Rock mistakes you’ve caught in movies

Ahh (internal voice) "Perhaps read, not skim, the whole thread before posting!"

Has this one been mentioned yet?
Another Cameron Crowe mistake.

In 'Almost Famous', during the suburban house party scene, Deep Purple's 'Burn' is playing prominently in the background.
But the mistake is Burn didn't come out until 1974, Buuuutttt, but, the movie specially references it being set in 1973, multiple times. Actually the manager character, Noah says as they leave the house, "See you all in 1974".
Literally five minutes after you hear 'Burn' playing.

 

Actually you accentuated the wrong word - it should be "historical fiction". If there's little to no actual history within the story, then its pretty much just pure fiction.

'The Buddy Holly Story' is essentially pure fiction aside from the one fact it hinges on - "Yes there WAS a rock star from the 50s named Buddy Holly who died in a plane crash" - other than that one fact it shares with reality, its nearly a complete work of fiction - not "historical fiction" - just "fiction fiction" and that's not OK when it claims otherwise.

 

Oh god, were you in a movie theater doing one of those pretentious laughs that annoy people? Or a De Niro/Cape Fear laugh that terrifies people?

 

Is the song incorporated into the s/t or is the scene with the song actually part of the movie? You can have a fairly loose license on the s/t as long as it’s not scenes in the movie where the song is playing as background music.

 

I have always thought that was Rat's mistake, not Cameron's. It was meant to convey his earnest inexperience.

 

So Charles Martin Smith wasn’t actually playing a stand up acoustic bass in the backseat of a car?

Color me disillusioned.

 

This is how I always perceived it, too. Clueless as to music and women.

 

It's played in the disco club. It's not like it ruined the movie it just I think the year was supposed to be 1967

 

I don’t recall the movie very well (obviously).

All the Austin Powers movies were set in the 60’s (partly), so you’re absolutely right.

 

1969

 

I've not seen the film in question but that's exactly the kind of thing that drives me mad!

 

I liked that movie I missed that mistake. I have watched quite a few times and thought the music was done well.

 

I remember an episode of The Cosby Show where one of Cosby's friend's had a much younger girlfriend who was a fan of a heavy metal singer called 'Clyde.' She brought a 'Clyde' album with her - which was, visibly, High Voltage by AC/DC - so, presumably, 'Clyde' was Angus Young, who was already internationally famous and recognisable at the point when that episode was aired.

In the shallow but likeable film Shallow Hal (2002), Jack Black is told about a Beatles reunion concert, in which Eric Clapton would substitute for John Lennon. Although George Harrison was still alive when the film was being made, it would have been an easy matter for the producers to alter this line, given its 2002 release date.

 

Fair enough for TV - to a point. I haven't watched a Monkees episode in decades, but I don't remember anything embarrassingly bad from any of them as far as instrumental miming goes - least of all Tork. However 'Happy Days' was one show that was embarrassing to watch given the ineptitude of most of their musical scenes. If it was only a one time musical scene, that would be forgivable, but it was recurring and they never seemed to care or put ANY effort into making it visually believable.

With movies (especially theatrical films with big budgets/longer schedules) its far less forgivable. I remember an interview with Michael J Fox where he said (though he was hardly a novice) he took guitar lessons specifically for 'Back To The Future' so he would be reasonably believable in the 'Marvin Berry' scene. I doubt that was all up to him. I would assume the producers asked (if not insisted) he did so, and that they paid for the lessons.

 

So Clapton couldn’t have subbed for Lennon even if Harrison was part of the reunion?

Maybe I don’t understand your point ...

Very possible I don’t

 

What insults the audience's intelligence is when they have the realism fetish. All fiction has any leeway its creators want it to have. What makes something a particular genre are the characteristics it has. It's certainly not the case that only SciFi fictionalizes physics. Action films do that regularly, too, for example.

 

Right. That was me. And what concerns me is this: So many people have said "This movie rules" to me over the years. Opinions are fine.
But the issue I have with the film (since the day I saw it at the local theater in 1991) is that it disfigures the truth -- and it makes discussions about The Doors turn into someone spewing data from that movie as REAL historical facts. No biggie, it's their loss if they choose not to do some real research.
Some say No One Here Gets Out Alive is a bunch of B.S....but I readit when I was 10.5 years old. I was a new fan of their music, and my brother handed me the paperback edition and said "See if you like this". Some of it might be stretched as well -- but when you compare it to Stone's movie, timelines and stories do not match up very well at all. When you read Manzarek's book and Densmore's book, nothing aligns with Stone's version of reality.
And...I could be wrong about all of this. I'm not so certain that I am always right (I have memory loss, but I try!)...but there are a few musicians that I've studied more than others: The Beatles, The Doors, Neil Young, Grateful Dead...I'm no expert, but also I couldn't tell you anything about ABBA or the Bee Gees.
Thanks for commenting on my comment, man!

 

haha! conveniently, I saw it on DVD that was lent to me and I was watching it on my own.
how embarrassing to laugh out loud on your own, in one of those Jimmy Kimmel laughs he has.

 

It pretty much is. Crowe says they couldn’t get the song they wanted, so they decided to let it play as a joke about the Rat’s dorkiness. He also says this is the thing he gets asked about/“called out” on more than anything else.

 

He actually says side 1 of Led Zeppelin 4

 

Harrison wasn't mentioned: it was just assumed he was still alive.

 

Well that would make him 61/62 years old now - which he isn't. No-one on The Simpsons ages. There was an early season flashback episode of Homer and Marge falling in love in high school in 1974. Since no-one ages on the Simpsons, 1974 would now be several years before either of them was born, since I'm pretty sure they are perpetually in their mid to late 30s.

 

Got it. Thx.

 

But wasn't that a song recorded (and maybe even written) specifically for use in the film? Sure the recording didn't sound exactly era correct, but it didn't sound ridiculously 80s either. It sounds like pretty much what it was - an 80s recording trying to sound like a 60s recording. Plus like all big-budget movies at the time - a big-blockbuster soundtrack album was a must, and an album with only era correct songs - and without any sure fire hit singles to be - wasn't going to cut it.

So more of a calculated money making business decision than a 'mistake'

 

I have watched 'Withnail and I' many times in the hope of catching an error ,there does not seem to be one in the first 45 minutes or so. As for the next 45 minutes there are probably loads but by then I am usually too inebriated to notice !