Cliches and Tropes In Movies That Really Annoy You

Recommended Videos

Lieju

New member
Jan 4, 2009
3,044
0
0
NemotheElvenPanda said:
Romance. Every lead gets the guy/girl, or there's some annoying romance subplot. It's different when the romance is plot-relevant, but in most cases it's just.....there. I don't even care if it's a same-sex relationship anymore. People don't develop deep relationships when your space ship is being attacked by aliens.
Well, people in danger can mistake the feeling of danger for love, and if you think you're ging to die, you might act on feelings you would normally just ignore.

But I still hate it because I don't think there is anything romantic about people who don't even know each other or have a well-developed relationship getting together.

I have nothing against a well-implemented romance, but usually it's just there.
 

Legion

Were it so easy
Oct 2, 2008
7,190
0
0
Eamar said:
Oh boy, I wrote something about this at unnecessary length a little while ago, right after I saw Riddick. I'll copy paste it for anyone who's interested.

I love action-y sci-fi movies (and games, for that matter. A lot of this applies to them too) so that's the genre this list is focused on. That said, plenty of these points can be applied to other genres and media too.

Finally, standard internet disclaimer: yes, I'm aware there are exceptions to all of these. Yes, there are problems with how men are depicted in the media too. No, I'm not some joyless harpy or prude who's opposed to all sexiness/nudity or even objectification in all contexts.

So, here goes:

1. When an otherwise badass, capable female character is suddenly and uncharacteristically overwhelmed and needs to be rescued by the male protagonist. Now obviously there are cases where this is appropriate: she's legitimately injured, fine; she rescues him from a similar predicament at some other point in the film, ok, I'll buy it - maybe it's a way to demonstrate that they've got each other's backs. But when this sort of scene exists purely to perpetuate stereotypical gender roles - he's a big manly man of a protagonist, he must protect women because women clearly need protecting! - it seriously pisses me off. It's particularly jarring when the character in question has already proven herself perfectly capable of handling equally or more dangerous scenarios and opponents, but suddenly she's floored by one dude/alien/whatever (who, just to really emphasise the fact that she's female and therefore especially vulnerable, is probably trying to rape her). Not cool.

This is of course assuming that a woman is even included and sufficiently characterised at all:

2. All- or almost exclusively-male casts. I get it, these movies tend to be about people in stereotypically "masculine" roles (soldiers, adventurers, mercenaries, convicts... you know the drill). These fields may well be male-dominated now. But the thing is, the overwhelming majority of these stories are set in the future, and while I am aware and suportive of the fact that sci-fi can be a great vehicle for discussions of contemporary issues, that simply isn't what's going on in many of these cases. Extrapolating today's prejudices and demographics onto future settings is just lazy, especially in cases where the Token Chick (more on her later) has proved that it is possible for women to make it in these settings, and even achieve a high rank - female seconds-in-command are not particularly uncommon. Female leaders, on the other hand...

3. All-male background characters. As in number 2, would it really kill Hollywood to chuck in a few mercs/soldiers/hench(wo)men/guards/gangsters/enemies who just happen to be female? And not make a big deal out of it? Pretty please? Seriously, just have a few women there, chilling in the background with their male colleagues, even getting expendably mowed down when the time comes. That's totally ok. Anything other than the bizarre worlds we currently get where at least 95% of the population appears to be male. Seriously, do all the women get wiped out by a mysterious plague sometime around the turn of the 22nd century? Where are they all?! (Credit where it's due, I thought the Mass Effect games did a refreshingly good job of this.)

4. The Token Chick (TM). As a direct result of the general lack of women outlined in the previous two points, when a woman actually is included she far too often exists simply as "the girl." Even in films like these where characterisation can admittedly be thin on the ground, male characters, who cannot be singled out on account of their gender, will at least get to be cariacatures such as "the joker," "the naive one," "the strong leader" etc. With the Token Chick, her whole character basically boils down to "has tits and ovaries." Pro-tip, writers: gender is not a character trait. See also race and sexual orientation while we're at it.

