Argo

[coreyharris]

Great movie, worth the oscar buzz. My only complaint is that it takes place in 1980, but Affleck is wearing a sub with the new clasp lock. If you're going to do a period movie spring for a vintage watch.

[brkanand]

Thanks. I will make it a point to watch.

[rr-nyc]

What?

The sheep that provided the wool for his suits weren't alive in 1980. Seriously, who gives a crap?

[mjclark32]

I'm looking forward to seeing the movie, not overly concerned with product accuracy I know it's a movie...

[Dr. Robert]

Bah humbug. More attention should be paid to the details.

[masterserg]

Originally Posted by Dr. Robert

Bah humbug. More attention should be paid to the details.

I agree. It doesn't take much to do things right ... Especially with a multi-million budget.

BTW I think this was discussed and it was a DSSD if I remember corrrectly.

[springbar]

Originally Posted by rr-nyc

Seriously, who gives a crap?

Filmmakers and watch aficionados, for two. The former go to great lengths to avoid distracting anachronisms in period movies, but sometimes they slip through.

How is this somehow more frivolous and unworthy than any other discussion of watch minutia on this site?

[ecsub44]

Originally Posted by rr-nyc

What?

The sheep that provided the wool for his suits weren't alive in 1980. Seriously, who gives a crap?

[Chewbacca]

continuity should have caught that miss...

[The Joker]

This is why I love this forum, no where else on the internet do you get threads like this.

I've not seen the film but I think attention to details, clothes, even down to the watch is important for stuff like this.

[A.Sharp]

you should have the privilege of adding that error to movie mistakes...

http://www.moviemistakes.com/film9431

[horseco]

Scorsese makes every finite detail, period correct in his films. This to me makes the difference between a good & a GREAT movie.

[rr-nyc]

Originally Posted by springbar

Filmmakers and watch aficionados, for two. The former go to great lengths to avoid distracting anachronisms in period movies, but sometimes they slip through.

How is this somehow more frivolous and unworthy than any other discussion of watch minutia on this site?

When you say watch aficionados, you mean the 500 (+/- 1) people that would notice a clasp on a watch that has remained virtually unchanged since 1980?

I'm sure there are a few sidewalk cement layers that notice that the swirl marks on the sidewalk aren't of 1980 era too but there are a few hundred million people that wouldn't notice.

[bigwatchman]

I have been thinking about this detail for a month since I saw a picture of Affleck with a DSSD... was a little surprised it took this long to hit TRF. Even if it is not correct, it has made me want to see the movie though.

[GBOGH]

Great movie. I noticed the same thing. He's sporting a post-2010 Rolex model throughout the movie set in 1979-80.

[Glidelock]

Any period piece should be at least reasonably close on details like this. Even had they used a 90's era 16610 it would have been far less obvious!

[nauticajoe]

Good eye. I'll look forward to it.

[ecsub44]

Originally Posted by rr-nyc

When you say watch aficionados, you mean the 500 (+/- 1) people that would notice a clasp on a watch that has remained virtually unchanged since 1980?

I'm sure there are a few sidewalk cement layers that notice that the swirl marks on the sidewalk aren't of 1980 era too but there are a few hundred million people that wouldn't notice.

[GBOGH]

On second thought, it makes a lot of sense now. Seen several threads elsewhere on other forums over the past year from members that collect and build vintage Rolex models that Rolex has taken a hardline stance in regards to servicing and providing NOS parts for Rolex vintage models, and even instructing ADs/RSCs not to provide verification services for vintage models. I get it that Rolex is in the business of selling new production models and not supporting older out of production models, which is why they would take such a stance.

But I would bet money that Rolex paid product placement fees to have this DSSD worn in this vintage set movie as a branding initiative. To place a modern, larger sized model in a vintage setting and appeal to that side of the market with a current model. Not saying it is a wise move or will work, but it makes sense from a business perspective what was done and that this is not some oversight by the continuity production staff of the movie. Hey, money talks in Hollywood, and modern DSSD is apparently being advertised as the new vintage. Or at least that is what the money is trying to tell us...

[ecsub44]

Originally Posted by GBOGH

On second thought, it makes a lot of sense now. Seen several threads elsewhere on other forums over the past year from members that collect and build vintage Rolex models that Rolex has taken a hardline stance in regards to servicing and providing NOS parts for Rolex vintage models, and even instructing ADs/RSCs not to provide verification services for vintage models. I get it that Rolex is in the business of selling new production models and not supporting older out of production models, which is why they would take such a stance.

But I would bet money that Rolex paid product placement fees to have this DSSD worn in this vintage set movie as a branding initiative. To place a modern, larger sized model in a vintage setting and appeal to that side of the market with a current model. Not saying it is a wise move or will work, but it makes sense from a business perspective what was done and that this is not some oversight by the continuity production staff of the movie. Hey, money talks in Hollywood, and modern DSSD is apparently being advertised as the new vintage. Or at least that is what the money is trying to tell us...

Don't think it's a DSSD.

But your point is still understood.

[GBOGH]

Originally Posted by ecsub44

Don't think it's a DSSD.

But your point is still understood.

No, it's a DSSD. Here you go...

[ecsub44]

Originally Posted by GBOGH

No, it's a DSSD. Here you go...

Indubitably.

[77T]

Only we crazy ones will notice the DSSD. it is a movie after all.

[Noonan]

Came here to post the same thing. Amazing movie but I noticed the watch right away. There's a scene early on where he's taking his wedding ring off and you can clearly see the nice new clasp of the DSSD.

This whole event took place a few months before I was born; the movie has made me interested in reading about how it all happened. More-so about the rise and fall of power in Iran and how the US influenced it, rather than the hostage situation at the embassy.

[BCNJ]

I saw it last weekend and noticed the exact same thing. my wife thought i was crazy

[Noonan]

Originally Posted by BCNJ

I saw it last weekend and noticed the exact same thing. my wife thought i was crazy

Same here. I mentioned it when we were walking out; my gf just laughed and said "Only you...". I was glad to see I'm not the only one.

[youenjoymyself]

They could have used a period correct watch. I saw the film (which was great btw) but I couldn't stop staring at that hulking shiny watch on his wrist.

My buddy and I had a chuckle as we each looked down at our ceramic sub / gmt every time we saw the clasp on ben's watch.

They paid so much attention to detail with other elements of the film (costume, location, hair, etc.) but left that (admittedly minor) detail out. If you watch at the end of the film in the credits they make a point of showing how similar they made the actors look to the real people they played. It seems discontinuous to have such an obviously modern prop on the wrist of the most prominently featured character in the movie.

I wonder if they filmed some scenes where ben was wearing his personal watch and to maintain continuity and not throw out filmed scenes they had to keep it on his wrist for the rest of the film?

[Brian J]

Originally Posted by a.sharp

you should have the privilege of adding that error to movie mistakes...

http://www.moviemistakes.com/film9431

+1!

[Noonan]

I'm pretty sure Bryan Cranston was wearing a modern model watch as well. It was on a black strap and must have been 42mm+. I don't think many dress watches were that big back then. One of the 6 being rescued clearly had on a period watch. Couldn't have been more than 34mm.

[joe100]

Great film, great watches. Nice to see Rolex get screen time, period correct or not