Those are a fairly recent development, though, while the "bottomless revolver cylinder" in movies/TV goes well back to the days when six was the limit for "full size" rounds (or five for the Old West and many snubs).
Justin
Things your tired of in movies
- Thread starter sojourner
- Start date
Those are a fairly recent development, though, while the "bottomless revolver cylinder" in movies/TV goes well back to the days when six was the limit for "full size" rounds (or five for the Old West and many snubs).
Justin
I hate when an average human is in a fight and they show the character punching someone who ducks out the way, so they hit a concrete wall with full human force, and chip it. From my experience, what would happen is broken bones and no damage to the wall.
Likewise, two human characters are fighting and one throws another against a concrete wall and again, the wall cracks.
I can understand it happening in a movie when the character is super-human, a robot, etc. They usually show the character punching straight through a wall to show their strength, that's understandable. But, when the character is supposed to be a regular human, it drives me nuts.
Likewise, two human characters are fighting and one throws another against a concrete wall and again, the wall cracks.
I can understand it happening in a movie when the character is super-human, a robot, etc. They usually show the character punching straight through a wall to show their strength, that's understandable. But, when the character is supposed to be a regular human, it drives me nuts.
Any horror movie where killing characters in the most horrifying way possible replaces good storytelling. You can have a film that is scary and a good story at the same time.
Also can't stand whenever somebody who's supposed to know in-character how to handle a weapon safely, yet they wave the thing around like it's a flag or something.
Also can't stand whenever somebody who's supposed to know in-character how to handle a weapon safely, yet they wave the thing around like it's a flag or something.
Of course, it can also strain credibility when a 120-lb woman can take on a guy twice her size and beat him up with ease.
Or the converse, when a 120-lb woman winds up taking a beating from either a guy or a girl that she is somehow able to endure that strains credibility. I know myself, being a not-so-muscular guy that I probably couldn't take much punishment before giving in.
Exactly what I was thinking of! Watching the Looney tunes collections with my wife, I recognized a lot of the WWII-era references because I'd asked my father to explain them the first time I saw the cartoons. I had to re-explain them to my wife.
But imagine someone 50 years from now trying to watch one of those stupid horror spoof movies where all they do is repeat scenes from other teen horror movies, which you have to have seen to understand the scene.
Well, I'm still watching Marx Bros, Abbot & Costello, et al.
The LeMat revolver possessed a 9 shot cylinder, in 40 caliber. Started building those in the 1850's.
My brother has a revolver from one of my ancestors, a Smith and Wesson, 7 shot revolver (36 caliber), dates to 1885. Shame it can no longer be fired.
Firearm issues tend to catch my eye as well, endless ammo and needless cycling of the action have been mentioned already.
One other thing that annoys me is 'ganster shooting' if you take a semi-automatic pistol in your right hand and rotate it 90 degrees you cause two really big problems,
1) you cannot sight along the barrel to aim
2) Hot brass will be ejecting right towards your face!!
I think this one bugs me most because I took a friend shooting who had no experience, he was dead set on trying this, even after I explained why not. I flat out told him not to try it but the idiot decided to try it anyway and ended up catching brass in his collar and burning his neck. needless to say that was the last round he will ever fire in one of my guns,
- Kytee
One other thing that annoys me is 'ganster shooting' if you take a semi-automatic pistol in your right hand and rotate it 90 degrees you cause two really big problems,
1) you cannot sight along the barrel to aim
2) Hot brass will be ejecting right towards your face!!
I think this one bugs me most because I took a friend shooting who had no experience, he was dead set on trying this, even after I explained why not. I flat out told him not to try it but the idiot decided to try it anyway and ended up catching brass in his collar and burning his neck. needless to say that was the last round he will ever fire in one of my guns,
- Kytee
Off the top of my head, I honestly can't think of any.
I think it tends to be used a lot more in TV, but I know I've seen it quite a few times.
It was used to good effect in Pi, Darren Aronofsky's first feature. Also an excellent movie.
I don't care if female demographics if like that shit they can watch something else.
Sure, it's ridiculous when we see a sweaty, half-dressed woman beat up a sweaty, half-dressed man who's three times her size in a martial-arts fight. But it's so damn HOT! Especially if the chick is Asian.
Then there's the trope I call Bogart's Law of Pain Tolerance. That's where a tough-guy hero takes a vicious beating from thugs without showing any pain, but winces and squirms when someone puts antiseptic on his wounds.
I've always wondered why anyone would hold a gun like that in the first place. Because it looks cool, like wearing a baseball cap backwards?
Yep. I remember seeing a tv show with censoring issues... it was on 'Crossing Jordan' and some silly censor bleeped out the word 'butt'One thing that really bugs me... isn't so much in the movies themselves... but whenever a tv network censors stuff. It's one thing to censor a swear word, but it's another thing to take out stuff that was part of the movie originally and then have it not make any real sense, post censor.
And a side note from that, I hate when they cut from a movie for a commercial and when you get back, you're in a part of the movie that has nothing to do with what you were watching previously.
Editing my butt.
Yes, this is an interesting one.
Due to the fact I've only ever seen Robocop on TV and its scheduling here (our TV schedulers seem to think Robocop is some kind of kids movie!) I still have no idea why a light slapping from some felons leads Murphy to suddenly need to be maintained in a Robotic Life support suit!