5. The general problem of "femininity." I'm probably going to sound like I'll never be happy with this one, but what I'm really asking for is some middle-ground. At one end of the spectrum we have the butch lesbian stereotype. Now, I am well aware that butch lesbians exist, and believe me I have no problem with that. What is frustrating, however, is when this stereotype is used as an "excuse" for the character's "unfeminine" looks and/or behaviour. As in, "sure, she's a kick-ass soldier with muscles and short hair and she swears like a trooper and she's not conventionally attractive, but don't worry, dear male viewer, she's not into dudes so you don't have to want to bang her. And here's a more conventional (and conveniently straight) chick for you to enjoy. She'll probably screw the male protagonist at some point." My point is, it's way too rare for women in these settings to be "unfeminine" unless that's qualified in terms of an existing stereotype. It's for this reason that I LOVE that Vasquez isn't pigeon-holed as a butch lesbian and that it's even (*gasp*) implied that she might be romantically involved with Drake. That's right folks, turns out it might be possible for a man to appreciate an awesome, "unfeminine" woman like Vasquez. Obviously I don't want to start judging female characters on their ability to get a man (*shudder*), but it's encouraging when rare examples of non-stereotypical women being considered attractive do emerge, even if only in subtext.

The flip-side of this is when writers feel the need to lumber badass female characters with unnecessary "softer," "more feminine" sides, presumably so as not to confuse an audience that apparently can't cope without societal gender stereotypes. Motherhood/"maternal instincts" are commonly wheeled out for this purpose (looking at you, Aliens), and I just don't see why it's necessary a lot of the time. Does Vin Diesel ever need to take time out from his ass-kicking schedule to show us the deep, unshakable desire to be a daddy that proves to us that he's a "real" man? Nope, thought not. So stop doing it to female characters.

6. Inappropriate or inconsistent costumes. You knew it was coming. It's the equivalent of fantasy's much mocked but still distressingly prevalent "chainmail bikini." Far too often, female characters will be decked out in costumes that straight up don't make sense. Bared midriffs, cleavage (the chest. Where the heart lives. Just where you want a massive hole in your armour, obviously), freakin' high heels... why, exactly? None of these things make one iota of sense, particularly not if we're expected to believe that these ladies get up to any fighting on a regular basis. Why is the Token Chick the only one in a skintight bodysuit? How the hell does her hair and makeup stay so perfect throughout the movie? Scratch that, why the hell is a female marine in the middle of a warzone (for example) bothering with makeup at all?! Scratch THAT, how come this female marine, surrounded by hench manly beefcakes, is about as muscular as a coathanger? (Believe it or not, I thought Mother Russia in Kick-Ass 2 looked AWESOME). And how considerate of her enemies not to mess up her face too badly, and only leave her with a few artistically arranged and purely superficial cuts, above one eyebrow, say, or nicely highlighting a cheekbone. How is it that she's the only one whose skin actually seems to repel a quantity of the dirt and blood her male counterparts are caked in? It's almost like she exists only as decoration for the benefit of the male audience. Oh, wait...

There are others, but I'm getting tired so I'll end on one of the tackiest and most offensive tropes, one that packs the double whammy of misogyny AND homophobia, because why limit yourself to only one form of dickish behaviour? This is the one that really pissed me off about Riddick, it is (SPOILER ALERT) ...

7. The lesbian being "cured" of her penis aversion by the male protagonist. Yup. Surely I don't need to elaborate any further? It's lazy, it's crass, it's grossly offensive and it perpetuates horrible and downright damaging views of female sexuality. You can have any woman you want if you push your manliness enough! So what if she's not into dudes, all she really needs is a good fucking and you're the man to give it to her! And don't forget kids, lesbian (and bisexual) women only really exist to fulfil the fantasies of straight men! Urgh. Of all the tropes on this list, this is the one that actually makes me feel dirty for supporting the people who made the film/game/whatever and precludes me from being able to endorse it in any way, shape or form. It's a total dealbreaker, and it's disgusting that it continues to weasel its way into mainstream entertainment.

