do you have a job/hobby/knowledge in a particular field that allows you to spot mistakes in movies?

[L. Declis]

An actual film degree, which makes me notice things like editing and lighting and shot angles and such. In particular, this new style of action filming where they constantly cut after every single shot to cover up the lack of being able to actually fight or film it properly. Even some parts of Captain America have vomit inducing action scenes (but was otherwise a very good movie).

Also, China and how it is represented in terms of culture, or the idea of "honour" or the mysticism of the Orient and all of that which is usually some 2D racist caricature.

Also, a decent knowledge of AI which means the upcoming Transcendence movie already has me annoyed just from trailers.

 

[ForumSafari]

I'm an IT administrator so anything involving hacking or generally using a computer generally makes me wince.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

CGI animation yeah...

More than half the characters of last generation games looked like eldrich abominations that clawed their way out of the uncanny valley. The games that looked "good" to me where the ones that went for their own look, so weren't trying to be cutting edge.

Considering pretty much all big budget movies lately are CGI heavy, it's even worse when they cut corners. Lots of animated TV shows do it to, or they just forget to add things in and hope no one will notice.


In Steven universe, I think it's Cheeseburger Backpack, toward the end when they're all in the water, his backpack actually disappears (you can't see the straps on his shoulders) and reappears half a second later, as if it were there the whole time.

In movies that have scenes with people eating, you might notice the food changes a lot throughout the course of the scene. (although in their defense, this isn't because of corner cutting or an "oops" moment, it's just caused by stopping and starting and stopping)


In Men in Black, when Will Smith throws the rock at the giant cockroach, it just kind of rolls off and completely disappears magically out of the scene, I think they were hoping the shadow would hide it, it didn't.

I also get to see every piece of product placement. Every major character uses a Macbook and you'll always see it from the back, so the apple is clearly displayed.

Except in the show Perception, Daniel Pierce uses a PC, always shown from the back, so the windows logo is clearly displayed (although this one I wonder if it's sincere product placement, or if they're just poking fun at Apple, or both.)

 

[Crispee]

Not so much a field of study but more location knowledge. I live near where they film the exterior shots in Doctor Who and I always get pulled out of the story when they claim to be in London when they're clearly in Wales.

Examples: In the episode 'Voyage of the Damned' when they apparently beam down to 'London', it is unmistakably (to me) a street that I walk past that is assuredly not any street in London. Ditto at the end when they apparently land next to London's River Thames but it's clearly the RIver Taff which looks very different.

A friend saw Peter Capaldi and Jenna Coleman (The 12th Doctor and Clara) filming in a street that I regularly pass, I look forward to seeing where that's meant to be.

 

[william12123]

Optical engineer in the house! Movies just SUCK at dealing with light & lasers. Basically, if anybody says "laser pistol/rifle/cannon/beam" and:

a) it isnt continuous
b) it is visible

They are getting it wrong; a laser cannot be fired in discontinuous "bolts" (it goes too fast for bolts to be seen). Also, if the thing is visible, it means something is reflecting the light (like in a dust cloud). The only time that high-power lasers do cause air to spontaneously emit light is in a process refered to as "filamentation", a non-linear process that leads to creation of plasma that shines white.

There's a bunch of other things, but honestly, so few actual scientists write science fiction, and honestly perfect versimilitude is somewhat boring, so I dont nitpick too much.

 

[Wasted]

As a therapist, seeing how mental illness and counseling therapy are portrayed in television and movies always make me cry. It is so rare to see the psychology displayed even somewhat accurate. Instead the norm is that all mental illness is schizophrenia/antisocial personality disorder and all therapists are incompetent bad guys.

Honest conversation I had with someone:

Him: Oh, so you're a psychologist.
Me: Not quite, I'm a therapist since I only have my masters degree. Psychologists have a doctorate degree and can perform evaluations and assessments.
Him: (In a completely serious way) So you haven't eaten people?
Me: ... What?
Him: Eaten people. Have you ever eaten someone?
Me: ... What!?
Him: Hannibal Lecter. He ate people. I think he was a psychologist.
Me: ... What!?!?
Him: Don't psychologists eat people?
Me: ... (I walk away)

My brain melted so hard that I couldn't even bother to correct him. If he wasn't completely trolling me I take it was because he came from a country where psychology does not exist.

 

[shadyh8er]

As a future law student, it would be easier for me to list the things Hollywood does RIGHT in the terms of the law. End of Watch is one such example. The traffic stop the two main cops do in towards the middle of the film is the most legally accurate one I've ever seen on film.


For movies like The Heat though, I have to close my eyes and recite the MST3K mantra.

 

[conmag9]

I have a decent smattering of physics knowledge, given my personal interest in the topic. I'm no specialist, but I know enough to spot weird points in movies. I'm a Computer Science major, so some of the insanity that Hollywood puts out there about computers gets spotted.

