Things you're tired of seeing in movies

[Master Boda]

How about people picking up guns, particularly rifles with scopes, or even just iron sights, and just picking them and hitting bulls eyes with no problem? Or picking up some rifle without bothering to zero it before they go into action. And to add to this, every scoped rifle always being zeroed to the exact range that the shooter's target happens to be?

For those not too familiar with firearms, zeroing your sights means that you adjust your sights, or scope, so that when you put your sights or scope on your target at a given range you will (in theory) hit where you're aiming. But this only works for the distance that you've zeroed your weapon at. Soi if you've zeroed your weapon at, say, 100 yards, if you're shooting at something closer or farther than that but have centered your sights on your target, you're not going to hit where you're aiming, your shot will go either high or low, or even off to a side if there's wind. So to hit a target that's closer or further than 100 yards you'll have to aim higher or lower. Yet you almost never see this in movies and TV, with a scope you always see the target lined up directly in the center of the crosshairs, it's even worse when they show fanciers scopes with more than a simple crosshair since those lines are there to help you adjust your point of aim when you're shooting at something at a different range from your zero.

Maybe they have a natural “dope”(data of previous engagement).Lame shooting joke I know.In all seriousness excellent point.

 

[Master Boda]

I noticed that the multi had a short run of some unique stories but very very quickly started along the path of 70s and 80s films about spiritualism, especially that of possession. Maybe an odd bent but notice how multi has some stories where the "other" me is good, better, same, worse, or completely dif than me? Like vomit all possibilities in the mix but that is exactly the same course that horror, possession and spiritialistic coming back from the dead stories did almost in the exact same sequence. Heck, the same can be said for mind altering drug, mind altering therapy, amnesia comeback stories. Multi is just an excuse to what if the same story lines all over again. Pet cemetary meets Regarding Henry meets The lake house meets bizzaro Superman.

Multi Groundhog Day,now that’s a movie I could watch on a 24 hour loop.

 

[greenmachines]

Multi Groundhog Day,now that’s a movie I could watch on a 24 hour loop.

I shared this in a dif thread but here goes: My wife once told me that she had this funny story about Groundhogs day, the movie. Was stuck on a plane during a layover at the airport and they only had that movie on the plane. She watched it 4 plus times before leaving the plane. She was dying laughing when she found out it is my Birthday, Feb2.

 

[Riceball]

While I do agree with you IIRC there was a documentary years ago that the NFL knew of “head trauma” and dumped a lot of money into helmet design. To play the devils advocate,the sport will always be full contact as it generates too much money. Some know the risk but the lust for greed and fame is worth the price of their one and only body.

Interestingly enough, because of increasing cases of head trauma in the military during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the DoD and/or military helmet designers actually consulted with the NFL and their helmet makers to see what they could learn from them to make improvements to their helmets. This is why modern military helmets, at least American ones, have done away with the old suspension systems which, in some cases, had remained largely unchanged since the Medieval period, to pads. I also think that the pad system makes sizing easier and is more comfortable than the old liners which were really nothing more than a few nylon straps stretched across from a band around the inside of the helmet.

On a related note, the military/helmet designers were also playing around with the idea of full faced helmets, or at least helmets that could be quickly converted to full faced when needed, for a while. But during their testing, they found full faced helmets did much worse at protecting the wearer from the shock waves generated by explosives. With an open faced helmet the shock wave would just pass through the helmet, in and out. But with a full faced helmet, that didn't happen, instead, they found that the shock wave would remain inside and basically bounce around inside causing more damage to the brain.

 

[Sluis Van Shipyards]

How about people picking up guns, particularly rifles with scopes, or even just iron sights, and just picking them and hitting bulls eyes with no problem? Or picking up some rifle without bothering to zero it before they go into action. And to add to this, every scoped rifle always being zeroed to the exact range that the shooter's target happens to be?

