Things you're tired of seeing in movies

Mottrex

Sr Member
The superhero "vanishing helmet" that disappears into/appears from NOTHING-ness, i.e. at Starlord's GOTG helmet, Spiderman's Iron Spider facemask, Tony Stark's latest Mark billion suit, etc. They say "nano-tachnology" to wave it all away.

Yes!...
I always think OK but where do the Nanobots come from/go too, yeah they are nano but at some point they become a mass lol..
 

somerset fox

Well-Known Member
On screen kid deaths doesn't seem like something I particularly want to see more of in films. At least some of that lower percentage of child deaths in movies likely comes from the reality that adults often will do anything to protect kids including sacrifice themselves, even for a child whose a complete stranger without a moments hesitation.
Although she isn’t dead (I hope) I found the way Max in Stranger Things was broken in the last episode, very gratuitous and left me feeling queasy, especially as the character is a child. Perhaps as an older male, I feel protective towards kids And don’t like to see them harmed.
 

blewis17

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
When the hero finally saves the captive (usually tied up and/or imprisoned, having been tortured by the enemy): After the rescue, and within minutes the captive is somehow able to muster the strength to get up and follow the hero out of their cell/citadel/evil lair/etc, usually shooting away with a weapon handed to them by said hero.

In reality, the average non-military trained human deprived of food, water, and sleep for just a few days would be an emotional, mental and physical wreck, with no mental capacity or ware withal to follow commands or endure the rigors of an escape.

Oh, and the captives clothing would probably be soiled with urine and feces as well. I'm just saying...
 

Mottrex

Sr Member
and there's a big romantic kiss. Their breath has got to be terrible.
Ah love conquer All...


Immaculate Ironed clothing, not a crease in them. This is pretty much every movie out there.. Save a few linen based adventure franchises.

Oh and sweat marks, that famous, squirt of water mid line on a back should look realistic lol
 

Mottrex

Sr Member
On screen kid deaths doesn't seem like something I particularly want to see more of in films. At least some of that lower percentage of child deaths in movies likely comes from the reality that adults often will do anything to protect kids including sacrifice themselves, even for a child whose a complete stranger without a moments hesitation.
After the ending of The Myst that was it for me..
I met Jeffery Demunn back in 2010, I asked him what it was like to work with Frank Darabon, he said Harrowing but fun.
 

Riceball

Master Member
When the hero finally saves the captive (usually tied up and/or imprisoned, having been tortured by the enemy): After the rescue, and within minutes the captive is somehow able to muster the strength to get up and follow the hero out of their cell/citadel/evil lair/etc, usually shooting away with a weapon handed to them by said hero.

In reality, the average non-military trained human deprived of food, water, and sleep for just a few days would be an emotional, mental and physical wreck, with no mental capacity or ware withal to follow commands or endure the rigors of an escape.

Oh, and the captives clothing would probably be soiled with urine and feces as well. I'm just saying...
Make that your average person, civilian or military. Despite what Hollywood might have you believe, the vast majority of the people who are or were in the military are not combat vets who served in some spec ops unit or even as a grunt. Most are non-infantry who may have gotten some infantry training during boot camp (if you're Army or Marine Corps)) and maybe the occasional refresher but they're, for the most part, not hardened troops. In general, few people in the military receive what's called SERE or POW training. So most members of the military, if they were put in the situation you mentioned, wouldn't be much better than the average civilian.
 

Sluis Van Shipyards

Legendary Member
I finally watched Expendables 2 and they put the guy with the massive Barrett sniper rifle on point. From what I know, most snipers carry these broken down in a carry bag and would carry something like a M4 until they got to where they would set up their shooting position. So it makes no sense to have the dude with the heaviest rifle to try and shoulder out on point!
 

p51

Sr Member
Yeah, there's a common stereotype that everyone who was ever in a branch of the military is a tough guy for life. Whatever.

I used to play some pretty fast & rough contact sports as a teenager. That doesn't tell you much about me now.
Too true. Being a vet doesn't make you Superman (or Superwoman) forever, nor does it make you any better a person. Some of the biggest dirtbags I've ever known were veterans.
And there were some people I served with that I was sure that if they went into combat, the first round fired by their unit would be at their head. I knew a company XO who was such a putz, I told him that to his face.
 

pengbuzz

Sr Member
I finally watched Expendables 2 and they put the guy with the massive Barrett sniper rifle on point. From what I know, most snipers carry these broken down in a carry bag and would carry something like a M4 until they got to where they would set up their shooting position. So it makes no sense to have the dude with the heaviest rifle to try and shoulder out on point!
Yeah; those rifles aren't exactly intended for "running combat". Comparing an M4 carbine to a Barrett .50, we're talking about 8 lbs for the M4 and something like 30-35 lbs for the Barrett (loaded). So, imagine trying to carry around 35 pounds "on point"?

