No you stupid Hollywood person, its wrong.

[Kataskopo]

When I watch a movie the thing that pisses me off the most ist *big suspensefull violin solo*

Plot stupidity. I mean when people are acting really fucking retarded just to fit in the story. Examples:

Episode 2. Years go by and no one gets the idea that it would be a good thing to free Anakins mother.

Sex and the City 2 (don't ask my why I watched it): Pretty much all the actions of the protagonists.

And so on. I can disregard slightly suicidal actions or even slightly stupid actions. But this is plot-driving stupidity.

Sir, I would like to point you to http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IdiotBall

And immediately after, I would like to apologize for wasting 3 ~ 4 hours of your life

But yeah, that would be what I dislike the most. It just breaks my suspension of disbelief and it's hard to get it back after.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I always figured screenwriters for disaster blockbusters, crime dramas or sci fi shows write for some sort of hypothetical John Q. Public; someone who's neither a physics aficionado, an occasional planet-watcher, a nature enthusiast or even an erstwhile watcher of something like the National Geographic channel. With that type of audience in mind, and as they incorrectly assume that 99% of their audience is going to be made up of brain-dead ignorants, they cobble things together.

Why bother to do otherwise, when the board evaluating the movie as a funded project are probably old geezers who don't give two shits about basic quality, as long as returns are made?

Besides, trying to reach some sort of common ground between Real Life Hacking and Hollywood Hacking would be impossible. One side would still be bored out of its mind, the other would still clamor that it's not an accurate representation.

Honestly, the only two techie movies I know that come even remotely close to handling hacking correctly are The Matrix (for the few shots you do see a computer screen in, across all three movies - Trinity's hack from Revolutions is done in a Unix prompt, I think) and Tron Legacy (again, recognizable Unix prompts in the Real World sequences).

Not that they're prefect representations, though. Far from it. They're the best we've got, frankly, seeing as we have to choose between this:

<youtube=9NgGXn682kI>

And this:

<youtube=f9CZkSLYWeM>

And this:

<youtube=mAJG2ELKDyU>

...I know I'll pick Option A. Option C might be feasible within the boundaries of a real system, but it's boring for your average viewer. Option B treats those who do know a tiny bit about I.T. like complete idiots.

Generally speaking, I'd say I'd like for any vaguely techie-inspired movie or project to have an honest consultant on board. Not that it's in any way guaranteed, seeing as I remember watching a B-grade horror flick Cliff Blezinski had participated to as a consultant (kids being killed for realsies by NPCs in some hot new underground game exchanged on burned DVD-ROMS) and realizing they'd probably just paid him to have the right to attach his name to the project.

 

[eventhorizon525]

When somebodies sentient robot starts philosophising, absolutely nobody thinks that the best solution is to use a nonsentient machine for that purpose. No, somehow the only action they could think of is to build another sentient machine.

Though, since they're just going to be workhorses, why bother making sentient machines? The only logical reason for making a sentient machine is if you wanted it to be a person, which would mean it wouldn't be rebelling against you because you, and probably ONLY you, treat it like a person.

one more thing.

Why don't fantasy settings have guns??
Seriously, magic wouldn't stop guns from being made, if anything it would cause guns to be better.

Actually, some games and series are pushing the guns/magic being side by side more (Guildwars 2 being an easy big example). Also, just because they don't have guns at the time of the series doesn't mean it isn't possible, it just means in that universe no one has felt motivated to actually try that stuff. Depending on how magic was perceived, it could very easily be a case where there simply was no motivation to technologically innovate; there is already a (relatively) accepted method for solving non-standard problems and pushing the boundaries of what is expected.

 

[The Thinker]

So the question I put to you, what are some examples that make you take the latter path, (be it obvious mistakes the character makes, problems with the accuracy of the movie, obvious scientific wrongness, cannon rape, etc.)?

Oh...those poor cannons! Will nobody think of the cannons?

I wasn't thinking of the cannons. After all, in "tentacle rape"...

