Things that film makers and writers do that piss you off.

[neoontime]

Why don't people have to go to the bathroom more at inconvenient times. Ugh, I hope that doesn't lead to things to being creepy but it's something I think on that makes me question if the characters are actually humans.

 

[Fisher321]

In older war movies when people get shot and they throw their hands in the air and fall down.

I can't stand it.

Even if they are prone they do that and roll over....

So silly..

Edit: Also stupid tactics, like in Avatar where they fly about 500 meters off the ground to drop that bomb, when they could've just done it from space.

 

[mechashiva77]

consenually (really chrome? Is this really not a word)

You must be pretty tired, you misspelled "consensually", though that's really fucked up, so if I'm correct, his ex was engaged, and rapes him anyway out of spite?
Aside form that, I completely agree with you, more though I just get annoyed with the formula, where the protagonist must leave their girlfriend/boyfriend, and they absolutely must break up at some point, God help us if somebody tries something new.

*facepalm* Gah, thank you for that. I didn't even notice it while I was wide awake until you pointed out. And yes she did actually rape him in his sleep. It was a combination of spite and wanting to win a bet (he had to give up sex). Ah, but if they tried something new it wouldn't be a romantic comedy would it

 

[Canadamus Prime]

It really pisses me off when people can't enjoy a book/movie/whatever as it was intended because of some stupid bureaucrat wants to make more money.

On that note, another thing that irritates me is when fans and executives alike fail to recognize when an long running franchise has reached the point where it needs to end. ...or at the very least be left dormant for while (and by "a while" I mean at least 10-15 years).

 

[Crazy Zaul]

It annoys me when in Sci fi films or TV episodes, the characters take ages to discover something really obvious, then when they do you have to have never seen any sci fi ever to not already know. They introduce the situation and you think 'oh its obviously a temporal banana fixation' and then the characters spend 20 mins investigating and go 'it seems to be a temporal banana fixation' and you shout 'NO SHIT SHERLOCK!' and sarcastically clap for them.

 

[axlryder]

frivolous use of shaky cam. It CAN be used well, but it creates a very specific and disorienting effect. Just using all the time is fucking obnoxious. Any recent movie I can think of that employs it does so to detrimental effect.

 

[Brainpaint]

Forced romances. Especially when adapted from a work that doesn't have one or plays it down.

Do they think we won't see a movie if we don't see at least a frame of snogging in it or in the trailer?

 

[Vault101]

hollywood moralising YOUR FAMILIY AND CHILDREN HAVE ABSOLUTE PRIORY REGARDLESS OF THE COST

...?

Well, I would HOPE you would at least have significant concern for your own family. Or, more likely, I'm in need of some elaboration.

have you got a big promotion going at work? well MISS IT because your childs soccer game is more important

is your boss being an ass? then give him a big speech on the vaule of "taking time to smell the roses" in life and talk out on your job

have you been working very very hard in your profession of choice? when all of a sudden some ZANY circumstances eather leaving you taking care of some kids or pregnancy...hope your ok with everything you worked for not being important anymore...well of coarse you will be!

and if your a women BABIES BABIES BABIES WILL MAKE YOU HAPPY!!!!

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Sex scenes in just about every american movie made... Ever. No matter the circumstances.

I see your Sex Scenes and raise you with the American habit of shoehorning romantic sub-plots into movies that have no reason to include them. If I wanted to watch a romantic film I'd watch one specifically, I don't want to see that in every sci-fi, action, horror, comedy, etc-etc-etc.

---

Batman is always (in live action films) wearing some form of armored or, rubber costume. I can understand to an extent why they do that but I would like to see, just once, a big-budget Batman movie where he's dressed more like he is in the comics/cartoons...like a ninja in grey with a cape.

 

[SextusMaximus]

Complaining about historical inaccuracies in Spartacus is silly, Spartacus does not attempt to an accurate portrayal of Spartacus' life it uses Spartacus as allegory for the Civil rights movement.

It's like people who watch 300 and point out a number of historical flaws.