For those not too familiar with firearms, zeroing your sights means that you adjust your sights, or scope, so that when you put your sights or scope on your target at a given range you will (in theory) hit where you're aiming. But this only works for the distance that you've zeroed your weapon at. Soi if you've zeroed your weapon at, say, 100 yards, if you're shooting at something closer or farther than that but have centered your sights on your target, you're not going to hit where you're aiming, your shot will go either high or low, or even off to a side if there's wind. So to hit a target that's closer or further than 100 yards you'll have to aim higher or lower. Yet you almost never see this in movies and TV, with a scope you always see the target lined up directly in the center of the crosshairs, it's even worse when they show fanciers scopes with more than a simple crosshair since those lines are there to help you adjust your point of aim when you're shooting at something at a different range from your zero.

I watched a video a year or two ago with a USMC sniper (I think, American sniper at any rate) and he was rating movies with snipers in them for how realistic they were. He mentioned the Will Smith movie Gemini Man as being accurate because they show him setting up his rifle and zeroing it in, checking wind, etc. before firing. Even though he was firing at a moving high speed train, which was not realistic.

 

[Laspector]

People being served food with a dish that is covered by a dome. Seems like it is just done for the reveal. Is that really even a thing? Maybe I just haven't been to enough fancy restaurants, but I've never actually seen it done.

 

[joberg]

People being served food with a dish that is covered by a dome. Seems like it is just done for the reveal. Is that really even a thing? Maybe I just haven't been to enough fancy restaurants, but I've never actually seen it done.

Fancy restaurants...but also to keep you dish hot (not under heat lamps à la McDonald)

 

[userd1402]

-.-

 

[chronomariner]

Love making scenes shot to create a shock factor. I mean come on, I can watch that **** somewhere else. Give me a movie, not some hardcore dick swinging skin slap action. It just doesn’t do anything for me, I roll my eyes and it pulls me right out of the movie I was invested in.

It’s an unpopular opinion I know.
But we don’t need to see everything, what happened to just hinting towards it or just showing what leads up to the act, we KNOW what is happening.

Anyway, I just feel like it’s a cheap reason for the directors to see these things in action and to create a cheap shock factor.
But hey, loads of people loved Fifty Shades, but here you knew beforehand what the majority of the movie was going to be. I am talking about every other movie that isn’t made with this at the center.

 

[Cephus]

Love making scenes shot to create a shock factor. I mean come on, I can watch that **** somewhere else. Give me a movie, not some hardcore dick swinging skin slap action. It just doesn’t do anything for me, I roll my eyes and it pulls me right out of the movie I was invested in.

It’s an unpopular opinion I know.
But we don’t need to see everything, what happened to just hinting towards it or just showing what leads up to the act, we KNOW what is happening.

Anyway, I just feel like it’s a cheap reason for the directors to see these things in action and to create a cheap shock factor.
But hey, loads of people loved Fifty Shades, but here you knew beforehand what the majority of the movie was going to be. I am talking about every other movie that isn’t made with this at the center.

I've pointed this out a lot recently, but a lot of so-called "adult" shows aren't intended to appeal to adults, they're intended to appeal to oversexed teenagers and people with emotional problems.

 

[joberg]

Talking of restaurants. People in tv shows and films getting their food or drinks and then just getting up and leaving for some reason without touching a bite. I know the dialog and plot are more important to the drama and diners are a cool place to set a scene but I was brought up to finish my plate and not waste food so it irks.

Well, it's about timing: you don't speak with your mouth full of food So, to take a bite and then chew it and swallow it...and then speaking your lines...time is money!

 

[greenmachines]

Well, it's about timing: you don't speak with your mouth full of food So, to take a bite and then shew it and swallow it...and then speaking your lines...time is money!

Was that a coincidence that you mixed show with chew? Which is exactly what my family calls speaking while showing what you are eating: shewing and spewing is not sharing and caring

 

[Riceball]

Well, it's about timing: you don't speak with your mouth full of food So, to take a bite and then shew it and swallow it...and then speaking your lines...time is money!

The other factor is that just because we see that one take on screen, in reality that one scene could have had multiple takes. Each scene is going to have lots of takes due to flubbed lines, the director wanting different reads on the lines, close ups, different camera angles, and so on so that there are multiple choices in editing. So instead of trying to keep track of how much feed was or was not eaten on each take and adding or removing more food and arranging it just right, it's easier to not touch it at all. Not to mention that if an actor actually ate the food on each and every take, they'd probably end up getting sick from all of the food they just ate.