I'm sure I haven't said anything new in this note, and frankly it saddens me that these things still need to be said. However, if nothing else it's cathartic to put these frustrations into words. Here's to better things to come.

Apologies for the wall of text, but at least I had the decency to spoiler it :p
1) I think the largest issue with this one is how common it is, rather than the thing itself. There are times, as you mentioned, where it legitimately works. Too often however it seems to be used as an excuse to show off how manly the man is and fit in with the tired cliché of the man being the hero.

2) Meh, this one doesn't bother me. It isn't just a case of prejudice and stereotypes that stop a lot of women wanting dangerous roles. The abundance of testosterone in men is almost certainly a reason for why so many enjoy them. Men are generally more driven to that kind of thing than women. That's not to say that society should think this is "right", or that men who don't want and women who do are wrong, but biological factors do have an effect on our behaviours, as much as we like to pretend otherwise.

3) I think it is largely that I simply don't pay much attention to background characters, but now I think about it, this does seem to be pretty common.

4) I dislike this one strongly too. While some people do assume too much that any singular female character is automatically a "token" one, there are plenty of cases where this is true. It's normally obvious by the fact that it has to be mentioned that she is a woman, or has to do something to prove herself to the guys.

For example the cringe-worthy cliché of a man seeing a woman holding a gun and saying something along the lines of "You know how to use that thing?". The woman then does all the fancy stuff you do with guns, glares at the guy and either walks off or he makes some comment such as "All right then".

My God do I hate that one.

5) The first paragraph I am in complete agreement with, and have nothing to add. The second one I think is a double edged sword. Quite often if a tough female character doesn't have a softer side she is accused of being a "Male character with boobs", normally by the same kind of people who would also complain if she was completely "non-masculine". Likewise with male characters not being shown softer sides, they are generally not good characters. Most action heroes are completely one dimensional, so it's not really a good thing to try and make female characters the same.

6) To me this one entirely depends on the context and style of the work of fiction. If the guys are all wearing sensible stuff and the girls are made to look like eye candy, then I consider it to be a problem. If it is something that is in no shape or form attempting to be realistic, then it doesn't particularly bother me. After all, wearing robes in Skyrim would do absolutely bugger all against arrows and swords, but people generally don't seem to mind that.

Although if it looks out of place, it's still terrible design.

7) This one disturbs me, especially as there are some guys who genuinely seem to think this is the case. I swear that there are people who genuinely believe that lesbians do not exist, and that all girls are at least partially into guys.

Zhukov said:
Just Fucking Shoot Them

Has a couple of variations. One is when characters are in some kind of combat scenario and pass up perfectly good opportunities to kill/incapacitate their opponent. God damn it man, stop quizzing the villain about his nefarious plan while he stands on his evil balcony, just take a bloody shot at him, he's right there in plain sight.

Happens a lot in video games actually. Like in the latest Starcraft Sarah Kerrigan just stands there and watches while Mensk's (however you spell his name) doom device rises out of the floor and he picks up the trigger. Damn it woman, you're perfectly capable of dashing across the room and tearing has arm off, so fucking do it!

The other variation is when one character has their enemy at their mercy and doesn't finish them off right there and then. Granted, there's often good reasons for it, but there also often isn't. It's especially irritating when it's the villain who has been shown to have no moral objections to killing a problem.
Another variation of that which I hate, involves the villains being in that situation. They have the protagonist at their mercy, but do they shoot them? No. Do they stab them? No. Do they punch them? No.

They pick them up and throw them around. Pick them up and throw them around again. Eventually this tends to involve them throwing the protagonist close enough to something to hit the moron with and add a bit more balance to the fight.

