Things you're tired of seeing in movies

[Riceball]

That's not correct. He nearly kills himself the first time he uses them, and years later, before their final battle, he points out that, due to her time travel, and him taking the long way, he's had the Quake powers longer than she has.

On a similar note, I've always hated it when someone does the deer in the headlights as a speeding car is bearing down on them and someone rushes in and pushes them aside, only to be hit by the car themselves. Personally, if I ran into a similar situation, I wouldn't simply just push the person away and stand there, I would push them while running and not stop to take their place.

 

[Strikerkc]

...Also, from what I understand, "dry firing" bows is supposed to be a bad thing as in it can injure the archer. But I don't know enough about archery to know much about this.

It is terrible, and dangerous. That said, I believe most prop departments worth their salt can make up a bow that bends and snaps back into place, that has little to no energy behind it, which should be fine.

It's one of the reasons that Green Arrow's bow, on Arrow, looked so awesome. They gave him a kestral (I think is the name), that is this utterly bizarre and pointless combination of a recurve bow and a compound bow; but the way it worked, had a pivot point in the middle of each limb, so prop folks just had to take all the oomph out of that part, and pulling back on the string would cause a RADICAL move of the limbs, but would still snap right back into place when released, without snapping the bow apart.

really nice cinematic look.

 

[joberg]

Tired of seeing actors playing roles. Get people that really do what the characters do in real life. J/k

 

[p51]

I feel like I got lucky with ghostbusters. I enjoyed it, but I also had the realization, about 10 minute in, that "Oh, this is not a Ghostbusters movie, it's a 90 minute SNL skit about Ghostbusters. Got it."

Under that context, my brain enjoyed it a good bit.

I wish I'd thought of it that way, I could have enjoyed then.
But I didn't.

 

[p51]

Tired of seeing actors playing roles. Get people that really do what the characters do in real life. J/k

I literally bumped into Orlando Bloom at Fort Benning during their training for "Blackhawk Down," with his hands in his pockets and no cover on, in uniform. I was about to read him the riot act when this suit came bounding over and apologized, saying they were all actors. I said, "I don't care what they are, you all better be thankful I wasn't some old crusty Sgt Major, because he'd have you all in the front leaning rest position, doing pushups until your arms fell off."
I only realized it was Orlando Bloom, much later, as I saw the movie.
A friend of mine later said he'd been there for some of the training and one actor who was supposed to get to a pull-up bar instead went up to shake hands with the Ranger instructor waiting for him, saying, "Hi, I'm such and such, I'm an actor," to which the SGT replied, "And I'm a Ranger who couldn't give a [bleep] about it, get up there and pull!"

 

[blewis17]

As a medical professional, I am tired of seeing characters quickly jabbing syringes full of agent XYZ into their own neck, or someone else's neck, or straight into the ante-cubital fossa (the bend in your elbow) for immediate effect. For starters: unless you are intentionally administering an intra-muscular injection (typically on the lateral shoulder/deltoid muscle, or in your gluteus maximus), you have to access a VEIN for the drug to work.

I've dissected out the carotid artery in my career and also accessed the jugular vein(s) multiple times for central line placement. Blindly stabbing the side of your neck is more likely to puncture the vein/artery through to the other side, or miss it completely and deliver the payload into the fat or neck strap muscles. At best, you are only gaining one or 2 seconds of quicker drug effect by hitting one of the jugular veins rather than injecting through the hand or arm. Venous blood quickly reaches the heart, no matter which vein is used.

And impaling your elbow at a 90 degree angle with the syringe and a 2 inch needle? You're not hitting the vein at all.

 

[Riceball]

As a medical professional, I am tired of seeing characters quickly jabbing syringes full of agent XYZ into their own neck, or someone else's neck, or straight into the ante-cubital fossa (the bend in your elbow) for immediate effect. For starters: unless you are intentionally administering an intra-muscular injection (typically on the lateral shoulder/deltoid muscle, or in your gluteus maximus), you have to access a VEIN for the drug to work.

I've dissected out the carotid artery in my career and also accessed the jugular vein(s) multiple times for central line placement. Blindly stabbing the side of your neck is more likely to puncture the vein/artery through to the other side, or miss it completely and deliver the payload into the fat or neck strap muscles. At best, you are only gaining one or 2 seconds of quicker drug effect by hitting one of the jugular veins rather than injecting through the hand or arm. Venous blood quickly reaches the heart, no matter which vein is used.

And impaling your elbow at a 90 degree angle with the syringe and a 2 inch needle? You're not hitting the vein at all.

On a similar note, whenever someone is injected with something, it's almost always the same dose for everyone, regardless of body mass. This is particularly true of sedatives/tranqs, no matter if the person (or animal( is 90 pounds or 200 pounds it's always the same dosage and it (usually) takes effect immediately.

 

[ScourgiousJinx]

Generic instrumental movie soundtracks that sound exactly the same. Just stop. What happened to paying a little more for great songs like they did for "The Crow," "Donnie Darko," or "The Lost Highway?"

 

[joberg]

Generic instrumental movie soundtracks that sound exactly the same. Just stop. What happened to paying a little more for great songs like they did for "The Crow," "Donnie Darko," or "The Lost Highway?"

Can you say "Trends"? Of course they're just trying to mimic the music used in very popular movies! If the music used in SW works, then they'll use a similar pattern for the next Sci-Fi movie. Same with all of Tim Burton's movie and his fav. composer. It sounds the same because it is! To radically change style is very difficult and, in general (there are exceptions, of course) a composer has a style that's very recognizable from others.

 

[Treadwell]

it (usually) takes effect immediately.

I saw enough Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom as a kid to know it takes a while before lights out!