About the only thing he'd be shooting is his own foot at that rate!!
 

p51

Sr Member
Speaking of heavy weapons, how about in almost every war movie, the guy carrying the BAR, M-60, SAW or any other portable belt-fed base of fire weapon is always portrayed as slightly nuts or bloodthirsty?
It's almost as if having the weapon which spits out the most lead makes you hungry to let the big dog eat...
 

pengbuzz

Sr Member
Speaking of heavy weapons, how about in almost every war movie, the guy carrying the BAR, M-60, SAW or any other portable belt-fed base of fire weapon is always portrayed as slightly nuts or bloodthirsty?
It's almost as if having the weapon which spits out the most lead makes you hungry to let the big dog eat...
Right? With that kind of firepower (and the potential to do massive amounts of harm good or bad), you would think you'd want someone with a cool head screwed tightly on their shoulders, who isn't going to "let lead fly" the second he sees a hummingbird hovering around a flower!
 

Sluis Van Shipyards

Legendary Member
Yeah; those rifles aren't exactly intended for "running combat". Comparing an M4 carbine to a Barrett .50, we're talking about 8 lbs for the M4 and something like 30-35 lbs for the Barrett (loaded). So, imagine trying to carry around 35 pounds "on point"?

About the only thing he'd be shooting is his own foot at that rate!!

I have never fired one on a stand, let alone trying to shoulder fire something like that, which I know is possible, but I would think you'd be hard pressed to swing it up to fire before the guy with the rifle shot you.
 

pengbuzz

Sr Member
I have never fired one on a stand, let alone trying to shoulder fire something like that, which I know is possible, but I would think you'd be hard pressed to swing it up to fire before the guy with the rifle shot you.
From what I understand, it's not really designed for that kind of thing anyways. I mean, if you're built like Arnold or Lou Ferrigno, I suppose you could, but even if that were possible, I think the report from it as well as the waste of a very large bullet would pretty much defeat the point.
 

p51

Sr Member
From what I understand, it's not really designed for that kind of thing anyways. I mean, if you're built like Arnold or Lou Ferrigno, I suppose you could, but even if that were possible, I think the report from it as well as the waste of a very large bullet would pretty much defeat the point.
Nobody ever considered using something like that to be shot from the shoulder. I've fired a M82 Barrett from a bipod as intended and even then it weighed a ton. Something like that needs to be heavy, otherwise it kicks like a freaking mule.
Same with the M-1 rifle from WW1. That .30-06 cartridge in a 1903 Springfield rifle kicked a lot, but when the M1 came long, it weighed almost twice as much as the '03 it replaced and it didn't kick that much.
I have, however, shoulder-fired M-60s when I was an Army ROTC cadet on STX lanes (the M-60 was essentially gone from active units by then, but we used them along with M-16A1s that were handed down from National Guard units). I remember one time at advanced camp, we were coming up on a bunker complex and I was one of two M60 gunners (with with MILES gear emitters). The other guy hit the ground with his AG and went to work. I, however, could see the OPFOR through the slits of a bunker and realized I wouldn't 'hit' them with the MILES gear from laying prone. So, I ran up to the bunker and fired it like a rifle into the slit. The lane NCO later yelled, "Cadet, what the [bleep] were you thinking, charging up like that. Do you think you're Audie Murphy?"
I calmly told him that I knew I could hit them standing up but wouldn't while lying down, and reminded him you could hear a lot of beeping coming from that bunker after I did that.
Stupidly, I then reminded him that Murphy was a LT when he was in the action from which he was awarded his Medal of Honor (which is something I often reminded NCOs once I became a LT later, just to mess with them). That NCO developed a vein on his forehead and he desperately wanted to write me up, but that he knew I hadn't actually done anything to merit that.
I never even saw an M-60 after that as all I ever saw were M249 SAWs in line units. Shooting one of those from the shoulder was impractical due to that giant box for the belt underneath it.
 

caz345

New Member
What is the one thing you are sick of seeing in movies?

For me, it's the slow motion fight scenes, especially if it also involves the high wire stuff.
Constant barrage of female leads, not saying I have anything against female actors at all but paramount is starting to piss me off in these new Star Trek series. I don't think men should be swimming against women in competition, its unfair to the women as men are generally bigger and naturally posses more strength. So it drive me nuts to see a tiny women playing the part as of head of security or other roles where more physical strength would be needed. If your going to have a woman as head of security she should be built like a brick S#*t house, lol.
 

Cephus

Sr Member
Constant barrage of female leads, not saying I have anything against female actors at all but paramount is starting to piss me off in these new Star Trek series. I don't think men should be swimming against women in competition, its unfair to the women as men are generally bigger and naturally posses more strength. So it drive me nuts to see a tiny women playing the part as of head of security or other roles where more physical strength would be needed. If your going to have a woman as head of security she should be built like a brick S#*t house, lol.
You can't say that, reality offends the snowflakes!
 

p51

Sr Member
Constant barrage of female leads, not saying I have anything against female actors at all but paramount is starting to piss me off in these new Star Trek series. I don't think men should be swimming against women in competition, its unfair to the women as men are generally bigger and naturally posses more strength. So it drive me nuts to see a tiny women playing the part as of head of security or other roles where more physical strength would be needed. If your going to have a woman as head of security she should be built like a brick S#*t house, lol.
I can't disagree. There are intimidating looking women who can pull these rolls off. Gina Carano did great in such a role in the first Deadpool movie. But all these female actors who are about 5' 4" and 110 pounds soaking wet are laughable in these roles.
In an era where were so many are desperately trying to normalize large (read: fat) people, why are studios pushing these little waifs in roles that should be cast for stocky/buff women?
 

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.
Top