What ONE incorrectly depicted thing pisses you off most about military movies?

There are a lot of reasons why movies and tv shows have a tendency to portray the military so inaccurately. One is cooperation or lack of cooperation of the various branches of the DoD. Without anyone to provide more accurate information as to how certain specialties need to be portrayed, you will find a lot of things wrong. Hollywood, is all about the bottom line and making money. Many producers just do not want to spend the kind of money needed to get it right. While there are many glaring examples of the military being shown inaccurately, first one that come to mind for me was the pilot show of Stargate SG-1, where they had a SSgt wearing a set of gold leafs on shoulders depicting the rank of Major, while wearing SSgt stripes. After that first show, the producers pretty much got it right for the 10 years the show was on the air. Same with Startgate Atlantis. At that point, and due to the positive way that the Air Force was portrayed in the movie, there was some serious cooperation between the Air Force, by way of equipment, bases and personnel. Even the Navy provided big time assistance with the filming of a Nuclear Sub at one of the polar ice caps.
When a movie is going to be produced that will have a negative story line or one that is so ridiculous about any branch of the military, they decrease their chances of assistance. And some writers and those who do the screen plays just refuse to have their product changed in any way. Another factor to consider is the length of a movie compared to the book. How many movies have you seen be it military or another subject where it is so different that you wonder if it is the same story line. Again it is cost, bottom line. Also keep in mind that a lot of things done by the military will not be allowed to be accurately portrayed in a movie, to keep what we do from being publicized. Even minor things like using your Military ID card worn as a badge is not something we actually do. We had other means of identifying our reason for being in areas with restricted access. Then there is the story line itself. It has to be entertaining and show as much as possible in a 1:45 to 2 plus hour movie? Can't show every single detail of what is done in that short amount of time, to short cuts have to be taken. Instead of getting annoyed about how your branch is portrayed, just sit back laugh at the stupid things you see and enjoy the movie.

Running around in the background in formation and full gear at every bomb scene, natural catastrophe or alien invasion Hollywood comes up with. Yeah, because that's what we do.
Oh, and room clearing....don't even get me started.

Racking a semi auto Barrett .50 cal after each shot, like it was a bolt action. In other words, gross miss manipulation and use of weapons systems.

I wonder if at the front end credits of every "based on a true story" military movie that the following might be stated:

"Some scenes in this film, while depicted for cinematography purposes ONLY, they don't depict the actual optimal military strategy or tactics our fighting men and women are highly trained to perform that are designed to save or preserve lives in actual combat. We have tried to make the scenes as close to reality as possible, but in some case to draw your attention to the more serious sub-texts that you will forgive our desire tell a story that needs to be told regarding our brave men and women and the meaning behind the scenes are in full alignment."

Seems to me we, as military men and women, know the fau pax issues, but we still go to see these movies. The issue is with us not demanding some sort of disclaimer from Hollywood to be clear about where they have taken license. Often times I have read biographies, autobiographies or other historical accounts from multiple sources to have perspective before or when I don't time before, after such "based on a true story" movies. Often times, I learn things from the books or factual cross-referenced articles that I actually thought were more important to include in such productions than the scenes that were included.

Bottom line, I agree that some things piss me off too when they are flagrant misrepresentations that even the most uninformed should question. The "sun visor salute" I agree is one.

Finally, my father was in Korean War. So, I fell in love with MASH. As a Navy Corpsmen, I found MASH entertaining and at times there were carefully woven elements of truth between the humor and story plots. I knew several vets from that era and some MASH context were subtly -real, at least in messaging about the hell of war. Another movie I like is - In Harm's Way. Yet, John Wayne, offers some miserable salutes in that movie, especially since he is depicting a Naval Officer. Yet, I have never heard people speak badly about this - American. Again, advisers advise, I am sure the salutes piss them off too. Unless we begin censor movies and boycott them for "poor salutes" the lazy movie producer with not want to make changes and as long as "advisers" take funds for their services and let slide the salute in favor or some of the more important messages, like trust and honor, it issue as important as it is will remain secondary. I know I hate it too, but it is a reality. Not one any of us like - bottom line. But, one that exists, sorry to say.

I wonder if we as vets should create in our respective communities a "Military movies with vets night or matinee." How interesting would it be for vets to be able to share their experiences, if say a bunch of Navy vets (e.g. Corpsmen) that lived during say the Korean War viewed a Korean War movie with non-military viewers and then spoke about their own experiences after the movie with the assembled public. Could this build a bridge that needs to be built.

Keep in mind movies like Patton, to Hell and Back and MacAuthur are designed to tell a story and in each one their is some technical incorrectness, yet the elements of the story being told are made. We know what is often "artistic license" vs military accuracy. There have been times when movies like Twelve O'Clock High or the Buffalo Solider favor the drama of making a point vs some small technical flaws. I then to look past the flaws, especially with my grandson (17), as he ask questions and we discuss the deeper issues such movies are attempting to communicate.

Just some thoughts!

Or they all huddle in a nice tight group

We used to have fun with the radio.
The Commo Track A-40 would call me Tank A-15.

A-15, this is A-40, Radio Check, over.
A-40, this is A-15, I read you Lickin Chicken, Hot Mama. over.
A-15, this is A-40, I read you upside down. Turn your radio, over.
A-40, this is A-15, Out.
Stuff like that

For me, it’s when they put the Squad Heavy Weapon on point.
Yeah, I really want my M-60 out of action right at the beginning of the ambush.

When they act like Day 1 boots but have been in a while, such as when they over emphasize "sir!" after every sentence

The one thing I've noticed a lot in action films, not necessarily just military/war films, is when guns fire but the bolt or slide doesn't go back and no spent brass appears; or how guns click and snap and rattle every time they're raised or drawn, that grinds my gears so much

It never fails formation runs singing cadences in one of the first scenes even on FOB’s in combat zones