What's wrong with this Picture??

Mansteins revenge wrote:

...not his hair, he is just trying to hide his ego under that hat...

No, I mean...

You see this all the time with actor-types in military uniforms. There's always some fit issue with the uniform. The way-too-tight problem in Top Gun was one thing, but in this uniform here, he makes von Stauffenburg look like a first-semester plebe, when in fact von Stauffenburg would probably have had his uniform custom tailored and fitted, so it wouldn't look like this. One specific problem is the way the hat looks like it's the wrong size for his grape, leaving a crooked appearance and a big gap above his ear. At first I thought it was because of his hair being too long, which of course is another common Hollywood mistake.

Not bashing Cruise, mind you. I could, of course, but I'll do that in a different forum.

Don't hold publicity stills as gospel for uniform colors either. Fabrics are dyed to compensate for the camera. If you could see a white shirt on a movie set, you'd notice that it looked grey or dingy. Thats because it would create a hot spot or burn out if it were left its original white. So they subdue them or dye them down. Same thing with colored fabrics. They are chosen/dyed/subdued/brightened to look good on camera and to compensate for lighting, film stock, development effect and on screen effect etc. Something that the publicity still is taken by a different crewmember or pulled from the raw film stock.

As for whats wrong..... well I'm with the rest of you. Cruise is in the movie. Never liked him, never will, despite his beliefs, politics or social standing. Never thought of him as an actor, never thought he could act, and certainly ranks up there with my list of wackanuts in hollyweird.

My pick for this part was Casper Van Dien. Not much of a better actor but looked more to the character and I could stomach his on screen presence more than Cruises.

Hartmann352 wrote:

Shooting from the hip here, but shouldn't the eagle patch be over the other breast pocket? Maybe it's just me, but the color of the coat seems off too. Oh, and Tom Cruise is in it.

geez its all wrong. 

renarts wrote:

Don't hold publicity stills as gospel for uniform colors either. Fabrics are dyed to compensate for the camera. If you could see a white shirt on a movie set, you'd notice that it looked grey or dingy. Thats because it would create a hot spot or burn out if it were left its original white. So they subdue them or dye them down. Same thing with colored fabrics. They are chosen/dyed/subdued/brightened to look good on camera and to compensate for lighting, film stock, development effect and on screen effect etc. Something that the publicity still is taken by a different crewmember or pulled from the raw film stock. As for whats wrong..... well I'm with the rest of you. Cruise is in the movie. Never liked him, never will, despite his beliefs, politics or social standing. Never thought of him as an actor, never thought he could act, and certainly ranks up there with my list of wackanuts in hollyweird. My pick for this part was Casper Van Dien. Not much of a better actor but looked more to the character and I could stomach his on screen presence more than Cruises.

jadgpanther302 wrote:

Hartmann352 wrote: Shooting from the hip here, but shouldn't the eagle patch be over the other breast pocket? Maybe it's just me, but the color of the coat seems off too. Oh, and Tom Cruise is in it.  geez its all wrong.

I think the eagle is in the correct place, and I think the color is at least close enough (it may be really close, for all I know).