Not Popeyes deliciousness chicken! Anything but Popeyes deliciousness chicken! Think of the children!

I will eat the children.

Well, as long as you have a plan.

 

[Shadow flame master]

This did not anger me, but I did think it was stupid...

I forgot which episode it was, but on Law and Order: SVU a man claimed to be raped by three women. Benson wanted to investigate, but Stabler resisted, saying things like 'men can't be raped by women unless they've been drugged' and 'If he gets an erection, it's consent'. I'm paraphrasing of course. I don't agree with him, but that's not what I thought was stupid: No one mentioned that if he had fought these three women, chances are, he would be the defendant and they would be pressing charges against him. To the average person, saying "I had too, they were going to tie me down and rape me," makes as much sense as "I had too, they were going to chop me up and eat me."

It's been a while since I saw that episode, so I might not have the details right, but I do remember saying to myself "That's stupid"

That's why I don't like Stabler in general. Whenever he's in a show, he's all like "This guys a pervert/pedophile and is going to jail" and is adamant about, but when there's a guy who did the same thing like him, he's like "No, don't do it even though I know I would", God I hate character types like him, but if we didn't have him there wouldn't be drama.

OT: I don't like it when I see the leader of whichever side not listen to their scientists/military men/lackeys just because they're top dog. If your chief scientist in your R and D department says that the new weapons could cause your soldiers to halucinate/mutate/ or drop dead after one use, then listen to them instead of dismissing them.

 

[Jolly Co-operator]

Historical and Technological inaccuracies tend to irk me. The most recent one I encountered was in the 2009 Sherlock Holmes film. What the hell is up with that lightning rod? Get it out of here! It's bad enough that they've got Holmes engaging in fist fights whenever they can get away with it, but I suppose I can handle a little character re-imagining. That lightning rod, however, got a unified WTF?! from my friends and I when watching it. Aside from that, I enjoyed the movie, but damn, it seemed rather out of place.

 

[Kuroneko97]

When movie adaptations don't stick to the book they're adapting. Sure, I can understand with movies that just aren't able to adapt certain things, especially when they do a damn fine job with the rest of it (See Harry Potter movies).

But then I watch some shit like the Cirque du Freak movie and I get pretty damn pissed. What guy working on the script though a fucking monkey girl was a good idea?! If they hadn't blundered the movie they could have gotten more people to watch it and maybe adapt the rest of the series. And the newest Twilight movie just had to come out around the same time, undermining the actual good series. Because even the Darren Shan movie was better than the Twilight series.

The Series of Unfortunate Events movie stuck much closer to the books; enough so that I could almost overlook the switching of the wedding plan to the end of the Wide Window part of the movie. Almost. But they kind of changed the ending so that it kind of blocked the possibility of a sequel. But deep in the internet I hear rumors that they might remake, although I'm doubtful.

Listen to me rant. But I love to blow off some steam on pointless shit.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

90% of the "normal" people in a movie looking like they spend all day in the gym leaving me to snarkly say

"I guess they should have spent that time educating themselves so the dialogue wouldn't sound as though it is written by children"


then I turn around and realise i'm alone :' (

 

[DirgeNovak]

Do they have massive pointless multi-touch interfaces in Bones as well?

Yes they do, http://images.wikia.com/bones/images/1/1d/Angelator-300x217-1-.jpg

They haven't used that thing in years, though... but yeah, Angela's Magic Computer of Pixiedust? is pretty annoying, even though I love the character.

OT: Already mentioned by many, but the way games and gamers are portrayed in most Hollywood fiction makes me very angry.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Hollywood is a city run by idiots, for idiots.

Idiots with good teeth, square jaws, toned bodies and even tans mind you, but idiots none the less.

Also I suspect the script writing is on a bit of a budget as the film industry isn't exactly swimmin' in cash at the moment. And any film industry that IS is based nowhere near Hollywood.

 

[twistedmic]

Isn't it possible that some (possibly most)of the hacking inaccuracies in movies and t.v. are actually intentional, so that they wouldn't be showing people how to hack?
Like in MacGyver, whenever he built something, several crucial steps were omitted to prevent anyone from being able to replicate the build. MythBusters does the same thing when it comes to chemicals and explosives.

