Why Military Advisors on Film Sets Can’t Always Insist on 100% Accuracy.

We've all watched a war film or action movie and rolled our eyes at a scene that felt technically wrong. A tactic that would never be used. A weapon behaving unrealistically. A sniper shot that ignores the laws of physics.  How and why does this happen with military advisors on the set?

Before working as on-set military advisors ourselves, we probably reacted much the same way. But after spending time inside the film industry, we developed a far greater appreciation for why these inaccuracies happen, and why they are most often intentional.

The first thing to understand is that most films are works of fiction, not documentaries or military training manuals. Their primary purpose is to entertain, engage audiences emotionally, and tell a compelling story. In that environment, the so-called “rule of cool” will often outweigh absolute technical realism.

We, and all advisors, will get people with good intentions, and some quite rudely, pointing out any and all onscreen errors. Fair enough, but all we ask is take some time to think about and understand why they might occur, and be respectful of the fact that the technical advisors can be overruled, and often are, for the sake of the story-telling.

A production may have highly experienced military advisors on set, veterans, instructors, weapons specialists, all capable of providing detailed and accurate advice on tactics, techniques, procedures, dialogue, equipment handling and combat behaviours. However, everyone involved also understands an important reality: the filmmakers retain their creative control, and can choose to modify or ignore advice (unless safety related) for what they see as a better service of their story or script.

Even in the the edit process, takes that may feature an error can be left in by the editors if they feel that a particular shot may favour an actor's look or dialogue over what they may feel is a minor technical error (if they even pick it up as an error). This can be despite an on-site advisor actively asking continuity to flag that take as having an error, and advising not to include that take in the final cut.

Writers, producers and directors ultimately own the story they are trying to tell. Advisors provide expertise and recommendations, but productions may still choose to alter techniques, dialogue, pacing or action sequences to better suit the narrative, visual style, actor capability, production schedule, or audience expectations.

In many cases, complete realism simply would not translate well into entertaining cinema.

Take sniper films as an example.

A truly authentic sniper movie would likely involve long periods of silence, painstaking observation, hours of slow crawling, minimal dialogue, extensive waiting, and only brief moments of action. Technically accurate? Perhaps. Riveting mainstream entertainment? Probably not for most audiences.

Instead, filmmakers compress time, heighten drama, have characters make decisions no trained person would ever make, and increase the pace of events to create tension and emotional engagement. The result is often a balance between realism and storytelling rather than a strict recreation of reality.

Importantly, this balancing act exists even in some of the most respected military productions ever made. Acclaimed films and series such as Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers and Platoon all contain some technical inaccuracies despite having access to excellent military advisors, plenty of boot camp time and extensive research.

The industry professionals involved were often fully informed of the correct procedures, but chose to deviate from them in the service of their storytelling, character development, pacing, cinematography, or dramatic impact.

That does not necessarily make these productions “bad.” It simply reflects the reality that filmmaking is an art form as much as it is a technical exercise.

For most viewers, the non-technical majority, these compromises are usually accepted without issue. The audience experiences the emotion, tension and spectacle the filmmakers intended. Meanwhile, technically minded viewers and veterans can still enjoy spotting the deviations from real-world procedure and debating the finer details afterwards. 

Just try not to automatically assume that the advisors were not doing their jobs properly.  They most likely were, and just undertaking the lesser known part of their job which is helping the movie folks to balance the techncial reality with the art of storytelling that may be demanded.

Ultimately, a finished movie is not a military instruction manual. It is a creative work designed to entertain, provoke emotion, and tell a story. Some viewers will love it, others will criticise it, and both reactions are entirely valid.  Notable exceptions being totally incorrect portrayals of real historical events, and even then, compromises may need to have been made to tell a story well to an audience.

Military advisors can guide productions toward authenticity, but they cannot, and often should not, expect every film to sacrifice storytelling in pursuit of absolute realism.

So by all means, feel free to spot the faults, but cut the advisors some slack as they may have made all the right moves to point out the real techniques, but had to compromise for the art of movie making.