Problem is, I have an active imagination. So when I spot those irregularities and outright errors, my mind will instinctively try to "correct" them with theoretical ideas on how the flaws could be accounted for. I suppose that makes the mistakes more bearable though, so whatever.

 

[spartan231490]

I'm an avid sport shooter and I have a diverse education in many of the sciences. You learn to ignore inaccuracies in movies if you want to watch anything at all.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Animation (general course, mostly 2D and flash, but some 3D and alternatives like Clay and Sand) with modules in Film Studies and Critical Analyses.

I can catch most mistakes made in 2D animations and can usually guess as to why they happened. Some of them are only single frame mistakes, though most are a little more obvious (like wrong colours, off model characters, lower frame rates and so on).

I know (and notice) a lot of the "cheats" used by animators to simplify a complex scene that most folks wouldn't catch unless assissted. A "if it works, it works" rule of thumb is very common in all the popular weekly animations and it's fun to see where they are implemented if only to reassure me that Animators in the wild aren't that much better then I am (at least in terms of "lazy" thinking).

For the most part, what I tend to see now that I couldn't before are tiny details within single frames. I'm more aware of each frame used in a scene then I was before studying and practicing animation.

3D features (Not CGI per-say) have their own repetoir of tricks they use to bluff there way through a scene. Animators can be really clever, especially if it makes things easier on them. However I'm not that competent with 3D and therefore aren't as aware of these things when used in films.

However, experience with 3D modelling and rigging makes more of aware of the causes of weird glitches in games, particularly when it comes to wonky animations or physics based ragdolling. Ever see a NPC body "mesh" get all skewed and laughably weird looking (long limbgs, irratic movement and such)? Likely to have been a glitch with game processing the characters "skeleton" (or rig). Or if it's purely a texture issue, it's likely due to the game processing the texture wrong or losing the tagged textures file.

On top of all of that, I learned a lot about story structure in films. Now I can practically see when a film tranistions from one act to the next. This is probably the most damaging to my enjoyment because I can't settle into the intended pace of the film because I've already seen the transition before it happens. It's weird. I just can't switch it off.

None of these things are particularly exception though and few affect my enjoyment. I learned to appreciate the things that go wrong as much as what goes right, so that helps my enjoyment of features without having to kill my awareness while watching them.

 

[marioandsonic]

I work as a programmer for a fairly large corporation, so yeah. I know multiple languages, and a lot of times, whenever a movie has a "hacker" typing up elaborate code to take down some sort of database, it is complete bullshit. I don't really care that much anymore, but it is still a pleasant surprise when I catch a glimpse of movies showing code that actually may do something and isn't essentially complete gibberish.

I'm currently in college studying computer programming, so I'm in the same boat.

This one Penny Arcade comic sums it up nicely:

Spoiler

 

[hermes]

IT here

Yeah, every time someone tries to hack into something or use computers and Internet as the modern equivalent of magic, I can spot it a mile away.

Luckily it seems to be less prevalent now than it once was...

 

[Raggedstar]

I don't see many veterinary medicine movies and such, so I guess let's just stick with animals. I'm usually pretty good at separating reality from fiction and having a good time, but either way here's a short list of inaccuracies.

-Dobermans, German Shepherds, and Rottweilers aren't fighting dogs yet will often show up there in movies
-A lot of "huskies" in movies are Alaskan Malamutes. Huskies are typically runners while Malamutes are heavy load pullers
-As an extension, the real events of Eight Below were fronted by a Japanese team and used a breed of Japanese husky, not Siberian or Malamutes
-A lot of "wolves" in movies are Alaskan Malamutes, German Shepherds, or various types of huskies and mixes. Same goes for most "wolf breeders", actually
-A vague reference, but Balto was not a wolfdog or even particularly fast. He was a short and stocky little guy.
-Most depictions of rabies aren't accurate in movies. Most rabid animals have poor co-ordination and will look very sickly. Also, not all rabid animals are aggressive and can even be unusually friendly.
-I saw a show once that had puppies only days old with eyes open and moving fine. Most carnivorous mammals are born blind and deaf and won't even get sight until about 2 weeks
-Lions in movies usually open their mouths wide to roar. In real life, their roars are booming chuffs and their mouths aren't wide open. The MGM lion and The Lion King lied to you!
-If you want a sled dog to run, you usually say "hike", not "mush"
-Anacondas aren't the longest snakes in the world and don't usually kill people (not sure if any). The reticulated python is the longest and has been known to kill people
-Piranhas aren't as dangerous as they're usually seen in media.
-Foxes can't growl like dogs
-The shrill screech often associated with Bald Eagles is actually a hawk
-There's a difference between a mouse and a rat
-If the Christmas movie has male Reindeer with antlers, then that's a lie. Females keep their antlers in winter

 

[JoJo]

All-round science geek here, graduated in biology but currently work in physics, so I see a lot of science mistakes in movies. Many more light-hearted movies seem to bet on using sciency-sounding terms stringed into a sentence (neutrinos are causing the Earth's core to melt!) rather than anything plausible. I don't mind really, it's fun to spot errors.