Raikas said:
Those mistaken assumption storylines - they're in pretty much every crap romantic comedy, plus some supposed serious movies like American Beauty, and they're just so overdone. And usually poorly done, since most of the time there's no effort to convince the audience that there's some reason the characters didn't just clarify whatever it is that they decide is happening.
This one can often be enough to put me off of a work of fiction. So often they could quite easily have just explained the situation, but for an inexplicable reason do not.

Like the Walking Dead. Why did Rick simply not tell everybody all the sick stuff the Governor had done? Why would he keep quiet and risk a situation escalating in violence when he could explain why they are not enemies?

Too often this one is used to add tension, but it is so poorly implemented it just comes across as idiotic.
 

XMark

New member
Jan 25, 2010
1,408
0
0
The stinger at the end of every horror movie. You think the killer/alien/monster/whatever is dead and it's a happy ending, but something two seconds before the credits roll shows you it's still alive. GASP! What does that add to the movie, really? Nothing. It's only purpose is an easy hook for a sequel.

One thing that really bugs me a lot in action movies and TV shows is when the good guys are in an active gun fight with the bad guys, then one of the bad guys sneaks around and gets the drop on them, and instead of shooting them tries to get them to surrender, even though they're already in a gun fight in which they're trying to kill each other and there's absolutely no reason for the bad guys to try to take them alive. Of course, the good guys inevitably find a way to get out of the situation, usually killing the bad guy in the process (which only serves to make them look more ruthless and bloodthirsty than the supposed bad guy).
 

Leonardo Huizar

New member
Jul 1, 2012
187
0
0
These is from my experiences in the US Army

1. The expendable military fodder: The hell does it say about what little respect you have for service members when some guy who can kick really high really fast or wields some limitless ammo fire arm can take out a squadron of troops. News flash they have combat drills where soldiers take cover, and have a gun that shoots at best 300 feet away. And Michael Bay is the worst offender like its okay to portray guys who have been training for years as lawn grass only to be mowed down [And i give that for the first Transformers it was okay, but then it just got icky].

2. Military personnel are not warmongers or ignorant of civilians with important information: I never met a single soldier, marine, sailor, or airman serving or retired that ever bragged or even relished the thought of pulling that trigger. They might brag about their war scars, or spread base gossip, or even ***** about every new regulation that messes with how they have to do their job. Its literally the first question the recruiter asks you.

There is also this idea that every time some civilian with pertinent information is suddenly some eccentric loon. No. Walking into something that requires you to know that there is a smaller risk if approach it differently would be extremely beneficial.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
20,519
5,335
118
The stunt dive.

Whatever character either falls to their death or jumps to a lower structure, and they always somehow land on their back when doing this. Example; In First Blood Rambo jumps off the side of a cliff to grapple on to a tree, but in the shot you see the stunt double obviously turning to land safely on his back. It just sorta kills the impact of falls when I see this happening. One of the little things I liked about Cloud Atlas was the scene where the dude gets chucked off the balkony and brutally smashes into the ground. No cut-away, no stunt dive, just a fall to one's death. Ofcourse this was done with CGI, but it worked like a charm.
 

hazabaza1

Want Skyrim. Want. Do want.
Nov 26, 2008
9,612
0
0
EeveeElectro said:
They've all gone from being "pretty little objects who cook and clean and wait for their prince" to "pretty little objects who are kooky and awkward and actually do things for themselves now but still end up needing a man."
To be fair, in Frozen
Anna managed to do the actual saving of Elsa by herself after being betrayed by Hans, and it seems like she got together with Olaf because they both wanted to, not because either one needed to. And as for Elsa, the only person she needed major help from was Anna, and the only guy she really interacted with was Hans when she was going to kill those two guys but that was more out of convenience, not some kind of destined requirement.