WITHOUT REALISING THERE'S ALSO A GIANT AND A FUCKING MYSTICAL GODESS IN THE FILM.

What you gonna tell me the Lord of the Rings isn't historically accurate as well?

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

I hate quick love. Two people evidently fall in love in like 7 days then they will do anything for each other. It's bad, and it should not feel all the goo with itself either.

 

[Myndnix]

In addition to the shakey cam and forced/immediate/nonsensical romances that many in this thread have already complained about extensively, one that really gets me is the old Bond Villain Stupidity trope.
You know the one. It's present in many types of fiction, not just films. The villain has the hero at gunpoint or something similar, and instead of just goddamn shooting him, he decides to monologue about his motivation, or backstory, or how the hero never stood a chance of winning. I'm pretty sure The Incredibles lampshaded this, actually...
Any antagonist that stupid deserves to be defeated on principle.

 

[WWmelb]

Films the take a title or concept from a work of short fiction, and makes... Something(?) out of it that you have no idea where it came from.

For some reason film makers have a habit of doing this with Stephen King short stories. Someone previously mentioned The Running Man... Read the short novel and then watch the film and WTF Was that???

Even more ludicrous was The Lawnmower Man. Was an interesting concept in and of itself but "Based on the short story by Stephen King"? I think not.

Synopsis of short story: Lazy prick lets his lawn get to long due to laziness. Calls a lawnmower man to come mow his lawn. Fat hairy ugly man comes, strips off all his clothes, guides the lawnmower by his mind and crawls along behind it eating everything it spits out. Lazy prick rings police. Hairy telekinetic fat man runs over lazy prick with lawnmower and eats him.

MOVIE: Handicapped man virtual reality genius psycho wtf?

DON'T TRY AND TIE YOUR MOVIE TO ANOTHER PIECE OF MEDIA IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BECAUSE "NAME" = "SALES".

Another thing that bugs me Oliverstoneitis.

Olive Stone makes great films when on his meds, ie JFK.

But his A.D.D makes me want to kill people. ZOMG THIS SHOT IS BORING!!! POST PRODUCTION FILTERZ ZOMG I NEED FILTERZ EDIT IT QUICKLY AND PUT IN MAAAAWR FILTERZ!!!!!!! AND I CANT STAND STILL GIMME A FUCKIN HANDY CAM NOW AND MAWR COFFEE AND FILTERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRZ!!!!

So many more things, but thinking about Oliver Stone makes me tired.

 

[GrimTuesday]

Spartacus snip

It's only just occurred to me, but the film was based on the 1951 novel by Howard Fast and was not meant to be completely (or even partially, I think) historically accurate. It was self-published because no publisher wanted to touch the work primarily because the author had been imprisoned for contempt of Congress (the basis of which was one of the dumbest things ever), though granted, he was a communist. He started writing it while in prison and the (perceived) parallels between Roman and McCarthy era suppression of the slave-class/freedom of speech (sort of... not an authority on McCarthyism...) respectively sort of became the novel's (and Fast's) statement.

So it was rather a romantic notion of standing up to the authoritarian state and an ostensibly 'nobler' path taken by the protagonist, the ultimate failure being just for added drama. *shrug*

Well its a damn good thing I wasn't really talking about the historical accuracy aspect of it now isn't it. Historical accuracy was a fairly minor part of my post, which primarily focused on the stupid love interest.

 

[Saulkar]

What you gonna tell me the Lord of the Rings isn't historically accurate as well?

Well the Lord of the Rings takes place 6000-6500 years ago so I think that would make it prehistoric. The Shire was where Oxford is now and if my understanding is correct prehistoric is different from region to region (when people of said region started writing history) and thus prehistoric in the general area of Britain is before 4000-4500 years ago.

