Things you're tired of seeing in movies

I love Steven Segal movies! Dont ask me why because I will not answer! However, I noticed in several of his later "3 word titled movies" that many directors are using a technique of moving the camera / zooming in and out WAY too much during car chases hoping to give the viewer the feeling of speed and peril.

Sadly, it doesn't work. Therefore, I must insist all car chases reach speeds of 80-120 MPH before filming. ;)
They probably started out working on "Worlds Wildest Police Videos" type show where they do that every time John Bunnell says the criminals almost hit the police car.
 
I am going to ignore the PM you sent me, and simply say, I am still waiting to see your cgi.

very well then
good day , sir !

tumblr_ns5fzuuF3r1upo1beo1_1280.jpg
 
Oh I totally agree on that one... How can these car chases be totally possible when they are actually driving at only 30-40 miles an hour. I remember seeing one movie (can't remember off the top of my head) when if you watched real close you could see people walking in the background at 3 times the speed they should be, meaning they filmed the chase at a slow speed and sped up the camera! Totally turned the whole movie into a joke for me!


ill toss in THE LEMOSINE that drove through the building for good measure ( ya remember , the one from 2012 )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eanqJfdfI-A
 
disaster is eminent. one scientist knows whats happening, one of his relatives is a cop and all of his three kids are in dangerzone.

sums up 98% of disaster movies. comon, find something new in hollywood!
Reminds me of all the 50s monster movies, there was always the doddering old scientist and his single daughter who was very hot, totally unaware of that fact and exactly the age of the (also single) hero of the film.
 
Reminds me of all the 50s monster movies, there was always the doddering old scientist and his single daughter who was very hot, totally unaware of that fact and exactly the age of the (also single) hero of the film.

51 , you mean like in the 80s with kirk and farrah in saturn 3 :D ( lord i feel old)

05-1.jpg
 
Fighter planes in space. I don't know if they are lazy, being "artistic", they don't know, or are dumbing things down for viewers. "Babylon 5" got it right. Of course I say that while watching "Wing Commander" on Netflix.

Sent from my Motorola StarTAC
 
Last edited:
That jet-like whine sound effect that's used for everything from Iron Man's suit starting up to Starlord's sidearm charging (when he tries to draw his weapon on Gamora in the beginning). I'm not sure but I think it might have also been the sound of Hydra weapons in Captain America TFA.
 
Ok... I gotta say it... there's absolutely no way in reality that Iron Man's suit would be able to fly. There's no way you can tell me that someone would be able to control the force of those replusers in such a refined way in the short amount of time that he had to do so! Hell.. look how long it took to figure out how to control the jetpacks in a controlled manner. Having jets on the bottom of your feet and in your hands there's no way you can control them enough to stand straight up while hovering.
 
^ Unless the titanium-framed, hydraulically-boosted, computer-controlled suit made the wearer, like, stronger and stuff.
 
Ok... I gotta say it... there's absolutely no way in reality that Iron Man's suit would be able to fly. There's no way you can tell me that someone would be able to control the force of those replusers in such a refined way in the short amount of time that he had to do so! Hell.. look how long it took to figure out how to control the jetpacks in a controlled manner. Having jets on the bottom of your feet and in your hands there's no way you can control them enough to stand straight up while hovering.

It's possible that it utilizes computer controlled stabilization to help out, much like how modern fighter jets are completely unstable and uncontrollable without a computer making constant minute adjustments to the control surfaces to keep the plane from spiraling out of control. It could be the same here, the computer (Jarvis in this case) is constantly making tiny adjustments in the amount and direction of the suit's thrusters to keep Tony relatively stale and in control. It's also possible that whenever Tony's hovering the suit stiffens up or locks the servos in the arms and legs to help keep him stable in a hover. Is it completely realistic, no, but I'd argue that it's a believable solution to a totally fictional tech and as good an answer as any.
 
Fighter planes in space. I don't know if they are lazy, being "artistic", they don't know, or are dumbing things down for viewers. "Babylon 5" got it right. Of course I say that while watching "Wing Commander" on Netflix.

Sent from my Motorola StarTAC

Mostly I think it's because true zero-G space combat would be confusing as hell to audiences. There's no real orientation (no "up" or "down" or whathaveyou), everything will keep moving in a single direction until some other force changes that, and even then, it depends on how much force is applied, there's no sound, lasers aren't (or shouldn't be) visible beams but rather burned holes in enemy ships, etc.

It's a stylistic choice in most cases, I expect, to keep things more familiar. In its modern incarnation, I'd say Star Wars is to blame, but this stuff goes as far back as, like, old Flash Gordon serials, because space combat in film developed before actual spaceflight (and without input from scientists). So, everything ended up looking more like naval/aerial combat, which is entirely dictated by the environment in which you're fighting.


Incidentally, this is one of the things I appreciated about Enterprise's first season (what I watched of it, anyway). They made it clear that sub commanders tended to be the ones who took command of starships, because they were best able to adapt to the tactics required.


Babylon 5 did a good job with it, but even that show had some errors. Showing lasers in space, sound, etc. Galactica did a pretty good job with this, too, showing the Vipers being able to maintain forward momentum while spinning around to shoot a pursuer, etc.

Mostly, I give this one a pass. The closer you get to real space combat, the more you end up being "hard sci-fi" where the scientific element of it is stressed to attain greater "realism." That means you end up having to justify -- often in unsatisfying, convoluted ways -- the things that don't track. I mean, even faster-than-light travel is INSANELY dangerous, because...what if you hit something? I mean, you think a head-on collision at 30mph is bad, try imagining it at +C velocities. And just because there are no planets or stars in your path doesn't mean that there might not be other dark matter lying in wait. So the notion of "Go to Warp 9" is, itself, totally batspit crazy. Wormhole manipulation makes far more sense.
 