OT: Gonna have to go with the "evil villain speech." Gugh. Unless you're really wanting to ramp up the cheese factor or are doing something family friendly there's no reason for the villain to either hurry up and kill the hero or vice versa.
 

remnant_phoenix

New member
Apr 4, 2011
1,439
0
0
The "self-righteous villain."

It's not an extremely widely-used trope, but it bothers me nonetheless.

Ozymandias from Watchmen... The Operative from Serenity...

Look, if you believe that X is evil/bad, but then you do X in order to prevent bigger and badder X, you're still a despicable hypocrite. There's nothing righteous about you. The Operative at least admitted that he was a monster, but both of them act like they're some kind of messiah, shepherding in a great new age. "I'm going to do evil in order to prevent a greater evil, martyring my own soul to do it. Look how good my cause is." No, there is nothing good about you or what you do; you're just a self-righteous douche.

These characters are actually very effective within their own stories, as they can be the villain that I love to hate, but what REALLY bothers me is the FANS of characters like these, people who see these sorts of people as noble or admirable. UNGH!

On the other side, the "psychopathic hero."

See Rorschach from Watchmen.

"He'll react to sawing someone's arms off the way a sociopathic serial killer would, but, you know, he's really noble-intentioned underneath it all!" Yeah, people like almost never exist, it's a nigh-impossible psychological profile.

And again, it's the FANS of this type of character that really bother me.

Are tons of people just looking for a self-righteous justification to do something horrendous? Wait... Aww, now I'm depressed.
 

Uncle Comrade

New member
Feb 28, 2008
153
0
0
Supposedly 'romantic' gestures that in real life would probably get you arrested, or at the very least not invited to parties anymore. Things like running through the airport and onto the plane to plead with the love interest not to go away. Usually followed by all the passengers cheering, when what they'd really be doing is glaring at him, thinking "Oh great, so now my flight's delayed for however long just because you couldn't pick up the phone and call her. You selfish prick."

The other old favourite is when the hero asks a girl out and gets rejected, so decides the best thing to do is follow the poor girl around bothering her with increasingly public displays of devotion until finally a combination of exhaustion and embarrassment forces her to give in and agree to go on a date. Because apparently it doesn't matter how many times a girl says "No", as long as she says "Yes" once.

I had to sit through The Notebook once, in which Ryan Gosling, having been turned down by the girl he loves, climbs up a ferris wheel and dangles by one arm in front of her, threatening to let go unless she goes out with him. Of course, faced with this emotional blackmail she says yes, and (SPOILER ALERT) they go on to live a happy life together, whilst anyone trying that in real life would end up getting a) put under a restraining order, b) an unsavoury reputation and c) roughed up by carnies.
 

Ratty

New member
Jan 21, 2014
848
0
0
Racist/Sexist/Transphobic/Homophobic or otherwise ignorant and hateful tropes aside, I can't really think of any that inherently annoy me. Tropes, other than those previously mentioned, in and of themselves aren't bad. It's where and how skillfully they're utilized that matters.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
Legion said:
Another variation of that which I hate, involves the villains being in that situation. They have the protagonist at their mercy, but do they shoot them? No. Do they stab them? No. Do they punch them? No.

They pick them up and throw them around. Pick them up and throw them around again. Eventually this tends to involve them throwing the protagonist close enough to something to hit the moron with and add a bit more balance to the fight.
And of course they tell their evil plan in detail while at it. It irritates me.

Another thing that, aside from many already said, annoys me, is forcing horror/drama by killing off the reasonable people. You know, the ones saying "We should stay together and call the police", then they get the idiot ball slipped into their back pocket and do something outrageously stupid like saying "I'll be right back".

If you force the story through a contrived set of circumstances that involves people making all the exact wrong choices, then your story is shit.

Oh, and one that really clips my begonias is the littlest cancer patient. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LittlestCancerPatient] Honestly, no, I do not care about some random non-story related kid. Why's he even in it? Why don't people listen to what one mr. Chekov says: "If the gun isn't going to be fired, then it has no place in the story. If it's not important to the story, leave it out."
 

