Things you wish movies would stop doing
- Thread starter Kaboose the Moose
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Dream sequences for no other purposes than to satisfy psychoanalytical theory. Either you focus on dream sequences, as in the movie involves it as a major theme (David Lynch films, Open Your Eyes, Inception) or you don't include them at all unless for comedic purposes (An American Werewolf in London). I noticed this in the latest Harry Potter. There's a fucking repeated dream sequence which adds nothing to the film at all and serves only to irritate the audiences.
What about incendiary rounds. Would they do it? Bear in mind what I know about incendiary rounds are what's in games i.e. they blow shit up and set people on fire. Is that stupid?Kaboose the Moose said:
I wish they not ignoring the whole concept of zombies, seriously acknowledge it already! There is a rich history of zombie but it seen that film universe had never grasp a concept of the undead. I want more of-
"Oh it's a zombie, slow moving type, I gonna aim for the head."
And less of this-
"WTF is this thing? It's dead but it moving and I will try shooting it in the heart!"
Also I wish stop with the unnecessary clapping when it's not needed at all (e.g. the ending to Harry Potter second film when Hagrid came back).
"Oh it's a zombie, slow moving type, I gonna aim for the head."
And less of this-
"WTF is this thing? It's dead but it moving and I will try shooting it in the heart!"
Also I wish stop with the unnecessary clapping when it's not needed at all (e.g. the ending to Harry Potter second film when Hagrid came back).
3 hours long? Are you serious? That's what really pisses me off. Spielberg's a repeat offender, but EVERYONE'S doing it now. One that really pissed me off was The Departed. A decent (not that great) film's finished after 2 hours, but no, we've got to sit there and watch everyone pointlessly kill each other for a whole fucking hour without adding anything to the plot, as if someone surviving the film is a loose end (presumably Wahlberg's character gets hit by a bus just after the credits roll). If you want to make me sit there for 3 hours straight then you'd better have something bloody mindblowing to say. At least Kubrick had the decency to put an enforced intermission into 2001.
Oh, and another one. I went to see the new Harry Potter film the other week. Another 160 minute bitchslap. But what really pissed me off was paying 10 quid to see something called (with a straight face) "Part 1". For crying out loud. Matrix Revolutions was one of the least enjoyable films I've ever sat through, but Matrix Reloaded was the worse film by default because of the ultimate, limpdick, "To Be Continued" card at the 'end', like you'd just watched an episode of Friends where someone broke up with someone.
Oh, and another one. I went to see the new Harry Potter film the other week. Another 160 minute bitchslap. But what really pissed me off was paying 10 quid to see something called (with a straight face) "Part 1". For crying out loud. Matrix Revolutions was one of the least enjoyable films I've ever sat through, but Matrix Reloaded was the worse film by default because of the ultimate, limpdick, "To Be Continued" card at the 'end', like you'd just watched an episode of Friends where someone broke up with someone.
The lower profile gained by hiding behind a door is offset by its poor stopping power of a bullet traveling at supersonic speeds.Zachary Amaranth said:
Yes, you'll be harder to hit - but a gun has more than one bullet. A carefully placed shot (and it's doubtful to be a hard task given that you only have a limited surface area behind a car door) will see the bullet clean through the door and into the victim's body..or feet - for obvious reasons. I suppose an argument FOR using a car door as a barrier would be that it would provide support as a shooting platform - assuming you were armed with a really big gun.
Oh, oh, and another one. 3 finales syndrome. What the hell? Pick one. Pick which storyline we're supposed to care about. Return of the King? The whole cinema was halfway out of their seats about 5 times. Revenge of the Sith. It's the end of a trilogy, not the end of the cocking world. I know they don't use celluloid any more, but I have this image of an editor cutting bits onto the floor and Peter Jackson on his knees trying to catch them all and weeping.
To the OP: I believe the cocking a gun to intimidate comes from back when it was necessary to shoot it as in westerns.
OT: Stop with the reboots. I don't mind continuation "sequels" like the Batmans before Nolan. But stop starting over when you run out of ideas.
OT: Stop with the reboots. I don't mind continuation "sequels" like the Batmans before Nolan. But stop starting over when you run out of ideas.
You mean the one that lets Harry know that Voldemort is trying to get the Elder Wand? That ads nothing? To someone who's read the book it might seem annoying, but the plot would make no sense on its own without those dream sequences. It's one of the big "aha!" moments in the fetch quest.Motakikurushi said:
I didn't think the dream sequences were done particularly well, but they certainly didn't add "nothing" to the plot.
The first one gets to me sooo much.
Protagonist busts into a room, gun drawn and ducking through cover. But she waits until she finds the bad guy and tells him to comply with her demands before chambering a round in dramatic fashion.
Like, seriously? You were completely defenseless that whole time!