 

[joberg]

Was that a coincidence that you mixed show with chew? Which is exactly what my family calls speaking while showing what you are eating: shewing and spewing is not sharing and caring

Yep, I edited my first post...typing too fast sometimes

 

[joberg]

The other factor is that just because we see that one take on screen, in reality that one scene could have had multiple takes. Each scene is going to have lots of takes due to flubbed lines, the director wanting different reads on the lines, close ups, different camera angles, and so on so that there are multiple choices in editing. So instead of trying to keep track of how much feed was or was not eaten on each take and adding or removing more food and arranging it just right, it's easier to not touch it at all. Not to mention that if an actor actually ate the food on each and every take, they'd probably end up getting sick from all of the food they just ate.

For people interested in continuity on a set: Watch New York, New York with De Niro and Minelli sitting at a table with Martini levels, in their glasses, changing from take to take It's movie 101 and, in my book, inexcusable!

 

[pengbuzz]

I've pointed this out a lot recently, but a lot of so-called "adult" shows aren't intended to appeal to adults, they're intended to appeal to oversexed teenagers and people with emotional problems.

Frankly, the need to just ditch most of that anyways; all it does is give folks the wrong ideas on that anyhow, and it's not something I care for in movies.

 

[Riceball]

For people interested in continuity on a set: Watch New York, New York with De Niro and Minelli sitting at a table with Martini levels, in their glasses, changing from take to take It's movie 101 and, in my book, inexcusable!

To be fair, this kind of continuity error happens not because someone wasn't paying attention but because the editor/director was simply using the best takes to make the scene during editing. Because of that, you get continuity errors. Sometimes the director/editor is fully aware of the continuity errors this creates but is willing to live with it because those were the best takes, or, sometimes, the only usable takes.

 

[greenmachines]

To be fair, this kind of continuity error happens not because someone wasn't paying attention but because the editor/director was simply using the best takes to make the scene during editing. Because of that, you get continuity errors. Sometimes the director/editor is fully aware of the continuity errors this creates but is willing to live with it because those were the best takes, or, sometimes, the only usable takes.

Unless we are talking about the pile of shredded cheese in Napolean Dynamite. That was a cut away and was a different size each time. You were actually supposed to notice the continuity failure. It's an Easter egg.

 

[JediMichael]

The other factor is that just because we see that one take on screen, in reality that one scene could have had multiple takes. Each scene is going to have lots of takes due to flubbed lines, the director wanting different reads on the lines, close ups, different camera angles, and so on so that there are multiple choices in editing. So instead of trying to keep track of how much feed was or was not eaten on each take and adding or removing more food and arranging it just right, it's easier to not touch it at all. Not to mention that if an actor actually ate the food on each and every take, they'd probably end up getting sick from all of the food they just ate.

To be fair, this kind of continuity error happens not because someone wasn't paying attention but because the editor/director was simply using the best takes to make the scene during editing. Because of that, you get continuity errors. Sometimes the director/editor is fully aware of the continuity errors this creates but is willing to live with it because those were the best takes, or, sometimes, the only usable takes.

So many people do not realize how tedious it is to edit a scene together and make sense without being bothered by all the continuity errors you end up with. Then theres ALWAYS the issues of cutting it together to realize you really need another shot and how to recreate the setup and ending up having something wrong.
While most of the time the actors do not eat the food, off the top of my head, two that do like eating on set while filming are Robert Downey Jr and Brad Pitt. In Ocean's 11, they say the scene where Brad is eating shrimp, between all the takes, he ended up eating 40 of them....I could see him throwing up by the end of it all.

 

[greenmachines]

It is funny that we came full circle. The original complaint was not eating the food available in the scene. Both Downey and Pitt are known for eating on set, and open mouthed, when food was not even scripted for that scene. Downey has some health issue that needs calories intermittently and he doesn't wait for a scene break. However, neither of these two miss a line and do so with a face full of food.

The shew must go on.