Yeah, anachronistic slang or phrases in the dialogue of period films, plays and literature are the worst. It's one of my biggest pet peeves too. It takes me right out of a story.

I mean, I realise that sometimes you have to modify really old historical dialogue for a modern audience, to a degree -- I mean, no one really wants a Robin Hood movie with authentic Middle English dialogue. But at the same time, any excessively modern slang or phrasing should definitely be removed to leave the dialogue sounding as timeless as possible.

But I encounter it even in dramas that are set in the middle 20th Century. You know, well within living memory, and at a time when spoken English was the same as today; so it's not like modern slang is needed to make the dialogue easier to folllow. I don't want to hear a World War II pilot saying that he's "super-excited" about something, or hear a 70s musician ask, "and how's that working out for you?", or have a journalist from the '60 start an explanation with, "here's the thing..." (to cite three examples I've seen recently). There's absolutely no excuse for it. It's just shitty writing, plain and simple.

I suppose that’s what I was getting at. As stated, everyone’s mileage varies. Zartan’s holographic projections and the like worked for me. Serpentor (who is a good character) was the ‘thing’ that made my brain take the leak from willing suspension of disbelief to accepting that the franchise had gone beyond reality.

I guess THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS has done something similar (I like that, too). First film was about street racing. Last film featured a lot that required major suspension of disbelief. I am convinced a future sequel will be set in space.

I don't watch any of those shows because they make me crazy and I make other people crazy picking them apart when they're on.  So I don't know what kind of forensics they tend to get in to.  A huge amount of what people think of as forensic science is as bad a junk as what the psychics are peddling.  Bite-marks, handwriting analysis, footprints, tire-marks and blood-spatter are all absolute garbage that has no business being called science.  Fingerprints were just as bad until recently, when there has been a bit of reform, but I still don't trust them and no expert I've seen has ever been able to define a margin of error in them, which is the basis of actual scientific analysis.  

Polygraphs are a problem in a lot of ways. They’re susceptible to operator manipulation and there are definitely people who can “beat” them. Another problem, from my end, is that polygraphs are required along with a psycho-sexual evaluation after a conviction or a plea in a sex offense case (in Idaho). In my experience Prosecutors believe every poly supports their side and any that don’t are crap.

Which makes me wonder, is it possible to tell if someone is telling the truth by listening to their heartbeat (a la Daredevil), or is that fiction too?

Even worse in non-fiction--I'm reading a book that takes place in the 20s, and there's a reference to someone being surrounded by photographers and "flashcubes" going off. Similarly, in a podcast, it bugged the hell out of me when the host used the phrase "baby daddy" to refer to an event in the 30s.

I can be distracted by such things, but not in the sense they’d detract from my enjoyment.

In an episode of BONANZA that I watched recently, Joe (Michael Landon) told a woman she was a “wicked dancer”. Would they have spoken like that back then?

HERCULES: THE LEGENDARY JOURNEYS had a few. In one episode, Hercules mentioned a “tab”. And he referred to the gods as “bums” in one episode. :-)