Your single most annoying thing/mistake in a movie!

[mrtwisty]

chris watton said:

OK, not a movie, but dramas, usually American, where the leading lady is playing a poor housewife, struggling to make ends meet. Why do they choose actresses who have quite clearly had their lips botoxed to the hilt, as well as other forms of (presumably very expensive, but still quite noticeable) cosmetic surgery! They just look silly and does not fit at all with the character they're supposed to portraying.

Notable exception - Charlize Theron in Monster.

[SpeckledJim]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

HTP99 said:

No two people in a film have the same first name; in real life there are plenty of people who work together or are friends, who have the same first name.

Same in soaps. Hundreds of characters go to the same pub, and never 2 people with the same name.

Nobody ever gets interrupted by a wrong number.

I think it'd be dead funny (Corrie might do this sort of thing) if in the middle of a blazing row the phone rings, it's a wrong number, and they carry on with the row.

[FourWheelDrift]

mrtwisty said:

chris watton said:

OK, not a movie, but dramas, usually American, where the leading lady is playing a poor housewife, struggling to make ends meet. Why do they choose actresses who have quite clearly had their lips botoxed to the hilt, as well as other forms of (presumably very expensive, but still quite noticeable) cosmetic surgery! They just look silly and does not fit at all with the character they're supposed to portraying.

Notable exception - Charlize Theron in Monster.

And she won the Oscar for making herself look ugly (how brave), which also highlights the point above.

[Issi]

FourWheelDrift said:

mrtwisty said:

chris watton said:

OK, not a movie, but dramas, usually American, where the leading lady is playing a poor housewife, struggling to make ends meet. Why do they choose actresses who have quite clearly had their lips botoxed to the hilt, as well as other forms of (presumably very expensive, but still quite noticeable) cosmetic surgery! They just look silly and does not fit at all with the character they're supposed to portraying.

Notable exception - Charlize Theron in Monster.

And she won the Oscar for making herself look ugly (how brave), which also highlights the point above.

Yes, I remember that one - 'And the Oscar for making yourself ugly goes to .........Charlize Theron'

[telecat]

Issi said:

FourWheelDrift said:

mrtwisty said:

chris watton said:

OK, not a movie, but dramas, usually American, where the leading lady is playing a poor housewife, struggling to make ends meet. Why do they choose actresses who have quite clearly had their lips botoxed to the hilt, as well as other forms of (presumably very expensive, but still quite noticeable) cosmetic surgery! They just look silly and does not fit at all with the character they're supposed to portraying.

Notable exception - Charlize Theron in Monster.

And she won the Oscar for making herself look ugly (how brave), which also highlights the point above.

Yes, I remember that one - 'And the Oscar for making yourself ugly goes to .........Charlize Theron'

Teeth Always perfect teeth even the Beggars on the street.

[kennydies]

Any period of historic film where you have an actor of ethnicity that would not have been around back then so they can tick the PC box.

Explosion noises in space and the fact ships always meet face to face, don't they realise space is 3D ;-)

[Nimby]

HTP99 said:

No two people in a film have the same first name; in real life there are plenty of people who work together or are friends, who have the same first name.

There were two Jared's (briefly) in Silicon Valley (TV, not film).

[Cotty]

telecat said:

Teeth Always perfect teeth even the Beggars on the street.

Austin Powers

[Dr Jekyll]

kennydies said:

Any period of historic film where you have an actor of ethnicity that would not have been around back then so they can tick the PC box.

Explosion noises in space and the fact ships always meet face to face, don't they realise space is 3D ;-)

.. and the same way up.

You'd have to go back a very long way or have a very specific ethnicity for that to be an anachronism though.

[Gargamel]

Dr Jekyll said:

.. and the same way up.

You'd have to go back a very long way or have a very specific ethnicity for that to be an anachronism though.

Not in Star Trek Wrath of Khan.

Nor in many of the fights in Star Wars

[glazbagun]

Kind of the opposite of how noone can shoot Arnie in Commando-

In westerns when you see cowboys routinely shooting guys with an outstretched arm on a galloping horse- what would be a likely hit percentage trying that with a revolver from the 1800's?

I know there were travelling sharpshooters and the like who were pretty amazing, but given how different it is from how modern police fire guns, and the background of many cowboys in the films, they always appeared pretty amazing shots for a bunch of cowhands/petty criminals.

[Nimby]

glazbagun said:

In westerns when you see cowboys routinely shooting guys with an outstretched arm on a galloping horse- what would be a likely hit percentage trying that with a revolver from the 1800's?

You hardly ever saw horses with gaping bullet wounds on the odd occasion they missed the rider, even though they were a much bigger target.

