War Office between 1939 and 1945. During World War II it was tasked with aiding resistance fighters in enemy occupied territory and recovering Allied troops who found themselves behind enemy lines (for example, aircrew who had been shot down and soldiers stranded after the Battle of Dunkirk).

MI19 was concerned with interrogation, so it would probably not have been relevant in that episode. However, perhaps I did not hear correctly.

As with calling the RAF officer a "First Lieutenant" instead of "Flight Lieutenant," it may be the actors making mistakes, not the scriptwriters.

[–] Jeneral28 10 years ago

If the actors made the mistake, the Directors should have noticed.

[–] emilne1 10 years ago

Not only should the director have noticed an error in reading the script, he or she should have noticed that the costume department put the man in a flight-sergeant's uniform, with the wrong aircrew brevet. They couldn't even get their own error right...

[–] Jeneral28 10 years ago

can you explain this error?

[–] emilne1 10 years ago

They identified the person as an officer (first lieutenant, wrong in itself) and a bombardier (which should have been bomb-aimer). When they showed the character they compounded their errors by having him wear the uniform of an NCO (flight sergeant) with full wings (i.e. a double wing with a crowned crest in the centre), which would be worn by a pilot. A bomb-aimer (and any other aircrew member other than pilot) would wear a half-wing, with a letter to indicate their duty. You can see a bomb-aimer's brevet here: http://www.historicflyingclothing.com/upload/images/shopprod/raf-bomb-aimer-brevet_10615_main_size3.jpg

My point is that they didn't even try to dress him to match what they said he was.

[–] Jeneral28 10 years ago

thanks I know the RAF doesnnt use army ranks.

[–] Prutgardin 10 years ago

Do you also collect stamps or are you too busy with rank and insignia research?

Athhajar ma yeroon.

[–] dragal_78-150-551601 10 years ago

I do hate when camera spectacularly zoom out to global view and quickly move to camp x in Canada. Problem is that the X-team is in French town Villemarie but for some reason camera zooming out through the church bell up in the sky....to the map view ....ohh what we are in Southampton south of G.Britain.Because its only 2min after start of the show its very confusing.

[–] Con2014 10 years ago

I'm really enjoying the show but noticed in episode 3 when Felix pulls the gun on Aurora his nose is bleeding then in the next shot the blood is gone.

[–] Brammo 10 years ago

I have noticed several discontinuity issues as well. The blood under the German officer's nose was there and gone 2 or 3 times and in the episode with the Jaz singer she seems to change her dress several times in the same scene. One time she has a straight neckline, the next time it plunges down. The other ting I found somewhat disconcerting is the way they seems to hop back and forth between France and Canada without any transition in the earlier episodes. It may you feel like it was a 10 minute bus-ride, not a multi-day excursion.

This sloppyness is too bad. It shows a lack of commitment to quality which might spell the end for the show if they don't fix it.

Otherwise the how is very good, the stories are good, there's lots of tension and the acting is fine.

[–] erin_wiebe 10 years ago

I wish people would be as detail oriented about their writing as they are in finding fault with other people's work. I have a hard time acknowledging the value in a comment when it is poorly written and spelling errors are glaringly obvious. If you cannot take the time to write your perspective well and free of error, then your comments take on the same value.

[–] MRDK 10 years ago

I will start by saying that I like the show, but your are right, there are some errors in it, I just watch Episode 8, and right there on the docks stands a Scania-Vabis 36, the problem with that, is that the Scania-Vabis 36 wasn't produces before 1964, so just about 22 years after this episode, so way off, but otherwise a fairly good show, but with some errors... :-)

[–] TesubCalle 9 years ago

LOL. This comment wins.

Certa Bonum Certamen

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nothin_Snooty 9 years ago

USAAF called their target finders bombadiers. Sloppy history.

"At some point, we've all parked in the wrong garage."- Roger Sterling, Jr.

[–] MandumeYaNdemufayo 9 years ago

No, the guy that got the squadron to the target was the NAVIGATOR, the guy who took care of the bomb-aiming was the "Bombardier" (in US parlance. In UK/British parlance, the guy who aimed the bombs was called the "bomb-aimer") The bomb-aimer/bombardier usually manned the guns (often "chin mounted") before & after the bomb run (enemy fighters rarely attacked the bombers during the actual bomb-run, as the flak was at its most intense at that point.)

Kill the boer!