Things that film makers and writers do that piss you off.

Recommended Videos

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,855
15
43
Reyold said:
Vault101 said:
hollywood moralising YOUR FAMILIY AND CHILDREN HAVE ABSOLUTE PRIORY REGARDLESS OF THE COST
...?

Well, I would HOPE you would at least have significant concern for your own family. Or, more likely, I'm in need of some elaboration.
have you got a big promotion going at work? well MISS IT because your childs soccer game is more important

is your boss being an ass? then give him a big speech on the vaule of "taking time to smell the roses" in life and talk out on your job

have you been working very very hard in your profession of choice? when all of a sudden some ZANY circumstances eather leaving you taking care of some kids or pregnancy...hope your ok with everything you worked for not being important anymore...well of coarse you will be!

and if your a women BABIES BABIES BABIES WILL MAKE YOU HAPPY!!!!
 

Shoggoth2588

New member
Aug 31, 2009
10,247
0
0
Tayh said:
Sex scenes in just about every american movie made... Ever. No matter the circumstances.
I see your Sex Scenes and raise you with the American habit of shoehorning romantic sub-plots into movies that have no reason to include them. If I wanted to watch a romantic film I'd watch one specifically, I don't want to see that in every sci-fi, action, horror, comedy, etc-etc-etc.

---

Batman is always (in live action films) wearing some form of armored or, rubber costume. I can understand to an extent why they do that but I would like to see, just once, a big-budget Batman movie where he's dressed more like he is in the comics/cartoons...like a ninja in grey with a cape.
 

SextusMaximus

Nightingale Assassin
May 20, 2009
3,506
0
0
Olikar said:
Complaining about historical inaccuracies in Spartacus is silly, Spartacus does not attempt to an accurate portrayal of Spartacus' life it uses Spartacus as allegory for the Civil rights movement.
It's like people who watch 300 and point out a number of historical flaws.

WITHOUT REALISING THERE'S ALSO A GIANT AND A FUCKING MYSTICAL GODESS IN THE FILM.

What you gonna tell me the Lord of the Rings isn't historically accurate as well?
 

Marcus Kehoe

New member
Mar 18, 2011
757
0
0
I hate quick love. Two people evidently fall in love in like 7 days then they will do anything for each other. It's bad, and it should not feel all the goo with itself either.
 

Myndnix

New member
Aug 11, 2012
313
0
0
In addition to the shakey cam and forced/immediate/nonsensical romances that many in this thread have already complained about extensively, one that really gets me is the old Bond Villain Stupidity trope.
You know the one. It's present in many types of fiction, not just films. The villain has the hero at gunpoint or something similar, and instead of just goddamn shooting him, he decides to monologue about his motivation, or backstory, or how the hero never stood a chance of winning. I'm pretty sure The Incredibles lampshaded this, actually...
Any antagonist that stupid deserves to be defeated on principle.
 

WWmelb

New member
Sep 7, 2011
702
0
0
Films the take a title or concept from a work of short fiction, and makes... Something(?) out of it that you have no idea where it came from.

For some reason film makers have a habit of doing this with Stephen King short stories. Someone previously mentioned The Running Man... Read the short novel and then watch the film and WTF Was that???

Even more ludicrous was The Lawnmower Man. Was an interesting concept in and of itself but "Based on the short story by Stephen King"? I think not.

Synopsis of short story: Lazy prick lets his lawn get to long due to laziness. Calls a lawnmower man to come mow his lawn. Fat hairy ugly man comes, strips off all his clothes, guides the lawnmower by his mind and crawls along behind it eating everything it spits out. Lazy prick rings police. Hairy telekinetic fat man runs over lazy prick with lawnmower and eats him.

MOVIE: Handicapped man virtual reality genius psycho wtf?

DON'T TRY AND TIE YOUR MOVIE TO ANOTHER PIECE OF MEDIA IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BECAUSE "NAME" = "SALES".

Another thing that bugs me Oliverstoneitis.

Olive Stone makes great films when on his meds, ie JFK.

But his A.D.D makes me want to kill people. ZOMG THIS SHOT IS BORING!!! POST PRODUCTION FILTERZ ZOMG I NEED FILTERZ EDIT IT QUICKLY AND PUT IN MAAAAWR FILTERZ!!!!!!! AND I CANT STAND STILL GIMME A FUCKIN HANDY CAM NOW AND MAWR COFFEE AND FILTERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRZ!!!!

So many more things, but thinking about Oliver Stone makes me tired.
 

GrimTuesday

New member
May 21, 2009
2,488
0
0
SckizoBoy said:
GrimTuesday said:
Spartacus snip
It's only just occurred to me, but the film was based on the 1951 novel by Howard Fast and was not meant to be completely (or even partially, I think) historically accurate. It was self-published because no publisher wanted to touch the work primarily because the author had been imprisoned for contempt of Congress (the basis of which was one of the dumbest things ever), though granted, he was a communist. He started writing it while in prison and the (perceived) parallels between Roman and McCarthy era suppression of the slave-class/freedom of speech (sort of... not an authority on McCarthyism...) respectively sort of became the novel's (and Fast's) statement.