Mostly, I give this one a pass. The closer you get to real space combat, the more you end up being "hard sci-fi" where the scientific element of it is stressed to attain greater "realism." That means you end up having to justify -- often in unsatisfying, convoluted ways -- the things that don't track. I mean, even faster-than-light travel is INSANELY dangerous, because...what if you hit something? I mean, you think a head-on collision at 30mph is bad, try imagining it at +C velocities. And just because there are no planets or stars in your path doesn't mean that there might not be other dark matter lying in wait. So the notion of "Go to Warp 9" is, itself, totally batspit crazy. Wormhole manipulation makes far more sense.

Which is funny when you think about it, Star Trek is (generally) the most science oriented of all sci-fi shows and (generally) try to keep things more grounded in real or theoretical science yet they're the only sci-fi series in any media that does FTL in real space and really goes faster than light. All others do something different, most shows involve going to some sort of alternate dimension ie. hyperspace like Star Wars, B5, and the Stargates or they fold space like the new BSG, and animes like Macross and Yamato/Star Blazer; both of which while called FTL don't really involve actually moving physically faster than the speed of light.
 
Which is funny when you think about it, Star Trek is (generally) the most science oriented of all sci-fi shows and (generally) try to keep things more grounded in real or theoretical science yet they're the only sci-fi series in any media that does FTL in real space and really goes faster than light. All others do something different, most shows involve going to some sort of alternate dimension ie. hyperspace like Star Wars, B5, and the Stargates or they fold space like the new BSG, and animes like Macross and Yamato/Star Blazer; both of which while called FTL don't really involve actually moving physically faster than the speed of light.

Exactly. For decades, Trek fans have lauded the show as being more realistic than other media at which they sneered (e.g. Star Wars), and yet there's this glaring problem in one of the most important aspects of the show's science. I mean, what if you hit an asteroid, or hell, a speck of freaking space dust.

But, of course, that was when the view of the universe was that space was literally that: space. The space between stars and planets, and there was nothing in it. No dust, no energy, no comets or asteroids or anything, just....space. Now, our understanding of the universe is that it's a lot more cluttered than we thought back in the 60s, so warp 9 seems like a really bad idea to me.

Also, the notion of pursuing an enemy ship at warp speeds. What if they just...stop? You'll be light years beyond them with no idea where the hell they are before you have time to hit the "stop" button, assuming there even is one.
 
You also have to do SOME tweaking I think. In the case of Star Trek, there's really no realistic reason that any fight would ever take place within visual range.

Your weapons are faster than light, so really it would be like a ship the size of a medium building launching torpedoes at a similar sized ship as far away as Jupiter.

But I actually think that could be interesting. Instead of just facing off like most of TNG they could've used more realistic distances and done more with tracking and ducking behind planets.
 
Also, the notion of pursuing an enemy ship at warp speeds. What if they just...stop? You'll be light years beyond them with no idea where the hell they are before you have time to hit the "stop" button, assuming there even is one.

It worked in Trek because they could track the ships in warp since all of their sensors and comms all work faster than light so they could detect something they're chasing dropping out of warp and drop out of warp shortly after. Of course this doesn't mean that they won't overshoot their target but probably not by all that much.

You also have to do SOME tweaking I think. In the case of Star Trek, there's really no realistic reason that any fight would ever take place within visual range.

Your weapons are faster than light, so really it would be like a ship the size of a medium building launching torpedoes at a similar sized ship as far away as Jupiter.

But I actually think that could be interesting. Instead of just facing off like most of TNG they could've used more realistic distances and done more with tracking and ducking behind planets.

This happens with all shows, even non-sci-fi shows, it's a matter of keeping the action on screen, it would be much less interesting, or at least it's felt, that it would be less interesting if all of the action happened at realistic distances. But if you want to see something like you describe then watch the first season and half or so of Andromeda, I don't know about later seasons but they did a good job of this in the early seasons. Combat was done at long distance and you never actually saw the enemy ship except as plot on their screens along with their weapons. It was sort of like sub warfare in old sub movies where you see the captain tracking torpedoes with a stopwatch, calculating how much time until impact, they did the same on Andromeda where you saw them track missiles and timing how long until the missiles reached their target.
 
Ok... I gotta say it... there's absolutely no way in reality that Iron Man's suit would be able to fly. There's no way you can tell me that someone would be able to control the force of those replusers in such a refined way in the short amount of time that he had to do so! Hell.. look how long it took to figure out how to control the jetpacks in a controlled manner. Having jets on the bottom of your feet and in your hands there's no way you can control them enough to stand straight up while hovering.


the way i look at the Stark tech , its more developed on green energy ( via Tesla ) so it is feasable... just look at how much stuff you can develop these days via radio shack and a creative brain .( tony made the first iron suit using welding equipment fer fox sake )

I'm tired of seeing Channing Tatum in movies, does that count?

im with you bro( did you get dragged kicking and screaming to MAGIC MIKE as well ) :cry


AVENGERS/CAP UNIVERSE ....

the fact that since all information is Digital ,all it would take is one good HACK AND DELETION to make an agency like Shield obselete
....

WE as a society have taken tech for granted and have forgotten about HARD COPIES aka THE PAPER TRAIL ; the week of ultron is a perfect example when they forgot about paper files after all of HYDRA/STRUKER's info was wiped from the mainframe. ok im the only one irked by this ! =/
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top