 

[Comocat]

Not me, but my dad is a naturalist/nature writer. He is pretty good at identifying bird calls and other species native to California when a movie is supposedly set in Europe. It's simultaneously irritating and fascinating to watch a movie with someone who can so thoroughly dismantle the biogeography of a movie set.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I work as a programmer for a fairly large corporation, so yeah. I know multiple languages, and a lot of times, whenever a movie has a "hacker" typing up elaborate code to take down some sort of database, it is complete bullshit. I don't really care that much anymore, but it is still a pleasant surprise when I catch a glimpse of movies showing code that actually may do something and isn't essentially complete gibberish.

So true. Not a programmer myself, but I took a couple courses late in college, back when I had vain hopes of striking it in the Multimedia sector. Some decently developed IT background was included that went from everything between learning to turn your computer on (yes, some students were really that oblivious) to, in the tail end, going over a workplace's security to spot holes.

Poring through a network architecture to look for a ***** that needs to be plugged takes time. I wish Hollywood would learn that self-sustaining hackers do find some use for their mouse, and that the whole process is a lot less glamorous than they like us to believe. It's a boring, sometimes painful slog through as much terminal cruft as it does print-outs. The I.T. floor I briefly worked at was far from the Nerd Heaven it's usually portrayed as, with slacker employees pushing their World of Warcraft skills on company time or blaring The Crystal Method from their grungy speakers 'cause the division is suspiciously in the basement.

Nope. It was boring suit-and-tie stuff for the most part, complete with division-wide weekly reports and the most "challenging" of your daily assignments usually involving the retrieval of a computer-illiterate office drone's password.

 

[soren7550]

I have a special interest in animals, so I tend to see when the media gets details about animals wrong. It usually doesn't bother me at all unless the work is misrepresenting the animal for the sake of demonizing it or was in any way intended to be educational, but I do notice. The Guardians of Ga'Hoole movie, for example, shows the owls rolling their eyes when that's impossible (the reason owls can turn their heads almost completely around is because their eyes can't turn in their sockets). Even the books the movie was based on aren't immune; the Ga'Hoole books seem to imply that owls don't poop, and that casting pellets is unique to owls, when neither of those things are the case. Owls poop just like any bird, and lots of bird species cast pellets, including crows and seagulls.

The movie getting bird trivia wrong doesn't bother me because it was just supposed to be a fun fantasy adventure with talking animals, and because I realize that giving all the owls realistic fixed stares would have looked creepy on-screen and limited the expressiveness of the characters (plus it's directed by Zack Snyder; the intelligence bar naturally has to be set kind of low). The books getting bird trivia wrong does bother me because the books are clearly trying to be educational in addition to entertaining.

Someone else who has read the Guardians of Ga'Hoole books? My brother! *embraces*

From what I can recall, Lasky got most everything right with her owl facts (then again, it's been years since I've read the books, so I could be wrong). But I do recall that some point early in the series, it is mentioned that some of an owl's waste does come out as poop. As for the "only owls vomit pellets", that seems at least partly true, ass a quick search shows that for hawks and falcons, they're called castings.

OT: Having taken a forensics course, I tend to get mad at cop dramas for how they go about crime scenes, most for instances when they investigate a body. In cases such as that, you have to wear these head to foot paper-y suits so that whatever is on you doesn't contaminate the crime scene. In all but one instance (the first episode of Sherlock) this is always ignored, choosing instead to have the cops dressed in their finest, adorned in heels, and finely styled hair flowing freely. Come on, the least you can do is wear latex gloves!

And probably a given, but video game basics. "Dual mode" for Assassin's Creed 3 (Castle), numbered levels in Prince of Persia (some crap show that didn't last long) and Diablo III (Once Upon A Time), high scores in MMOs (NCIS), battling a fire demon with 2 player co-op in Pokemon Silver ( Guitar Girl), all that 'fun' crap that you'd think that someone would catch before they finalize their product. Apparently though, these writers have zero internet to perform a quick Google search on these sort of things. Or ever played a game, or know someone who has.

(if any typing errors, my apologies, for I'm stuck on a crappy computer that hates everything)

 

[Shock and Awe]

Catching mistakes regarding firearms in movies is always fun and easy. As a rule of thumb, if there are guns, they probably jacked something up.

 

[Grach]

I study Biology, so stuff like weirdly earthly alien ecology sits just wrong with me. So shit like Avatar just falls completely flat for me.

At least Mass Effect had species with different aminoacid chirality.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Optical engineer in the house! Movies just SUCK at dealing with light & lasers. Basically, if anybody says "laser pistol/rifle/cannon/beam" and:

As an aside, is there any way that "laser rifle" would make sense? I mean, can you put rifling (or something similar) on a laser?

Catching mistakes regarding firearms in movies is always fun and easy. As a rule of thumb, if there are guns, they probably jacked something up.

Especially annoying when they get military or ex military types as advisors.