Things you think movies get wrong everytime when it comes to______

[Soviet Heavy]

Funny you should mention that, I was just watching this:

That's actually one of the best interpretations of video games in television I've seen. Tony playing with one hand is possible, and it showed by how crappy Luigi was moving on the screen.

 

[Diddy_Mao]

This might surprise you, but as an American Indian I don't actually have supernatural powers and I wasn't assigned a wolf when I was born.

I actually don't have a problem with this archetype as long as it fits the tone of the movie/show, what bothers me is that even when it doesn't fit the tone it's still the only role written for us.

They couldn't even let Chakotay just be a space Indian...he had to be a Space Shaman.

 

[K12]

The whole, "You only use 10% of your brain" myth has started to kind of disappear from popular culture, but when it does rear its ridiculous head, I want to punch a script writer. fMRIs have proven that even at rest we're using more than 10% of the brain regions. The closest thing I could come to justifying this idiocy is the fact that there are about 9-10 glial cells per neuron (glial cells are fatty cells that support neural function and maintenance), which does mean that about 10% of our brain matter is neurons, which are in fact the parts which allow us to think.

My God I hate this myth. I remember in the film "Limitless" (which I liked much more than I expected to) got off to a really bad start because of this myth.

It's about pills that make your brain work at full potential and they say that your brain normally only works at "20% of it's capacity". They even got the myth wrong!

I think I'd broaden this to scientists in general. I can forgive some scientific inaccuracy in films but I can't forgive the fact that scientists are never presented as normal human beings. They almost always either complete dickheads or complete losers.

I think the "hollywood kid" thing is a good example to. Very few films do a decent job of characterising children other than "you are rooting for this child because it's a child", they are annoying cute or pathetically helpless or just impetuous.

When a child character is so annoying that I want humanity to be wiped out just so they shut the fuck up (i.e. Dakota Fanning in the War of the Worlds remake) then that is a serious issue!

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Swords do NOT go *shhhhish* when drawn from the scabbard. Most are either oiled wood or lined with fur so the blade doesn't fall out.

Metal scabbards are unyielding and retarded, only used for shows of wealth and never for an actual battle.

Most things combat or weapon related are completely inaccurate in movies. Gun sounds as well, and fistfight noises are especially inaccurate.

 

[sapphireofthesea]

I take issue with depictions of Zombies. When they were magic the question of identifying and following a target was answered, Magic. But when they made them natural the situation becomes broken. Almost all zombies I have seen have signs of decay, and that means vision is gone, smell is reduced, hearing is likely reduced or gone as all these have very tiny, sensitive structures. So the zombies can't see, hear, though maybe smell.
Further, if they can see or hear, why do they ignore each other? Take 28 days later, they are super enraged but the virus can stop them being super mad at each other? What are they using to distinguish infected from uninfected? On that not, what are they using to distinguish humans? No one ever seems to exploit their sensory weaknesses, save a rare few (Like highschool of the dead, anime).

While I could suspend my disbelief for original resident evil as they did a lot of work explain and making it realistic, since then zombies have gotten faster (infection and mobility) with less and less logic behind it, yet they always cite natural causes these days. It doesn't work, a corpse can only keep moving for so long before decay makes nerves die off. In the event of a 'controlling' parasite, while it is true they will still be able to move about for longer, humans still can't survive on raw flesh and they would still get sick and die from that. Also, parasites aren't going to instantly mark another infected as non-food so there should be a lot more zombie on zombie killing.

However, all of this leads to less hordes and easier escapes, so no go for Hollywood.

 

[Tom_green_day]

Most of the ones written can be explained away with the fact that this is a film, not real life, and they don't have to be completely realistic if it is more entertaining to watch otherwise.
One thing I don't understand, however, is why World War 2 is used so much. It's not that it's a bad setting, but compared to World War 1 it was nothing. WWII had more deaths, but WWI was completely unlike anything before. It was the first 'modern' war using guns and trenches, and everyone signed up thinking it would be some great cavalry charge and over before Christmas. By WWII, everyone was already expecting it. So when films portray WWII as so much worse, it's completely inaccurate. The thing that bugs me however is that there is no reason to use WWII instead of WWI, save that everyone just assume it was so much worse.

 

[Bruce]

Most of the ones written can be explained away with the fact that this is a film, not real life, and they don't have to be completely realistic if it is more entertaining to watch otherwise.
One thing I don't understand, however, is why World War 2 is used so much. It's not that it's a bad setting, but compared to World War 1 it was nothing. WWII had more deaths, but WWI was completely unlike anything before. It was the first 'modern' war using guns and trenches, and everyone signed up thinking it would be some great cavalry charge and over before Christmas. By WWII, everyone was already expecting it. So when films portray WWII as so much worse, it's completely inaccurate. The thing that bugs me however is that there is no reason to use WWII instead of WWI, save that everyone just assume it was so much worse.

