68 things wrong with the film Twister

[Tim Vasquez]

While weeding through my old papers I found an old correspondence between myself, Tim Marshall, and David Hoadley:

Critique of the Film Twister (Hoadley, 1997)

I don't recall this article ever making it into the paper publication (or online for that matter). It lists in exquisite detail at least 68 errors spotted in the 1996 film Twister. I checked with David and he gave a thumbs up to posting it (belatedly) on our website. Interestingly enough this topic still seems to surface regularly after eight years, so it's none too late.

Enjoy!

Tim Vasquez

 

[Susan Strom]

Interesting, Tim...

Does anyone care to make one about the movies on PAX...LOL Particularly the lightning movie where the young man launches a rocket into the meso, saving the whole town. aye carumba :roll:

 

[Simone Lussardi]

OBJECTION !!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

There is a error in your errors' report :lol:

31. Jonas' crew says that \"Upper level winds are veering.\" Jonas says \"Uh, huh. It might dissipate.\" Hardly! If upper-level winds veer with height, this is exactly what they need to produce tornadoes.

WRONG: Jonas did say that, but in the immediately following frame the NWS says exactly that the tornado will intensify during to the veering and hook appearance. The contrast between the two sentences makes Jonas appear like a stupid bad guy :lol: :lol: , which I guess is what the Director want :roll:

:wink: :wink:

 

[David Draun]

gonna have to watch it again.. and spot all the errors.

 

[Bridget Beddow]

Twister is a movie???

I think a friend of mine put it succinctly when he said that movie was just a two-hour commercial for Dodge pick-up trucks.

 

[Jamie Lahowetz]

I think i will watch Twister again.. only with a printing of your list so that I can check them off. This might be a decent drinking game... Spot something on the list... take a drink. But I think after awhile no one will be paying attention to the list and just drinking when they see something fly through the air. ONE away opening cellar door...... TWO lack of OK morning sunlight...... THREE 7am "breaking cap"...... FLOOR (Warning: Dont Drink Taquila with this game)

 

[B Ozanne]

68 errors isn't too bad. Big Hollywood movies tend to have way more than that.

I think a friend of mine put it succinctly when he said that movie was just a two-hour commercial for Dodge pick-up trucks.

What about Pepsi? Ever notice when they look at the doppler velocities it looks just like the Pepsi ensignia. And the loop they show is almost always the same. Not to mention they only use Pepsi cans in the end to help make Dorothy "fly."

 

[B Ozanne]

I just read that article and now I am a little mad. First of all, its a fictional movie, not a documentary. Some of the mistakes pointed out are based on assumptions and averages. True the cap usually doesn't break at 7am (#3) but that doesn't mean it can't. I could take about half of those mistakes pointed out and defend them. Those mammatus clouds they filmed may not have been the most intense but they were the real thing, actual footage.

Another point of praise, most of the movie was filmed outside, in the midwest...not on a set. "On location" as they like to say.

Have you ever heard of the term "suspend you disbelief." Whenever I watch a movie set before 1900 I don't mention how white and straight everybody's teeth are or how tall all the actors are. I didn't expect Mel Gibson to have his real teeth smashed out and stained in "Braveheart" because people back then had very few teeth.

On a lighter note I had a run in with the pervibial "evil" corporate chaser in Texas. Ok, they weren't evil but it made me think of Twister. Check out the last picture, they even have a black truck.

http://home.earthlink.net/~greenrange/Texas/

 

[Bridget Beddow]

Haha - I didn't notice that but I do have the movie at the house so I think I will watch it again tonight. Me and my roommate are doing a chick's night at home watching flicks with pizza and pepsi.
By the way, irregardless of the film's inaccuracies, I have to say, Jo's position on feeling like tornadoe's make things personal is the way I have often felt at times - I think that's why I like the movie.

 

[Greg Stumpf]

Originally posted by B Ozanne
I just read that article and now I am a little mad. %First of all, its a fictional movie, not a documentary. %Some of the mistakes pointed out are based on assumptions and averages. %

Have you ever heard of the term \"suspend you disbelief.\"

The discussion at the time of the movie release that I recall concerned the fact that many of these lesser "mistakes" could have been corrected *without* significantly affecting the movie's outcome (except perhaps the Aunt Meg dinner and shower scene ). Had they listened to their technical advisor a little more closely there might have been fewer of these small mistakes.

BTW - you'd think after 8 years they'd get some of this done better with the Day After Tomorrow! The hail was still "chunks of ice" (albiet larger) and the tornadoes still came from flat stratoCu decks (even though radar showed huge supercell cores). Also notice that all the tornadoes in that film appeared to be rotating way too slow to cause the indicated damage.


greg

 

[B Ozanne]

Watching a movie or tv show for the general public about something you are an expert in is always very frustrating. I used to cringe at the thought of what was going to happen next, now I just lower my expectations so much I am usually pleasantly surprised.

The hail was still \"chunks of ice\" (albiet larger)

I'm sure they know their hail looks bad, it's got to be a cost issue. Making and storing randomly shaped hail stores is considerably harder than chopping up ice blocks as needed. You've got to consider how many shots they do on just one scene.

Another thing about Aunt Meg's wind vanes. It is possible that they just started to turn, maybe it wasn't that windy in town, maybe they were shielded by her house. Most likely though the director used what is called "artistic license." He wanted to make a point, to express non-verbally that change was coming.

 

[Richard Halter]

I had just finished my chase trip and went the day I got back to see Twister. There I was in a packed theatre laughing my head off while everyone else in the place was oooing and ahhhhing. Boy did I get some funny looks.

I realize the need to suspend disbelief, but it is not that hard to get it right if they can work so hard to get it wrong. :?:

 

[Dan Robinson]

Lightning and thunder realism is seriously wanting. Lightning in the movie looks more like spurts of Tesla coil sparks with an instantaneous sound like an arc welder.

Not that this is unique to Twister, or Hollywood for that matter - I have yet to see even a serious storm documentary that accurately portrays a real lightning-thunder event. (Distant bolts, real or fake, always have instantaneous thunder, etc.)

I've never understood why lightning/thunder realism has always been downplayed - the real thing is so much more dramatic and impressive. For once I'd like to see them show a close CG with that ripping peal from the branches followed by the boom from the main channel. Even if the lightning's not close, there's something hair-raising about the bright flash that you cringe at, waiting for the big sound that is inevitable. Now *that's* dramatic!

 

[B Ozanne]

I was watching Twister during a real thunderstorm and I couldn't tell what was coming from the movie and what was real. I think most of it was real and it complimented the movie very well. I'm pretty confident that a home theater will NEVER be able to portray a close strike, in terms of an accurate sound output. I wonder what real thunder is in terms of decibels or watts. Anybody know?

 

[Dan Robinson]

I'm not sure if it's possible to reproduce the decibel level of thunder, although I would like to hear high-quality thunder recordings played back on the biggest audio system out there, just to see what it would sound like

For now I'd just like to see a movie or documentary that uses actual recordings of thunder (or at least realistic reproductions) and places a believable delay between flash-thunder. Even most close strikes have at least a half second to one second delay before the sound reaches the observer.

It just seems, IMO, that lightning and thunder special effects have never enjoyed even a remote attention to realism like other natural phenomena has.