So it was rather a romantic notion of standing up to the authoritarian state and an ostensibly 'nobler' path taken by the protagonist, the ultimate failure being just for added drama. *shrug*
Well its a damn good thing I wasn't really talking about the historical accuracy aspect of it now isn't it. Historical accuracy was a fairly minor part of my post, which primarily focused on the stupid love interest.
 

Saulkar

Regular Member
Legacy
Aug 25, 2010
3,140
2
13
Country
Canuckistan
SextusMaximus said:
What you gonna tell me the Lord of the Rings isn't historically accurate as well?
Well the Lord of the Rings takes place 6000-6500 years ago so I think that would make it prehistoric. The Shire was where Oxford is now and if my understanding is correct prehistoric is different from region to region (when people of said region started writing history) and thus prehistoric in the general area of Britain is before 4000-4500 years ago.
 

mrhappy1489

New member
May 12, 2011
494
0
0
Cheesus Crust said:
mrhappy1489 said:
What I'd say irritates me the most is when someone is adapting a book into film and rather than include all the characters, simply take one or two out and copy them onto another character. Game of Thrones for example, removed both Jojen and Meera Reed from the Second season and gave most of there dialogue to Osha (Which also meant they changed Asha's name to Yara because people might get confused). Now I can understand the need to keep the cast within limits, but Jojen and Meera are fairly important characters in the Bran arc and by taking away a portion of their lines and character building it might cause trouble down the road. Also what irritates is the way roles are reduced. Using Game of Thrones as an example again, Qhorin Halfhand's role was significantly reduced and thus his characters importance. He's responsible for teaching Jon some very strong life lessons while scouting Mance Rayder's camp and by removing that, Jon hasn't experienced nearly half the growth he did in the book. I realise that budget is a constraint, but honestly I'd rather have seen Jon and Qhorins interactions as opposed to his and Ygrittes. There is enough of that in the Third book, did they really need to take that away from Qhorin. By the way I love the show, bits of it just irk me.
I don't think its just the budget but also the time. The whole Qhorin thing I agree. The only real time both him and Jon actually got to talk about something serious was when Qhorin was toying with Jon about the purpose of the watchers on the wall. They only had a small amount of screen time together which made the scene where Jon stabs Qhorin less poignant. But it was either that or less screen time with Ygritte which I feel they did for build up in season 3.

With your Jojen and Meera though I can excuse them a bit for that. I can understand how introducing a LOT of characters in just a span of ten episodes can take its toll on the viewers. While I've never been confused with the characters (Primarily because I watch reruns of the damn show practically everyday in my man cave) introducing too many characters and forcing each of them to have a screen time can be quite challenging. My guess is that they just didn't add them because it would be cramming too much and the scenes might not have been able to flesh out the story well enough if that happened.

From what I understand though, they're making Book three into two seasons and based on some of the things that I've read some of the things missed in season 2 will be brought up in season 3. This makes sense in that it would be easy to introduce new characters at the beginning of a new season for Bran since some of the characters related to Bran's plotline being dead, such as Maester Lewyn and so on.

There are a lot of differences, but at least (well for me) it doesn't really completely ruin the experience.
I agree with what you've said completely and am well aware that the average and even more advanced television viewer is not accustomed to such an influx of characters, but personally I think Meera and Jojen are so essential to the Bran storyline, as opposed to Osha that they should have been introduced slightly early and some of Osha's scenes cut down a bit, in all honesty she isn't that important in the books, though I'll concede that GRRM wants to make her bigger. Hell what I've just realised is that Hodor is not really that present or made apparent in the TV show, were it not for the books I'd have very little inclination to even consider him essential as brans carrier. Slightly off topic, SPOILERS by the way, I hope Osha and Rickon do leave at some point, otherwise a whole mess of the plots points will be warped. However the show itself is great and I enjoy it thoroughly, it's just odd when important characters disappear for a period. I shudder to think whats going to happen when they reach the AFFC and ADWD plot lines, I mean they can't just cut characters out and so many are introduced, I personally do not envy the writers.
 

Reyold

New member
Jun 18, 2012
353
0
0
Vault101 said:
Reyold said:
Vault101 said:
hollywood moralising YOUR FAMILIY AND CHILDREN HAVE ABSOLUTE PRIORY REGARDLESS OF THE COST
...?

Well, I would HOPE you would at least have significant concern for your own family. Or, more likely, I'm in need of some elaboration.
have you got a big promotion going at work? well MISS IT because your childs soccer game is more important

is your boss being an ass? then give him a big speech on the vaule of "taking time to smell the roses" in life and talk out on your job

have you been working very very hard in your profession of choice? when all of a sudden some ZANY circumstances eather leaving you taking care of some kids or pregnancy...hope your ok with everything you worked for not being important anymore...well of coarse you will be!

and if your a women BABIES BABIES BABIES WILL MAKE YOU HAPPY!!!!
Ah, I see. Concern for family, unrestrained by any common sense or concern of long-term consequences.