WWII was remarkable because it was the war with the least moral ambiguity. The Nazis were bad, and the allies were good-ish. WWI was a lot more, complex, and lacked the clear easy villains of WWII.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

I?ll second romance. I know that, even in real-life, relationships can be contrived matters of convenience, but maybe part of the reason that happens is because we take a lot of cues of what we think romantic love is from idealised films like Picture Perfect?

Teenage boys. You know, all those crappy high school comedy films where the main character is obsessed with getting laid with "the hottest chick in school" (who is normally a generic "girl next door"-type) before he's 18?

Geeks. Because according to Hollywood, they're all fat or scrawny, middle-class, pasty-white, acne-riddled, bespectacled males playing World of Warcraft in their parents' basement, eating Doritos all day, and jacking off into an old sock over Tifa Lockhart. Although, luckily, this stereotype seems to be dying away recently, but it was fucking rife in the 80s and 90s.

 

[shootthebandit]

This might surprise you, but as an American Indian I don't actually have supernatural powers and I wasn't assigned a wolf when I was born.

I actually don't have a problem with this archetype as long as it fits the tone of the movie/show, what bothers me is that even when it doesn't fit the tone it's still the only role written for us.

They couldn't even let Chakotay just be a space Indian...he had to be a Space Shaman.

I always thought you had you guys were magic. I take it you dont live in big tent either or smoke a peace-pipe

 

[floppylobster]

Japanese culture is pretty embarrassingly portrayed and misunderstood in many western films. Almost as bad as the portrayal of Americans in some non-American films (but not seemingly as bad, because many American films also depict ridiculous and unrealistic portrayals of American culture).

I also hate the hundreds of films that use an 'evil corporation' as their villain without seeming to understand how a corporation actually works.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I take issue with depictions of Zombies. When they were magic the question of identifying and following a target was answered, Magic. But when they made them natural the situation becomes broken. Almost all zombies I have seen have signs of decay, and that means vision is gone, smell is reduced, hearing is likely reduced or gone as all these have very tiny, sensitive structures. So the zombies can't see, hear, though maybe smell.
Further, if they can see or hear, why do they ignore each other? Take 28 days later, they are super enraged but the virus can stop them being super mad at each other? What are they using to distinguish infected from uninfected? On that not, what are they using to distinguish humans? No one ever seems to exploit their sensory weaknesses, save a rare few (Like highschool of the dead, anime).

While I could suspend my disbelief for original resident evil as they did a lot of work explain and making it realistic, since then zombies have gotten faster (infection and mobility) with less and less logic behind it, yet they always cite natural causes these days. It doesn't work, a corpse can only keep moving for so long before decay makes nerves die off. In the event of a 'controlling' parasite, while it is true they will still be able to move about for longer, humans still can't survive on raw flesh and they would still get sick and die from that. Also, parasites aren't going to instantly mark another infected as non-food so there should be a lot more zombie on zombie killing.

However, all of this leads to less hordes and easier escapes, so no go for Hollywood.

Argh, yes. The muscles need blood and oxygen, so you need lungs and heart working etc.

 

[YuberNeclord]

I hate how dreams are depicted in films/television.

I've never seen an accurate depiction of a dream, they are always far too organised and cohesive.

In my dreams I frequently jump between first and third person, locations randomly change, objects randomly change, people I'm talking to will turn into other people(or talking cats for some strange reason), some times there is a voice over guy in my dreams, I usually spontaneously end up flying at some point(which always seems to result in me losing control and flying into outer space where I invariably die), hell sometimes I dream that I'm watching a movie on TV and then I'm one of the characters in the movie I'm watching, and then I'll go back to being myself watching myself on TV.


Oh on a slightly similar note, it always bugs me when you see someone having a flashback and in the flashback they are looking at themselves. Is it just me or shouldn't the flash back be from their point of view? When I think back on a conversation I've had with someone, I'm picturing it from my point of view, I don't picture a close up of my own freaking face talking, that's just dumb.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Eugggggh. About 75% of what gets on screen.

The worst, without question, are the portrayal of characters. Having the brainy characters be defined by their knowledge and turning them into nerds, instead of having them be real people with a better understanding of other things. Having military people be entirely directionless and without much oversight of the situation or themselves, when they should be real people who have some good battle sense and just general common sense.

Bullshit science. When the words "quantum" or "subconscious" or "neurological" or "alternate" or similar words show up, stop trying. It's completely okay for you to, instead, say "I don't understand why aliens can travel faster than light, but I've observed ______", but you're losing me when you say "they're using a hyper advanced quantumflux light cannon that they went through a wormhole to get from the future".