Parasondox

New member
Jun 15, 2013
3,229
0
0
Does it count when it's things like,

"the black guy has to be ghetto and street", or

"the person wearing glasses and in a white coat is automatically the smart doctor/professor/scientist/computer hacker and then he turns evil at the end because he is the overly smart one who wants to go beyond the limits of science" and

"there is one girl and one guy who are close, if they aren't siblings then they MUST get together at the end and if it's rated 15 or (PG-13) then cue the awkward sex scenes and yes the girl must at least flash a boob in there somewhere"...

Am I on point here? Gosh those thing annoy me when I see them in a movie. If the story warrants it and plays into the story then fine BUT why do some movies need it just to add... what the heck are they trying to add?

"Hey look I just saved you from almost being beaten or raped, lets have sex!!"

Seriously? I have seen something similar to that before but I just can't name the movies (hopefully nothing with Nicholas Cage) which is why I had given up on several movie genres and TV shows. I like Strike Back, I really do, but does Scott need to have sex in every god damn episode with not enough nudity to classify it as porn?
 

Eamar

Elite Member
Feb 22, 2012
1,320
5
43
Country
UK
Gender
Female
Legion said:
1) I think the largest issue with this one is how common it is, rather than the thing itself. There are times, as you mentioned, where it legitimately works. Too often however it seems to be used as an excuse to show off how manly the man is and fit in with the tired cliché of the man being the hero.
Yup, that's pretty much what I was trying to get at :)

2) Meh, this one doesn't bother me. It isn't just a case of prejudice and stereotypes that stop a lot of women wanting dangerous roles. The abundance of testosterone in men is almost certainly a reason for why so many enjoy them. Men are generally more driven to that kind of thing than women. That's not to say that society should think this is "right", or that men who don't want and women who do are wrong, but biological factors do have an effect on our behaviours, as much as we like to pretend otherwise.
I completely disagree, but this isn't the place to debate it so let's agree to disagree.

5) The first paragraph I am in complete agreement with, and have nothing to add. The second one I think is a double edged sword. Quite often if a tough female character doesn't have a softer side she is accused of being a "Male character with boobs", normally by the same kind of people who would also complain if she was completely "non-masculine".
Yeah, I was aware of that when I wrote it. Bear in mind that these are my personal gripes and preferences and that I can only speak for myself. You will never see me complaining about a character being just a "man with boobs," because I don't believe that the so-called "masculine" character traits are restricted to men, and I think it's backward and unhelpful to criticise a female character (or real person) for being "too masculine," just as it is to criticise a male character or person for being "too feminine." I don't believe character traits are inherently related to gender, but I'm well aware that lots of people don't share that view. Personally, I've always identified most with characters who've been criticised as "men with boobs," and I am in no way uncomfortable with myself as a woman, nor do I have any desire to be physically male.

Likewise with male characters not being shown softer sides, they are generally not good characters. Most action heroes are completely one dimensional, so it's not really a good thing to try and make female characters the same.
See above, I guess. I don't think you always have to "feminise" a female character to avoid making her one dimensional.

6) To me this one entirely depends on the context and style of the work of fiction. If the guys are all wearing sensible stuff and the girls are made to look like eye candy, then I consider it to be a problem. If it is something that is in no shape or form attempting to be realistic, then it doesn't particularly bother me. After all, wearing robes in Skyrim would do absolutely bugger all against arrows and swords, but people generally don't seem to mind that.

Although if it looks out of place, it's still terrible design.
No argument from me there, that's basically what I was saying. I have no problem with silly/sexy outfits so long as they're consistent with the rest of the setting. ie, so long as men are also dressed impractically. Or at the very least aren't very obviously dressed practically while the female character swans around in a skimpy little number designed for maximum T&A.

