Things you're tired of seeing in movies

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.


Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

p51

Sr Member
I believe you can blame Jimmy Stewart for the “talks to imaginary friend” trope…

Yeah, but Harvey was invisible and silent in the stage and movie versions. The whole trope got brought up for when you think a character is really there and later on you realize they never were there at all. There are several examples, but I think Tyler Durden from "Fight Club" is probably the best presented version.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

AJK001

Master Member
Yeah, but Harvey was invisible and silent in the stage and movie versions. The whole trope got brought up for when you think a character is really there and later on you realize they never were there at all. There are several examples, but I think Tyler Durden from "Fight Club" is probably the best presented version.

I don't know if people consider it the same thing but what about the Bruce Willis movie with the kid who says he sees dead people and it turns out Willis is a ghost. I thought that was very well done.
 

p51

Sr Member
it's probably been said here before, but:
  • A catastrophe is going on and oops, I need to go back for something but don't worry, I'll be right back.
Those situations are played out and downright insane because the couple or family always winds up meeting back up with no plan or way to get where they were all independently going (to where they were going to go in the first place, if one person didn't do the "Oh, I gotta go back for..." bit).
I can't count the number of movies I've seen this in, but "Greenland" was especially eye-rolling-inducing.
 

Riceball

Master Member
it's probably been said here before, but:
  • A catastrophe is going on and oops, I need to go back for something but don't worry, I'll be right back.
Those situations are played out and downright insane because the couple or family always winds up meeting back up with no plan or way to get where they were all independently going (to where they were going to go in the first place, if one person didn't do the "Oh, I gotta go back for..." bit).
I can't count the number of movies I've seen this in, but "Greenland" was especially eye-rolling-inducing.
This was one of the issues that I always had with The Walking Dead and Fear the Walking Dead, none of these people ever had a bugout plan much less a rendevous location in case they had to bug out of wherever they were staying. It seemed like that in every season they'd find a place to stay, someplace they called home for a while, then, inevitably, some sort of threat comes along forcing them to abandon their home and scatter to the winds. And every time they do that, they spend the rest of the season, if not part of the next season, going around trying to find each other again, all because no one thought that it might be a good idea to pick a spot that they all knew and would fall back on if they had to abandon their home and got separated. I can buy them not doing that the first, but after that you'd think that someone would have come up with the idea of a rendevous spot just in case it happened again.
 

p51

Sr Member
This was one of the issues that I always had with The Walking Dead and Fear the Walking Dead, none of these people ever had a bugout plan much less a rendevous location in case they had to bug out of wherever they were staying. It seemed like that in every season they'd find a place to stay, someplace they called home for a while, then, inevitably, some sort of threat comes along forcing them to abandon their home and scatter to the winds. And every time they do that, they spend the rest of the season, if not part of the next season, going around trying to find each other again, all because no one thought that it might be a good idea to pick a spot that they all knew and would fall back on if they had to abandon their home and got separated. I can buy them not doing that the first, but after that you'd think that someone would have come up with the idea of a rendevous spot just in case it happened again.
Exactly. You are clearly aware of the concept of a "Rally point" in the military where you're not all leaving at the same time but you're supposed to meet in a pre-determined spot (sometimes as simple as, "meet at that stand of trees at the edge of the field").
Old school (1963-89) Doctor Who has often been labelled as "characters chasing after each other down hallways," which was a hallmark of that show for the very same reason. But at least there, companions would often go back to the TARDIS as they had no idea where the Doctor was, but would usually get lost (or nabbed) along the way.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Sluis Van Shipyards

Legendary Member
There was just a video on Ridiculousness the other night where they were showing people pranking other people where they were dressed like an evil clown in a park. This girl was in a dress and heals and when she saw the clown, she kicked her heels off in a couple seconds and ran!
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Dsimdude

Member
Okay, here's one that always gets me...

Whenever some movie has a scene on the moon which depicts any one of the original Apollo landing sites, it shows the entire lunar module completely intact.

There are no lunar modules (uh, the top half) on the moon! The ascent stages all went back up to their command modules, and then were jettisoned into space before the Apollo spacecrafts splashed down in the ocean.

I was watching Men in Black 3, and this is noticeably a huge error when Boris The Animal escapes from his lunar prison.

Either Hollywood writers are dumber than rocks, or they actually think there are lunar modules on the moon. (I tend to think it's more the former than the latter).
 

Lightning

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Whenever some movie has a scene on the moon which depicts any one of the original Apollo landing sites, it shows the entire lunar module completely intact.
Futurama had a sight gag about that. When Fry and Leela hide in the lunar lander you can see a sign that says something like "assent module returned by the historical stickler society (year).". I would expect nothing less from that writers room.
 

Dsimdude

Member
Futurama had a sight gag about that. When Fry and Leela hide in the lunar lander you can see a sign that says something like "assent module returned by the historical stickler society (year).". I would expect nothing less from that writers room.
Well it was obvious those writers actually "got it." Hence the gag with the sign. But I expect better from other Sci-Fi movies. Alas... S*I*G*H
 

HMSwolfe

Sr Member
Literally 90% of this thread is just people complaining about visual shorthand in film. It’s not writers being incompetent, it’s about quickly communicating a message without expending unnecessary time doing so. The same reason that most films that reference France show the Eiffel Tower, or how alien attacks all seem to happen in New York—they’re using simplified images/visuals to get the message across. Most people don’t care about the minutiae of military procedure, the exact date that some historical event happened, or the actual physics of some stunt.
 

PoopaPapaPalps

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Multiverses.

This, and "meta-narratives."

Be confident and stick by your work. Openly acknowledging something silly or breaking the fourth wall isn't always necessary or, by this point, very clever. It's a very flaccid and safe way of being non-committal. It's really lazy and kind of condescending.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Top