I don't mind when they cock a double action pistol, it reduces the trigger pull by about half which I guess is good if you're indecisive about ending the movie early.
Here's mine: Putting a gun right up to someone's face. It's generally pretty easy to disarm someone with a pistol at that range. Ok, maybe not for the lay-person like us, but the people portrayed are usually trained bad-ass motherfuckrs who would really have no problem.
Go on, try it with you friends. Have them put their cowboy pistol (bang bang) in your face, and see if they can pull their trigger before you dodge you head to the side grab and their hand.
You will win, every time. Then you will face palm whenever you see this in a movie or tv show.
Protagonist busts into a room, gun drawn and ducking through cover. But she waits until she finds the bad guy and tells him to comply with her demands before chambering a round in dramatic fashion.
Like, seriously? You were completely defenseless that whole time!
I don't mind when they cock a double action pistol, it reduces the trigger pull by about half which I guess is good if you're indecisive about ending the movie early.
Here's mine: Putting a gun right up to someone's face. It's generally pretty easy to disarm someone with a pistol at that range. Ok, maybe not for the lay-person like us, but the people portrayed are usually trained bad-ass motherfuckrs who would really have no problem.
Go on, try it with you friends. Have them put their cowboy pistol (bang bang) in your face, and see if they can pull their trigger before you dodge you head to the side grab and their hand.
You will win, every time. Then you will face palm whenever you see this in a movie or tv show.
Yup, those old revolvers required the gun to be cocked between each shot but that technology has been outdated for over a century. It's slightly amusing to see Hollywood adopt the technological workings from the 1860s into the guns produced in the 21st century, all in the name of looking cool.Zero-Vash said:
Yes (as in, no it's not stupid - yes, it can blow things up. Maybe not set people on fire..unless you doused them with flammable liquid beforehand...you sick bastard!). Both incendiary and tracer ammunition have the capability of setting things on fire, especially if fired from something like a .50cal. In any case, I am sure under the right conditions it can set off many a red barrels as well.ProtoChimp said:
You don't say.Kaboose the Moose said:
While it is true that a door has poor stopping power, I was already kind of ahead of you there. That's why I mentioned a sheet would have similar effect. Oddly enough, this is what you're trained to do in a firefight. Hide behind something. Break up your form. The stopping power is less an issue because you're already being shot at.
It's even a commonality in nature. Break up your form, you're harder to spot, harder to hunt. Very basic concept, and that's my point in the first place.
Smilomaniac said:
pretty much said it all.
I HATE when there is a awesome fight scene but cant really see how awesome it is because of all the camera angles and shaky-ness of it.
It looks like they're in a fricken earthquake throughout the whole scene!
Magic guns that are either
A. Snub-Nose revolvers, or even normal framed revolvers, that either have 5-6 rounds in the cylinder shoot upwards of 9 times (I can't remember what movie, but I remember I almost raged because of it.)
B. Assault rifles/SMGs that shoot like 100 rounds for like 5 minutes when it's clearly just a standard 30 round magazine. This doesn't bother me too much, because in an action sequence I usually get lost in it and don't pay attention to guns, or they break the firefight up so it's close enough but sometimes it's so pronounced that it makes me rage.
C. Most guns have Magazines nowadays, not Clips. There are such things as stripper clips, which clips bullets together to make it easier to reload bolt action rifles like the Russian Mosin Nagant rifle, or the British Lee Enfield rifle.
(Interesting side-note, the Lee-Enfield did have a removable magazine, which was a huge advancement for its time, but it wasn't designed to use it how we use magazines today, it was removable to make it easier to clean the insides.) The only gun to truly use a clip as it's loading system is the M1 Garand IIRC. Also, Speed Loaders for revolvers could be considered clips.
D. I can't think of anything else at the moment lol
A. Snub-Nose revolvers, or even normal framed revolvers, that either have 5-6 rounds in the cylinder shoot upwards of 9 times (I can't remember what movie, but I remember I almost raged because of it.)
B. Assault rifles/SMGs that shoot like 100 rounds for like 5 minutes when it's clearly just a standard 30 round magazine. This doesn't bother me too much, because in an action sequence I usually get lost in it and don't pay attention to guns, or they break the firefight up so it's close enough but sometimes it's so pronounced that it makes me rage.
C. Most guns have Magazines nowadays, not Clips. There are such things as stripper clips, which clips bullets together to make it easier to reload bolt action rifles like the Russian Mosin Nagant rifle, or the British Lee Enfield rifle.
(Interesting side-note, the Lee-Enfield did have a removable magazine, which was a huge advancement for its time, but it wasn't designed to use it how we use magazines today, it was removable to make it easier to clean the insides.) The only gun to truly use a clip as it's loading system is the M1 Garand IIRC. Also, Speed Loaders for revolvers could be considered clips.
D. I can't think of anything else at the moment lol