Just wanted to be sure. Thanks.
 

crimson sickle2

New member
Sep 30, 2009
568
0
0
Reasonless romance: I always hate it how a lot of it occurs between two characters because they stand next to each other for more than ten minutes, if the romance element is actually developed and given enough room, I'm fine with it (it still slows down the plot, but whatever)

intentional weakening of the hero: this caught my eye most in the Avengers, but I prefer my heroes and villains at full power for the final confrontation, see Tony Stark as the main example (Iron Man 1 or Avengers)
 

lord.jeff

New member
Oct 27, 2010
1,468
0
0
Trying to build tension by putting a lead character in danger, in most cases you know well in advance that character won't die, Doctor Who has been doing this too much recently. Also as a lot of others have said most film romance straight up sucks.
 

WorriedSandwich

New member
Nov 23, 2011
114
0
0
When the hero's plan involves running through the open in a hail of gunfire and just banking on none of the bullets hitting him. Every time, I imagine how the film would end if he was just hit in the head.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,855
15
43
lord.jeff said:
Trying to build tension by putting a lead character in danger, in most cases you know well in advance that character won't die.
ummm.....isnt that 99% of all main conflict in fiction?

I kind of get what you mean with dr who...it would have to depend on the specific work
 

Louzerman102

New member
Mar 12, 2011
191
0
0
Ledan said:
As for space: Why are your goddamn spaceships areodynamic? They are built for space. They don't need to be. Also: dont ever build a warship for space with a front and back. It's stupid. You should be able to fire in all directions, and move in all directions. Otherwise you are going to get hit from every single side but the one you are facing.
This is why I believe the Borg cube is the best ship in all of science fiction.

I hate it when writers use Parrot Exposition (look it up on tvtropes). It's used a bunch in video games and reeks of bad writing.

Bad writing?

Yes, as if the writer had no other way to establish exposition.

Exposition?

Exposition is the process of explaining back-story and including information about the world your fiction takes place in.
 

JayRPG

New member
Oct 25, 2012
585
0
0
GrimTuesday said:
Ok, so I just watched and wrote a short report on the movie Spartacus, the classic 1960 Kirk Douglas film about the slave rebellion that kicked off the Third Servile war. Now, I'm a history buff, so historical inaccuracies annoy me greatly, but there is one thing that annoys me more than that, and that is shoehorning in love interests. In real life, we don't really know whether or not the real Spartacus had a wife, though it is entirely possible and likely when considering the fact that Plutarch mentions that Spartacus did have a wife who was some sort of prophetess to whom Spartacus had been married to since before they were slaves, though this is corroborated by no other source. But in the movie Spartacus is a gladiator, and having won a fight is sent a serving girl to "entertain" him. Of course, Spartacus is far too noble to take advantage of this poor woman, and refuses to rape her[footnote]which I might add is ridiculous in and of itself. Women were not treated well in Ancient Rome, they were seen more as property than actual human beings.[/footnote]. It goes on even after the slaves have thrown off their chains, with Spartacus making the woman (Varinia) his wife and them having a child. The whole first part would have been fine, it establishes Spartacus as a good guy who is noble despite the circumstances, however, the rest of it just feels stupid and forced, as the movie is about Spartacus and his war against Rome, not about Spartacus and his relationship with some woman.

SO what sorts of things bother you about movies? Specific examples and general complaints are both welcome in this thread
I'm with you OP!

I hate how every movie has to include a love interest in some way for no apparent reason, like some sort of unwritten law, using a bad example because it was a poor movie in general but the last airbender just threw in this relationship story 2/3rd's of the way through the movie without anything other than a 5 second scene where the guy looked at the princess in slow motion.

It just feels so stupid that love HAS to be a subplot in EVERYTHING
 

Angie7F

WiseGurl
Nov 11, 2011
1,703
0
0
I hate the rachel-ross will they ever back together thing.
I can name you another one that is obviously so similar, penny - leonard.
 

Jfswift

Hmm.. what's this button do?
Nov 2, 2009
2,393
0
41
More of a general complaint. I really dislike when a main protagonist is about to get annihilated and is saved, "in the nick of time". This scenario is very overused in current media.

Also, I read somewhere that actors always stare at the receiver of a phone before they hang it up. I never really paid attention to this little detail before until now. It drives me crazy. Why must they do this. >.>

Finally I dislike long winded speeches when the antagonist meets the protagonist. I was so thankful in the movie, "Serenity" when Malcolm shoots the agent while he's still talking, at Inara's place. That was actually kind of realistic, and unusual.
 

Hexenwolf

Senior Member
Sep 25, 2008
820
0
21
Louzerman102 said:
I hate it when writers use Parrot Exposition (look it up on tvtropes). It's used a bunch in video games and reeks of bad writing.

Bad writing?

Yes, as if the writer had no other way to establish exposition.

Exposition?

Exposition is the process of explaining back-story and including information about the world your fiction takes place in.
What you did there. I see it. It makes me laugh.
 

Pop-culture fan

New member
Jan 18, 2012
4
0
0
I hate it, when a harmless loner has to "redeem" himself by learning friendship.(generally with annoying people that causes him trouble all the time)