[Cotty]

kennydies said:

Explosion noises in space and the fact ships always meet face to face, don't they realise space is 3D ;-)

I realise they are not looking at each other through windows. But I suppose it is a show of strength by “facing” your opponent. Showing your back could be seen as a sign of weakness and being ready to run. So opposing ships meet nose to nose, also they might have a higher proportion of weapons at the front of the ship.

[SpeckledJim]

Cotty said:

kennydies said:

Explosion noises in space and the fact ships always meet face to face, don't they realise space is 3D ;-)

I realise they are not looking at each other through windows. But I suppose it is a show of strength by “facing” your opponent. Showing your back could be seen as a sign of weakness and being ready to run. So opposing ships meet nose to nose, also they might have a higher proportion of weapons at the front of the ship.

I think he means that the two warring ships have both agreed, perhaps oddly, which way, in outer space, is 'up'.

[Cotty]

SpeckledJim said:

I think he means that the two warring ships have both agreed, perhaps oddly, which way, in outer space, is 'up'.

Neither of them are really 'up'. Maybe its just disconcerting to be having a conversation with someone who is at 90 or 180 degrees from yourself. One ship stops, the other manoeuvres so they are the same way ‘up’. That or it just looks better on TV

[Antony Moxey]

Cotty said:

kennydies said:

Explosion noises in space and the fact ships always meet face to face, don't they realise space is 3D ;-)

I realise they are not looking at each other through windows. But I suppose it is a show of strength by “facing” your opponent. Showing your back could be seen as a sign of weakness and being ready to run. So opposing ships meet nose to nose, also they might have a higher proportion of weapons at the front of the ship.

Yes, but the point being in space why can't the attacking ship come down from vertically above, or up from vertically below? Space battles are always in 2d, when you'd think you could attack from literally any angle.

One other thing I remembered from Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. When Lando Clarission attacks the Death Star and they fly inside, he tells his wing man to attack the north tower - right-o, in space, inside a ship, where would north be then? And why is it when Americans are giving directions it's always by cardinal points rather than left/right? I have to say that I'd have to have a good think about which way I was facing if someone told me to head north/south etc.

[Guvernator]

Antony Moxey said:

Yes, but the point being in space why can't the attacking ship come down from vertically above, or up from vertically below? Space battles are always in 2d, when you'd think you could attack from literally any angle.

In Star Trek the ships spot each other on scanners from a long way out so an intercept course could be plotted so that they end up face on. The shields and weapon fields of fire on most of the ships are mostly concentrated to the front of the ships so it makes sense that you meet the enemy head on plus it makes for a more dramatic face-off.

Also in Star Trek II, Kirk uses the very fact that space is 3d to devastating effect against Khan.

[glazbagun]

Guvernator said:

Antony Moxey said:

Yes, but the point being in space why can't the attacking ship come down from vertically above, or up from vertically below? Space battles are always in 2d, when you'd think you could attack from literally any angle.

In Star Trek the ships spot each other on scanners from a long way out so an intercept course could be plotted so that they end up face on. The shields and weapon fields of fire on most of the ships are mostly concentrated to the front of the ships so it makes sense that you meet the enemy head on plus it makes for a more dramatic face-off.

Also in Star Trek II, Kirk uses the very fact that space is 3d to devastating effect against Khan.

Also the galaxy is a kind of disk, so it makes sense to broadly have an up/down, even if you disagree on which is which.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_coordinate_...

Babylon 5 used lots of 3d attacks, but was also often a case of two giant fleets facing off at each other in 2D. I think a lot f it is down to special effect limitations in the old physical model days, the effort must have been big enough doing it the way they did. But at the same time, if a huge fleet of ships shows up, the battle is going to become a 2D on as you're both going to be heading, broadly, towards each other and will spread out in the same way to prevent being outflanked, so it will always end up looking fairly two dimensional.

Didn't they show the Picard Manouvre during a war game episode? I thought that was fairly cool when I was 13.

[Beati Dogu]

rehab71 said:

Never ending gear boxes! Terminator 2 specifically. When John is being chased by the T1000 on his bike he must change up about 30 times!

American films, especially older ones, when they show a close up of the speedometer during a car chase and the needle is hovering around 60 mph !

Ermagard... light speed.

[Guvernator]

Beati Dogu said:

American films, especially older ones, when they show a close up of the speedometer during a car chase and the needle is hovering around 60 mph !

Ermagard... light speed.

Always wondered why you see this in a lot of films. They are allegedly in a flat out car chase, the camera pans down at the speedo and they are doing....60mph. If I was in a car chase where the stakes were my life or going to jail for a very long time, that speedo reading would have a 1 in front of it for the majority of the time.