7) This one disturbs me, especially as there are some guys who genuinely seem to think this is the case. I swear that there are people who genuinely believe that lesbians do not exist, and that all girls are at least partially into guys.
Oh god, tell me about it. This is beyond fucked up and it makes me so sad. I personally experience an extension of this (not quite as extreme, but clearly related), because as a bisexual woman I meet far too many men who think I'd only ever get with another girl for a man's titillation. The idea that I very well might settle down with a woman one day, that bisexual doesn't mean "straight but will do lesbian stuff to please guys" just doesn't seem to make any sense to these people >.<
 

Arnoxthe1

Elite Member
Dec 25, 2010
3,391
2
43
This may not really be a trope per se, but obvious plot holes/idiocy.

Nothing ruins a moment in a movie or game for me faster than when I see something stupid happen in the writing or with a character. And it's happening more often too! Are people even looking at the scripts they make nowadays before they ship them off for production or are they just artistically challenged? Get it together, people.
 
Aug 19, 2010
611
0
0
Tower/ something tall is falling.
Characters try to run away from it in the same direction it is falling, instead of sideways.

Every goddamn time
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,261
1,118
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
CGI Hacking. By which I don't mean the little visual of a string of letters or numbers quickly replacing one another as the hacker's program tries to brute force a password. That's fine and dandy if a bit unnecessary. What I mean is when a movie presents hacking (or coding in general) as essentially nothing more than a simplistic video game.


And then of course there's that absolutely horrific user interface in Jurassic Park which operates off a similar principle, and Masterminds where hacking was literally shown as going down an animated dungeon, fighting the occasional skeleton and walking through the 'right' doorway. Oh, and then there's that wire model in Skyfall...So. Irritating.


dylanmc12 said:
Also, have you noticed that, at the end, Ponyo would have fallen to her death? What a sad ending. So Ghibli did make a sad movie. Huh.
I know! I mean, who'd have thought the studio which gave us such upbeat films like Grave of the Fireflies could do something like that!
 

Tuesday Night Fever

New member
Jun 7, 2011
1,829
0
0
I can't stand pretty much everything about movie firearms, since they seem to almost always fall under the "Rule of Cool."

-If your firearm makes as many little metallic clicking and clacking sounds in real life as they do in the movies whenever anyone does anything with a gun, you've got a pretty serious problem and it would be a real bad idea to use that weapon. Those sound effects added in whenever a character draws their sidearm or whatever are pretty much all complete bullshit.

-There's no such thing as a movie or video game silencer where you can take down a target without someone in the next room over noticing. Real life suppressors don't make firearms silent. A suppressed firearm is still pretty loud.

-Real-life muzzle flashes aren't as impressive as they are in movies/games. They just aren't. Do you remember the scene in Terminator 2: Judgment Day when Arnie is standing in the window of the Cyberdyne building firing on the police cruisers down below with a minigun? They had to drastically reduce the rate of fire on that minigun in order for the muzzle flashes to even appear at all on film, because they felt that audiences would have a hard time believing that the weapon was firing if those flashes weren't visible. A lot of movies these days just add the flashes in post with computer effects.

-Magazine capacity. Some movies are good about this, some not so much. A good example would be The Mist, where it's established early on that the group's revolver had six shots and a single reload. Over the course of the movie you can actually count the number of shots fired, and it comes out to twelve. A bad example would be... pretty much anything Arnold Schwarzenegger has ever been in with automatic weapons. In real life an assault rifle or submachine gun fired on full auto will exhaust a standard magazine in just a few seconds.

-Discarding your empty magazines looks pretty cool in the movies and games, but nobody really does that. They aren't an infinite resource that regenerates constantly in your pockets. You'd end up spending a small fortune on replacement magazines.

-Gunshot wounds are totally survivable, as long as you get hit in the right place! Like the leg, or the shoulder! /facepalm. A leg wound or an arm wound can be every bit as lethal as a chest or head wound - especially when you factor in that the movie characters are typically leaving those wounds untreated for lengthy periods of time.