I get you have to edit that scene but, c'mon, leave us SOME context.
Sadly censors don't usually get their job because they're good with the editing machines once they've made their decisions on what we should or shouldn't see on our behalf!
Another overused effect that's getting on my nerves is a camera trick I learnt in my first year of college on a media studies course yet some movies seem to treat it like it is the most amazing and hard to pull off technique in filmmaking!
I'm talking about when they zoom in while physically moving the camera away from its subject (or vice versa), usually to denote a "Eureka" moment.
I think the first time I ever saw it was in Scrubs but after that everywhere I looked, it was there.
I don't know its technical name or too many examples of it being used off the top of my head but hopefully my description is approaching adequate enough get some other people's brains firing as to what I'm referring to!
. Made no sense for them to do it and it made the line seem funny too.Agreed. That kind of thing is annoying in shows and movies. Are they just trying to make people dizzy or something?
Speaking of that, I hate when romantic scenes in movies are shot from bad angles. That drives me up a wall
. And combine that with the whole circling camera effect and it's just annoying.Saw one once where you saw the back of the character's head during the kiss scene... I was like 'what the heck?! it's nice to see that the person has a full head of hair, but it would be nice to be able to see the kiss itself...'
It was hard to tell if the actors were actually kissing due to both things. *And they were, thanks to being able to see a nice promotional picture -- if it weren't for that, I'd still be wondering
...*
Another overused effect that's getting on my nerves is a camera trick I learnt in my first year of college on a media studies course yet some movies seem to treat it like it is the most amazing and hard to pull off technique in filmmaking!
I'm talking about when they zoom in while physically moving the camera away from its subject (or vice versa), usually to denote a "Eureka" moment.
I think the first time I ever saw it was in Scrubs but after that everywhere I looked, it was there.
I don't know its technical name or too many examples of it being used off the top of my head but hopefully my description is approaching adequate enough get some other people's brains firing as to what I'm referring to!
A dolly zoom. Sometimes called a Hitchcock zoom or Vertigo zoom, because Hitchcock used it to denote Jimmy Stewart's vertigo. It was fresh and unusual then. It was still cool when Spielberg used it in Jaws, but it probably has been overdone since then.
Apart from the instances you mentioned, I recall it being used in Lord of the Rings (when Frodo and the hobbits are on the road in the first movie, just before the Black Rider comes upo and they have to hide under the tree roots) and in The Search part 1 where Odo first sees more changelings.
How about the way computers and the internet often work in movies? Computer monitors that reflect/project the picture on the screen back on the user.
Typing in a vague search term gets an instant, plot-important, result in the top suggestion.
Some types an E-Mail to another person and gets an instant response, as if the two are talking over an IM rather than E-Mail.
Computers that "beep" with every action taken, or boot up to desktop instantly when turned on.
Computers in movies, apparently, only needing the keyboard to interface with.
Man, that list could really go on. It's 2011 and movie writers and directors had to have used a computer in their life and probably all of the time as a simple aspect of living in society today. So you'd think that the use of computers in movies, and the internet, would be much closer to real life.
Typing in a vague search term gets an instant, plot-important, result in the top suggestion.
Some types an E-Mail to another person and gets an instant response, as if the two are talking over an IM rather than E-Mail.
Computers that "beep" with every action taken, or boot up to desktop instantly when turned on.
Computers in movies, apparently, only needing the keyboard to interface with.
Man, that list could really go on. It's 2011 and movie writers and directors had to have used a computer in their life and probably all of the time as a simple aspect of living in society today. So you'd think that the use of computers in movies, and the internet, would be much closer to real life.
*ugh* I hate that as well. It kind of distracts me from the movie a little bit when the whole reflection thing happens there.
Yes! all of these things, like you say, SOMEONE involved had to have used a computer at some point, more likely everyone involved.
Another computer related one this list reminded me of,
destroying the monitor in order to destroy the data in a computer , sigh
-Kytee
Yes, yes you can always find exceptions, but the overwhelming majority of revolvers depicted in movies and TV are five- or six-shooters, and easily identifiable as such.
I don't know, but the Thompson sub-machine gun (popular with gangsters in the '20s & '30s) tended to climb when fired full auto (as do most firearms), so the lore was that you could turn it on its side and it would naturally sweep across targets as you fired. This may have planted a seed that shooting a gun on its side was a "gangster" thing do do. Just a guess.
Justin
Yea that one really works. Hello any of the data is in the hard drive for the most part (if I'm wrong about this, let me know -- had a brain fart about what it's called ).
You mean the files are inside the computer?!
Hell, the computer stuff could apply to almost any technology. People get hung up on while on the phone and it clicks to a dial tone. This didn't happen with land-line phones and certainly doesn't happen with cell-phones!
They still use the "record scratching" sound when music stops in movies during a dramatic moment.
(New) Cars in movies are still hot-wired by doing "something" with the wires.
Computer printers in some movies still, apparently, using more mechanical means to print, taking a long time to print even a single page. (My simple Printer/Copier/Scanner prints off a single full page of text and images in about 5-10 seconds.)
Similar threads
