Plot devices that ruin any movie
- Thread starter Unia
- Start date
Recommended Videos
When you get the standard war movie and you can point and pick who will live and who will die and in what way. Yes, its war, and yes, people die, but could you have it mixed up, or at least have most of your company live?
Not sure if this counts, but it feels like the bad guy is terrible at hiring henchmen that can actually aim. Instead we get cannon fodder who waste thousands of bullets hitting nothing but air, yet the good guy kills everyone with a machine gun that seems to have a bottomless supply of bullets. For example, the lobby scene in the Matrix. So many SWAT, and none of them could aim worth shit.
Yes, and like I just explained he was going to be sent back no matter what, and therefore would have bonked her no matter what. So that still would have happened.Unia said:
Deux ex machina. This takes the cake. The term is Latin for "God from the machine". It means a problem in a story being solved without any contribution on the part of the protagonist or important supporting actors. Here's an example: your hero has fought through the entire movie, killing hundreds of bad guys, just to fight the final boss. Suddenly the boss disarms our hero. He's out of tricks, out of time, and out of luck. Suddenly Al Pacino appears and Scarface's the baddie with a massive machine gun.
And unnecessary romance subplots (Pearl Harbour, I'm looking right at you).
And unnecessary romance subplots (Pearl Harbour, I'm looking right at you).
Hollywood tactics. You have access to the most advanced military technology available, far exceeding our own, yet your only strategy is to run towards the enemy in human waves that have been outdated since the Civil War (Starship Troopers, the Star Wars prequels are the worst offenders).
Also, please try aiming, most firearms have a sight on the top of it. It works best at eye level so shooting from the hip is a waste of time and ammo. Thanks
Also, please try aiming, most firearms have a sight on the top of it. It works best at eye level so shooting from the hip is a waste of time and ammo. Thanks
It was the trees!!!!!! /disgust
"Unobtanium". How many f'ing movies do they have to use this bloody macguffin in?
Any movie that includes any of the following words/terms on the poster "Zany", "Mischief", "Thrill-ride", "Ben Stiller", "Best this year", "Romantic", "HorsefaceSarah Jessica Parker", "Comedy" or "Instant Classic".
Hmmm..... /rant
"Unobtanium". How many f'ing movies do they have to use this bloody macguffin in?
Any movie that includes any of the following words/terms on the poster "Zany", "Mischief", "Thrill-ride", "Ben Stiller", "Best this year", "Romantic", "
Hmmm..... /rant
Almost anything involving some devious foreign nation plotting to destroy the world or something like that. I mean, sure it's a perfectly fine plot device if done well, but it's been overused so many times. Especially with video games. How many war games about how Russia wants to kill everybody are there?
I dunno. I more perceived those twists as "so unbelievably stupid that no one without a railroad spike through their brains would see them coming."Kermi said:
Imagine if 'The Hurt Locker' had ended with the deathwish EOD soldier discovering that he is really an alien squid creature. Yes, it's a twist...no, it's not a GOOD twist, because it is neither logical, nor does relate in any way to subtle hints dropped throughout the movie. There wasn't a scene where he mentions being good at multitasking because of his additional arms, or accidentally spews ink onto the Humvee seat.
Sixth Sense's twist made sense, and it was mind-blowing. That's why it worked. And it certainly helped that it had good actors behind it.Kermi said:
With Unbreakable, you can't help but feel like the movie itself should have been the first half of the actual movie. It could have easily gone into Bruce Willis trying to use his newfound powers for good, actually TRYING to be the superhero he's discovered that he is. But regardless, it was an excellent movie, and it was a decent twist, even if you can't help but wonder
SPOILER ALERT
how a glass-boned comic book regalia salesman was able to orchestrate mass murder on a semi-regular basis.
This one is actually pretty accurate. I think amnesia and failed military projects make a movie much less appealing to me. Or that stupid "I'm actually a bad guy" twist. It worked in Bioshock and that's it. Every where else, it's a big stack of stupid.Reqviemus said:
Oh, right, and a lame plot device: murder mysteries that "fool" the audience by cheap-ass means.
Look at Saw. We're practically beaten over the head with every scene where the director is clearly boring into us "THIS IS THE SCENE WHEN (INSERT CHARACTER) IS BEING ESTABLISHED AS THE POTENTIAL KILLER." Not only was it stupid because it made characters who in all likelihood were NOT the killer look like they were, and was done to death so quickly that the audience knew that 9 out of the 10 must be red herrings.
And the "twist" ending? It was the corpse the whole time! Of course! It was...the corpse? Who was also an irrelevant background character at one point? That's like taking a Sherlock Holmes story and saying that the perpetrator the whole time was Unnamed Police Officer #3 at the second murder scene. Except it's even more stupid because that police officer was DEAD.
That leads into another subgenre of stupid plot devices: supposed "masterminds" who function apparently by omniscience. They know all the minor, completely coincidental things that will happen before they happen, all of which will ultimately contribute to the plot. They know when certain pieces of evidence will be found and who will find them, they know who will be at certain places, how they will react, when they will be facing the rising sun, and whether they had Wheaties or Cheerios for breakfast that morning.
Look at Saw. We're practically beaten over the head with every scene where the director is clearly boring into us "THIS IS THE SCENE WHEN (INSERT CHARACTER) IS BEING ESTABLISHED AS THE POTENTIAL KILLER." Not only was it stupid because it made characters who in all likelihood were NOT the killer look like they were, and was done to death so quickly that the audience knew that 9 out of the 10 must be red herrings.
And the "twist" ending? It was the corpse the whole time! Of course! It was...the corpse? Who was also an irrelevant background character at one point? That's like taking a Sherlock Holmes story and saying that the perpetrator the whole time was Unnamed Police Officer #3 at the second murder scene. Except it's even more stupid because that police officer was DEAD.
That leads into another subgenre of stupid plot devices: supposed "masterminds" who function apparently by omniscience. They know all the minor, completely coincidental things that will happen before they happen, all of which will ultimately contribute to the plot. They know when certain pieces of evidence will be found and who will find them, they know who will be at certain places, how they will react, when they will be facing the rising sun, and whether they had Wheaties or Cheerios for breakfast that morning.