 

[ScourgiousJinx]

Can you say "Trends"? Of course they're just trying to mimic the music used in very popular movies! If the music used in SW works, then they'll use a similar pattern for the next Sci-Fi movie. Same with all of Tim Burton's movie and his fav. composer. It sounds the same because it is! To radically change style is very difficult and, in general (there are exceptions, of course) a composer has a style that's very recognizable from others.

Indeed...many decisions that are made in/for movies are for the reason that they are trendy/work/sell including many of the things people have written in this thread. Making things the same sells but that doesn't mean it should always happen or that it's always enjoyable to experience. Taking risks, doing things that are difficult and different pushes everything forward.

 

[AJK001]

The thing I'm most tired of is the people who complain about every single little thing in a movie.

 

[joberg]

Indeed...many decisions that are made in/for movies are for the reason that they are trendy/work/sell including many of the things people have written in this thread. Making things the same sells but that doesn't mean it should always happen or that it's always enjoyable to experience. Taking risks, doing things that are difficult and different pushes everything forward.

Ah, yes...taking risks Don't you think that the Studios (in general, I know there are exceptions out there) are risk averse? It's money after all for those in charge

 

[ScourgiousJinx]

Ah, yes...taking risks Don't you think that the Studios (in general, I know there are exceptions out there) are risk averse? It's money after all for those in charge

High risk yields the highest rewards and the worst failures. Of course they're averse to taking risks. That doesn't mean that lazy repackaged trends have to be supported or enjoyed.

 

[HMSwolfe]

I don’t know, there have been some formulaic, trend-following flops that are pretty bad, worse even than a risky film that flopped. Any number of teen/YA books adapted to bloated blockbusters like Artemis Fowl or Eragon, misfires like John Carter, a lot of the DCEU in its attempts to build a “cinematic universe”. They can crash pretty hard too.

 

[Cephus]

The thing I'm most tired of is the people who complain about every single little thing in a movie.

Yet, you're voluntarily reading this thread. Go figure.

 

[AJK001]

Yet, you're voluntarily reading this thread. Go figure.

I like to see what they are complaining about and do actually agree once in a great while.

 

[joberg]

High risk yields the highest rewards and the worst failures. Of course they're averse to taking risks. That doesn't mean that lazy repackaged trends have to be supported or enjoyed.

Sure, the highest rewards and the worst failures...but that's not necessarily the case in the movie context. I know that there's test audiences and according to their comments, a studio/director can re-cut, re-shot some of the scenes to make them "clearer/better" before releasing it for a wider audience and, in the end... nobody dies The formulaic is an intrinsic part of the Hollywood culture. Rambo has a formula, SW has one, the Chick Flick also and so on and so forth...and people/humans have a tendency to love routines. We don't like change that much, including in our favorite genre/entertainment.

 

[ScourgiousJinx]

Sure, the highest rewards and the worst failures...but that's not necessarily the case in the movie context. I know that there's test audiences and according to their comments, a studio/director can re-cut, re-shot some of the scenes to make them "clearer/better" before releasing it for a wider audience and, in the end... nobody dies The formulaic is an intrinsic part of the Hollywood culture. Rambo has a formula, SW has one, the Chick Flick also and so on and so forth...and people/humans have a tendency to love routines. We don't like change that much, including in our favorite genre/entertainment.

Making a lot of money and high viewership are hardly indicators of a good film. SW, Rambo and Chick Flicks? Those are the best examples of the problem. The original trilogy was great and as much as everyone wanted to love the sequel trilogy (especially myself, a life long SW fan) it was mostly a hot mess partially because of exactly what you're talking about. Rambo and Chick Flicks completely speak for themselves. Test audiences and focus groups have helped supply plenty of garbage. When good alternatives to repackaged formulaic films are not present for the most part the bar gets lowered and people settle for junk. No one dies through having a significant amount of alternatives to formulaic movies either. In fact it helps foster imagination and creativity which are essential. People do like routines temporarily but change and growth are necessary as routine gets stale, boring & uninteresting as it has in the entertainment industry. I respect your opinion but do not agree.

 

[Riceball]

Making a lot of money and high viewership are hardly indicators of a good film. SW, Rambo and Chick Flicks? Those are the best examples of the problem. The original trilogy was great and as much as everyone wanted to love the sequel trilogy (especially myself, a life long SW fan) it was mostly a hot mess partially because of exactly what you're talking about. Rambo and Chick Flicks completely speak for themselves. Test audiences and focus groups have helped supply plenty of garbage. When good alternatives to repackaged formulaic films are not present for the most part the bar gets lowered and people settle for junk. No one dies through having a significant amount of alternatives to formulaic movies either. In fact it helps foster imagination and creativity which are essential. People do like routines temporarily but change and growth are necessary as routine gets stale, boring & uninteresting as it has in the entertainment industry. I respect your opinion but do not agree.

The thing that you're forgetting is that the big studios aren't in the business of making good movies, they're in the business of making money. So if they release a film that some consider garbage but is a box office hit then they're happy. Now, if a movie is both a critical and box office success, so much the better, but it's hardly a requirement. To most studios, I don't even think that an Oscar or a nomination means much except as something to add to their marketing campaign to increase ticket sales.

Something else to bear in mind is that your big tent pole movies are no longer being aimed purely at the domestic US market, or even the Western market, these days. Something that's a flop or just modest success here could be a huge hit overseas and for a movie to be successful overseas, particularly in Asia/China, the story has to be simple enough that it works no matter the language or culture. It's also part of the reason why remakes & reboots are so popular, we've seen these movies before here in the US, and Europe, but in other parts of the world they've never seen the originals before, so, for them, it's something new and never seen before.