 

[Zio_IV]

I let most things slide (the MST3K appraoch), but there will always be things that manage to get your goat in spite of any attitude you have. Mine are mostly inaccuracies concerning firearms and the use of them, or blatant disregard for how they work.

One of my favorites is when it shows a person using a rocket launcher (like an RPG-7, for instance) and having that person get pushed back from the "recoil". That's the whole point of it being open in the back: All of the force goes out the other way. The person firing doesn't feel hardly anything. I suppose this has to do with people thinking that: "The bigger the weapon, the larger the recoil felt" or some such nonsense. Not to mention they'll have that same person fire it in an enclosed area with a wall at their back and be totally fine, instead of being crushed by the pressure from the backblast.

This also extends into small arms and other assorted firearm-related fallacies, but that one is my "favorite".

 

[tipp6353]

Mel Gibson film have a tendency of pissing me off. Particularly The Patriot.

Cornwallis was not a bumbling idiot.
The war was NOT won strictly by militia.
One guy did not carry the war on his shoulders.
Ban Tarleton did NOT burn a church full of innocents or commit atrocities HALF as bad as the character depicting him does.
There were more than just standard British Regulars at nearly every battle in the film.

Basically, I don't like how that movie really puts the British in a bad light and generally glorifies the use of the militia and basically saying one man won that war.

on a broader scale, overused Wire-fu tends to drive me nuts.
Overuse of cheap storytelling means (deus ex machinas, checkov's guns etc...). Transformers 3 was particularly guilty of these.

Well you have admit at the battle of Waxhall creek he ignored the white flag and butchered Bufords men, that sounds pretty ruthless.

 

[Platypus540]

This is kind of a stupid thing to notice, but when RPGs, etc. leave a huge, clearly visible smoke trail, it just bugs me.

 

[Nathan Crumpler]

This did not anger me, but I did think it was stupid...

I forgot which episode it was, but on Law and Order: SVU a man claimed to be raped by three women. Benson wanted to investigate, but Stabler resisted, saying things like 'men can't be raped by women unless they've been drugged' and 'If he gets an erection, it's consent'. I'm paraphrasing of course. I don't agree with him, but that's not what I thought was stupid: No one mentioned that if he had fought these three women, chances are, he would be the defendant and they would be pressing charges against him. To the average person, saying "I had too, they were going to tie me down and rape me," makes as much sense as "I had too, they were going to chop me up and eat me."

It's been a while since I saw that episode, so I might not have the details right, but I do remember saying to myself "That's stupid"

That's why I don't like Stabler in general. Whenever he's in a show, he's all like "This guys a pervert/pedophile and is going to jail" and is adamant about, but when there's a guy who did the same thing like him, he's like "No, don't do it even though I know I would", God I hate character types like him, but if we didn't have him there wouldn't be drama.

OT: I don't like it when I see the leader of whichever side not listen to their scientists/military men/lackeys just because they're top dog. If your chief scientist in your R and D department says that the new weapons could cause your soldiers to halucinate/mutate/ or drop dead after one use, then listen to them instead of dismissing them.

Stabler has the easiest job. Benson has to talk to the victims most of the time, while all Stabler does is beat up pedophiles. He's retired now, though I like to think that some times he'll get an itch and go looking for men who look like rapists and punch them in the face.

 

[Joshey Woshey]

@tipp6353 There's actually different stories about why that actually happened ranging from "The redcoats are evil" to "We didn't see the flag mister, honest".

 

[Austin Luo]

Fires hotter than 6000C? Like what? The world's hottest flame is recorded an entire 1000C cooler at 4990C.

 

[Nathan Crumpler]

I'm a musician, but even if I wasn't I still would know what guitars and basses look like. I don't have any examples, but all the time I see wacky looking instruments in cartoons. The only time I see a proper instrument is on Metalocalpyse.

Captcha: know your rights