-The heroic police officer, shotgun in hand, corners the villain after a pretty sweet gun battle. The villain, out of ammunition, turns to the officer and tries to offer a bribe to get away. The officer says an inspiring line about how he can't be bought and cocks the shotgun to punctuate his statement. The villain then laughs his ass off and walks away, because Officer Dunce just ejected his last shell. Seriously, this one bugs me. Chambering a round to punctuate a sentence or prove how serious the character is about something just doesn't make any sense. Did the character just enter into a dangerous situation without readying his or her weapon first? Or did he or she just eject a perfectly good round from their weapon just for the sake of dramatic effect? Dumb either way.

-Body armor in real life isn't impervious to all bullets. There's a reason why outside of the media they're typically referred to as bullet resistant vests rather than bullet proof vests. The type of vests typically used in film can stop most handgun rounds with a respectable amount of reliability... but a rifle round would go right through them with no difficulty. So... sorry Doc Brown, those Libyans are still going to kill you. Also, assuming you are wearing the right type of vest to protect you from the round being fired into it, you're probably still going to be taken out of the fight at least temporarily. The body armor will spread the force out over a larger area, which could potentially still be enough to knock you down, cause heavy bruising, and in some cases people have had broken ribs. Still preferable over death, obviously, but much different than the people you see in movies taking hit after hit after hit after hit, from handgun and assault rifle alike, without showing any sign of pain or distress at all.

-Dual-wielding handguns looks cool, but is typically far less effective than using just a single handgun in your dominant hand. You're going to be firing with drastically reduced accuracy, the recoil is going to be more difficult to handle, and reloading them is going to be much more of a *****. Being able to accurately fire each handgun at separate targets simultaneously is even more ridiculous, bordering on impossible while dealing with the stress of being under fire.
 

Vykrel

New member
Feb 26, 2009
1,317
0
0
JoJo said:
Shoehorned romance. Don't get me wrong, I really dig a good romance that adds something to the plot, but it some movies in just seems like the male and female leads have to get together at a suspiciously inconvenient point in the plot because...?
i sure would like to see a superhero movie that doesnt have a forced romance subplot.
 

Phasmal

Sailor Jupiter Woman
Jun 10, 2011
3,676
0
0
-It's just a little annoyance but nobody says goodbye when they hang up in TV and movies. Rude.

-Manic pixie dream girls. Just no.

EeveeElectro said:
Hey men! That girl you like doesn't like you back? Well, keep pestering her! She'll like you if you keep at it because every woman can be easily manipulated into a relationship and changing her feelings over night!
It's even worse when they try throw people off by making one or both characters hate each other at first.

I swear that's the reason half the guys who constantly pestered me for dates after I said I wasn't interested continued to do so. ¬_____¬
-Ugh, this.
Movies sending the message that you just need to be persistent is creepy. I knew a guy like that once. Not any more.
 

floppylobster

New member
Oct 22, 2008
1,528
0
0
End of class scenes. Teacher is seemingly in the middle of the most important part of the lesson then the bell rings. Usually because they need the main characters to be in another scene. Poor lesson planning, poor writing.
 

Tayh

New member
Apr 6, 2009
775
0
0
The wife that exists only as an antagonist to the main lead(s).
One example I can think of is Morgan Freeman's wife in 'Se7en'.
Freeman is a retiring cop. It is his very last day on the force. YOU DON'T NEED TO CALL AND INTERRUPT HIM 3 TIMES THAT DAY TO COMPLAIN ABOUT HOW MUCH TIME HE'S SPENDING BEING A POLICE MAN AND HOW HE SHOULD BE SPENDING MORE TIME AT HOME.
I'm not blaming the wife here, as such, more the lazy screenwriters who apparently have shitty marriages themselves.
How come 99% of all wives in Hollywood movies exist to complicate, criticise and generally be a pain in the ass for the lead and the audience.