I also wish more directors did Terentino's portrayal of violence. Bullets have power to them and can rip through limbs (though Terentino's bloodwork is hilariously overdone), gunfights are generally over in a few shots, people don't die easy from bullet wounds, yadda yadda.

 

[Ftaghn To You Too]

Medieval European armor and combat. The armor itself weighed less than what a modern marine carries, it was only around sixty pounds total, and was incredibly well designed. It allowed for great speed and maneuverability, while offering great protection. Also medieval knights did not just relentlessly bash at each other with their swords. The martial style of the time was as evolved and complex as any Asian art and was incredibly fast, agile and deadly. No movie, game, or show (other than some documentaries) has ever, as far as I know, properly shown this.

We actually know more about medieval and Renaissance martial arts than we do the martial arts of Japan at the same period. But of course that's NEVER represented, NOOOOOO we have to swing our 30 pound swords and clunk around in our 8132165453 pound armor.

Seriously. How poorly portrayed the Medieval Period, or any pre-modern time period for that matter, is portrayed is really starting to get on my nerves.

If I hear the name "Braveheart" one more time, I'm going to scream.

 

[Full]

Landing in water in order to survive a large fall. That shit would feel like concrete.

Swords do NOT go *shhhhish* when drawn from the scabbard. Most are either oiled wood or lined with fur so the blade doesn't fall out.

Metal scabbards are unyielding and retarded, only used for shows of wealth and never for an actual battle.

Most things combat or weapon related are completely inaccurate in movies. Gun sounds as well, and fistfight noises are especially inaccurate.

Well, I think if those sounds were accurate, it would feel too real when you're supposed to have fun. Violence isn't depicted realistically because that would quite frankly be shocking.

 

[crazyarms33]

I would say whenever they base a movie off a book, they always change something just for the sake of it. Like in Return of the King, I believe rangers were supposed to come off those Umbarene? ships, and you could have had like a 30 sec clip of Aragorn getting them but nope, invulnerable ghosts are better(who thought that?).

Because that scene irked me, I will correct you...also because I am a nerd. It wasn't rangers, Gondor had a lot of other territories and cities besides Minas Tirith. Aragorn and Co. used the ghosts to liberate those territories from the humans fighting for Sauron and once the ghosts killed the shit of them he freed them and used the garrisons and prisoners(soldiers captured by Sauron) of those places to fight when he arrived at Minas Tirith. The whole ghost thing really annoyed me for some reason in the film.

 

[wuggles]

Most movies are horrible with race issues. For example, interracial couples. There are never any casual interracial couples. It's always some big deal where the couple gets persecuted and their parents hate them and they get stared at in the store. Now I'm not saying that doesn't happen. But for Pete's sake, 21st century NY doesn't have the same racial problems as 1953 Mississippi. I'd like to see one movie where there's just an interracial couple and the movie isn't all about them.

I'd also like to see a movie with more of a minority cast. I mean a lot of times it seems like all or nothing, either the cast is all black or only has 1 or 2 black people relegated to the sidelines. Can we please have a regular movie with some nonwhite main characters that actually are relevant to the plot? In real life people have diverse friend groups, it's not unheard of.

 

[Kyber]

Wounds and bone fractures, it's not always something you can just walk off after 5 minutes.

 

[Saltyk]

Well, the obvious one would be playing video games. I get so damn embarassed when I see some dickhead, who has never picked up a controller in his life, playing a game and he's bouncing up and down and swinging his arms all over the place like the box from Hellraiser is trying to pull him apart.

Mate, it's an Xbox controller, not a live python: calm the fuck down.

I know exactly what you are talking about.


Final Fantasy 8. Best multiplayer game I have ever played. Right? Are the sounds even accurate? Because I don't think they are.

 

[The Harkinator]

I would say whenever they base a movie off a book, they always change something just for the sake of it. Like in Return of the King, I believe rangers were supposed to come off those Umbarene? ships, and you could have had like a 30 sec clip of Aragorn getting them but nope, invulnerable ghosts are better(who thought that?).

Because that scene irked me, I will correct you...also because I am a nerd. It wasn't rangers, Gondor had a lot of other territories and cities besides Minas Tirith. Aragorn and Co. used the ghosts to liberate those territories from the humans fighting for Sauron and once the ghosts killed the shit of them he freed them and used the garrisons and prisoners(soldiers captured by Sauron) of those places to fight when he arrived at Minas Tirith. The whole ghost thing really annoyed me for some reason in the film.

It really annoyed me too. It meant rather than uniting the people of his land and saving the capital city (the kind of thing a King would do) Aragorn goes and fetches a big ghost army that fortunately can only be used by him and takes down the Corsairs and wins the Battle of the Pelennor Fields but doesn't clear out Mordor.

I'd rather that Gondor had the potential to defeat Sauron and needed a King to unite the land rather than having the ghost army have to ride in and save everyone.