 

[mrhappy1489]

What I'd say irritates me the most is when someone is adapting a book into film and rather than include all the characters, simply take one or two out and copy them onto another character. Game of Thrones for example, removed both Jojen and Meera Reed from the Second season and gave most of there dialogue to Osha (Which also meant they changed Asha's name to Yara because people might get confused). Now I can understand the need to keep the cast within limits, but Jojen and Meera are fairly important characters in the Bran arc and by taking away a portion of their lines and character building it might cause trouble down the road. Also what irritates is the way roles are reduced. Using Game of Thrones as an example again, Qhorin Halfhand's role was significantly reduced and thus his characters importance. He's responsible for teaching Jon some very strong life lessons while scouting Mance Rayder's camp and by removing that, Jon hasn't experienced nearly half the growth he did in the book. I realise that budget is a constraint, but honestly I'd rather have seen Jon and Qhorins interactions as opposed to his and Ygrittes. There is enough of that in the Third book, did they really need to take that away from Qhorin. By the way I love the show, bits of it just irk me.

I don't think its just the budget but also the time. The whole Qhorin thing I agree. The only real time both him and Jon actually got to talk about something serious was when Qhorin was toying with Jon about the purpose of the watchers on the wall. They only had a small amount of screen time together which made the scene where Jon stabs Qhorin less poignant. But it was either that or less screen time with Ygritte which I feel they did for build up in season 3.

With your Jojen and Meera though I can excuse them a bit for that. I can understand how introducing a LOT of characters in just a span of ten episodes can take its toll on the viewers. While I've never been confused with the characters (Primarily because I watch reruns of the damn show practically everyday in my man cave) introducing too many characters and forcing each of them to have a screen time can be quite challenging. My guess is that they just didn't add them because it would be cramming too much and the scenes might not have been able to flesh out the story well enough if that happened.

From what I understand though, they're making Book three into two seasons and based on some of the things that I've read some of the things missed in season 2 will be brought up in season 3. This makes sense in that it would be easy to introduce new characters at the beginning of a new season for Bran since some of the characters related to Bran's plotline being dead, such as Maester Lewyn and so on.

There are a lot of differences, but at least (well for me) it doesn't really completely ruin the experience.

I agree with what you've said completely and am well aware that the average and even more advanced television viewer is not accustomed to such an influx of characters, but personally I think Meera and Jojen are so essential to the Bran storyline, as opposed to Osha that they should have been introduced slightly early and some of Osha's scenes cut down a bit, in all honesty she isn't that important in the books, though I'll concede that GRRM wants to make her bigger. Hell what I've just realised is that Hodor is not really that present or made apparent in the TV show, were it not for the books I'd have very little inclination to even consider him essential as brans carrier. Slightly off topic, SPOILERS by the way, I hope Osha and Rickon do leave at some point, otherwise a whole mess of the plots points will be warped. However the show itself is great and I enjoy it thoroughly, it's just odd when important characters disappear for a period. I shudder to think whats going to happen when they reach the AFFC and ADWD plot lines, I mean they can't just cut characters out and so many are introduced, I personally do not envy the writers.

 

[Reyold]

hollywood moralising YOUR FAMILIY AND CHILDREN HAVE ABSOLUTE PRIORY REGARDLESS OF THE COST

...?

Well, I would HOPE you would at least have significant concern for your own family. Or, more likely, I'm in need of some elaboration.

have you got a big promotion going at work? well MISS IT because your childs soccer game is more important

is your boss being an ass? then give him a big speech on the vaule of "taking time to smell the roses" in life and talk out on your job

have you been working very very hard in your profession of choice? when all of a sudden some ZANY circumstances eather leaving you taking care of some kids or pregnancy...hope your ok with everything you worked for not being important anymore...well of coarse you will be!

and if your a women BABIES BABIES BABIES WILL MAKE YOU HAPPY!!!!

Ah, I see. Concern for family, unrestrained by any common sense or concern of long-term consequences.

Just wanted to be sure. Thanks.

 

[crimson sickle2]

Reasonless romance: I always hate it how a lot of it occurs between two characters because they stand next to each other for more than ten minutes, if the romance element is actually developed and given enough room, I'm fine with it (it still slows down the plot, but whatever)

intentional weakening of the hero: this caught my eye most in the Avengers, but I prefer my heroes and villains at full power for the final confrontation, see Tony Stark as the main example (Iron Man 1 or Avengers)