Things you're tired of seeing in movies

Good point about the blinds. How about the scenes in R rated movies where those blinds are open? I've never met a woman who wouldn't have noticed the blinds were open at a time like that (and I met/dated some seriously seriously exhibitionist/crazy women before I got married).
 
As for the windows, ironically, I was driving by a newly-built hotel that faces the highway. On the top floor, a woman was up against the window, facing the highway, with the lights on and blinds pulled back, while her man was behind her. You can figure the rest out. People were slowing down and I saw the driver ahead of me pointing to it and it was impossible to miss, then.
Man, had never seen anything like that before!
 
The Walking Dead season 6 discussion reminded me of something they do way too often in Hollywood and that's the push someone out of harm's way but stand there in their place instead of moving with them. It's usually done with cars, someone is doing the deer in the headlights thing and they get pushed out of the way by someone and instead of continuing running along with the person they just pushed, they instead just stand there to allow themselves to get hit by the car instead. Every time I see that, I just think to myself, I would have done some sort of running tackle where I not only move the person out of the way but I keep my momentum up so that I'm continuing to move as well.
 
Seeing skid marks/ ski tracks/ foot prints in a shot where they've obviously done several takes beforehand (check out the ski jump in The Spy Who Loved Me, lots of tracks from when they've made several attemps to get it looking right).
 
Character looks through binoculars/telescope/sight at something. We see the classic "scope" POV shot...and there are sound effects for what we're seeing. What, the lens has a telescopic microphone, too? (and speaker?) THEY'RE A JILLION YARDS AWAY, WE SHOULDN'T HEAR THEM.

This reminds of the scene in Star Trek 4, when Kirk tells Uhura to put the whales on viewer. And whats her face is like, how can you do that. I thought the same thing. I mean I know its 23rd century tech, but how do they do that.
 
Seeing skid marks/ ski tracks/ foot prints in a shot where they've obviously done several takes beforehand (check out the ski jump in The Spy Who Loved Me, lots of tracks from when they've made several attemps to get it looking right).
70s cop shows were the worst for this. You knew a stunt was coming up on CHiPs due to the skid marks. Also, they'd smash one side of the car in the rehearsal/first take, then do the stunt the other way to smash the other. So frequently, all of a sudden a car's side would be seen trashed for no reason.

Oh, and those stunts where they'd put a ramp on the back of a car so another car would go up on two wheels and flip. THIS NEVER HAPPENS, the car would just have a rear end collision!
 
70s cop shows were the worst for this. You knew a stunt was coming up on CHiPs due to the skid marks. Also, they'd smash one side of the car in the rehearsal/first take, then do the stunt the other way to smash the other. So frequently, all of a sudden a car's side would be seen trashed for no reason.

Oh, and those stunts where they'd put a ramp on the back of a car so another car would go up on two wheels and flip. THIS NEVER HAPPENS, the car would just have a rear end collision!

Yep, old TV budgets. No time for practice attempts off-site to hide the skid marks. There are a lot of practical concerns that affect what a fast-shooting low-budget TV crew will attempt with car stunts. Turning cars over with ramps is more practical than using explosive cannons on the undercarriage. Etc.

The cars usually have to flip on TV because flat-ground collisions just don't look very impressive visually. Not at any reasonable speed, anyway. Also, people watched TV on tiny little glass screens 30-40 years ago. You need something dramatic if there's going to be drama around it.



The lack of VCRs/DVDs was a big difference in the standards they held for everything. 30-40 years ago they didn't shoot & edit stuff with the intention of it withstanding repeated scrutiny. There was no slo-mo and rewinding and freezing the frames. You saw it once, while it was broadcasting, and that was it. The show wouldn't be aired again for at least several months.

Today we laugh at how cheap the older stuff looks but that's not all bad. The cheaper you can shoot a show, the more chances you can take in the creative sense. Today we get perfect realism but we moan & groan about the lack of original stuff.
 
This reminds of the scene in Star Trek 4, when Kirk tells Uhura to put the whales on viewer. And whats her face is like, how can you do that. I thought the same thing. I mean I know its 23rd century tech, but how do they do that.

I like to think that what is shown on the viewer is computer generated, 23rd century CGI, created on the fly from sensor data.
 
This reminds of the scene in Star Trek 4, when Kirk tells Uhura to put the whales on viewer. And whats her face is like, how can you do that. I thought the same thing. I mean I know its 23rd century tech, but how do they do that.
That scene actually had me laughing out loud the first time I saw Star Trek IV. Almost every Trek fan I know has always wondered how they could possibly magnify the view of something that isn't in their line-of-sight, or view it from a different angle, and when a character finally questions it on-screen they just ignore it and move on. :lol
 
I always thought it was kinda stupid that they tried to make the screen look 3D by whenever you saw the person on it talking from a different angle, they were looking at who they were talking too, even thou you could tell they just shot the same scene again from the side of his head. I understood what they were trying to do but it just didn't work for me
 
I thought this was hilarious, something I think we can all agree is maddening in movies:
bgthq2_8924.jpg
I always thought it was kinda stupid that they tried to make the screen look 3D by whenever you saw the person on it talking from a different angle, they were looking at who they were talking too, even thou you could tell they just shot the same scene again from the side of his head. I understood what they were trying to do but it just didn't work for me
Glad to know that wasn't just me. That drove me nuts as a kid, when someone in a movie/TV show would be watching someone else and the angle didn't match up at all for the angle being shown.
 
Another staple of movies:
Nerdy kid goes to crazy lengths to win the cheerleader's heart and she's just as pretty on the inside as the outside (or the genders are flipped, same concept). We've all seen the movie, there's a million of them.
Just once, I'd like to see the more realistic scenario where he goes to the trouble and finds she's shallow, ignorant, a royal pain and not worth the time, and he dumps her.
I think the boys who never got the girl would love that ending a lot more!
 
Or how the protagonist will go to extraordinary lengths to get their love back after the bad break up....lengths that are (supposed to be) thought of as "aawww" by women....are lengths that in the real world get people restraining orders against them.
 
:popcorn
Poorly done voice or speaking accents.
Extra stuff or movie continues unexpectedly after or within the end credits.:eek
 
Last edited:
:popcorn
Poorly done voice or speaking accents.
Extra stuff or movie continues unexpectedly after or within the end credits.:eek
How about sometimes, the bad guys speak in their native language and sometimes they don't?
Firefox drove me nuts in that one regard!
 
Native language speaking, then sometimes they don't..... yeah a lot of the migrant kids at school did that too...even adults everywhere do that....comes in handy sometimes.:p
 
Here's a plot tool that I have seen way too many times in movies an not sure it's been mentioned yet, but have seen in movies recently like Krull and Hellboy. The hero is crossing a bridge or elevated walkway of some kind it starts falling apart, but the hero always makes it across even thou half the bridge has already collapsed!
 
Back
Top