How about when they have a picture on the computer screen and they can somehow pan around various objects to see what was behind them?
One interesting and special thing about New York divorce law is that intangibles like a professional degree or partnership in a law firm are often considered property that is potentially subject to being divied up.
This is a fabulous rule for the soon-to-be-ex-wives of doctors, lawyers, and other professional men. (And the soon-to-be-ex-husbands of professional women too of course. In fact, IIRC, the leading case on this point involved a well-known female opera singer who had to cough up a share of her earnings for life. Ouch!!)
Perhaps they could have made use of that distinction in the movie.
Keep in mind that the screenwriter is the least powerful of the above-the-line personnel. Once the writer sells his or her screenplay, it belongs to the buyer to use as he or she pleases. More powerful people in the process - stars, producers, directors, studio executives - routinely make changes as they see fit, up to and during the shooting process. The concept, the setting, the outcome of the story, not to mention crucial details, can change several times depending on the whim of a particular actor, director or producer.
The final script is often the result of the work of a series of writers, with each writer having been brought in by a power player with an interest in the project. Sometimes these writers confer, but more often they work separately, at odds with each other, trying their best to satisfy the various and competing interests of the various power players involved. Which writer ends up with screen credit is determined by a formal arbitration process, along with behind the scenes wrangling. The credited writer may or may not have been the primary author of the script.
Now if the writer is also the director, or also the executive producer, then it’s entirely fair to blame him or her for everything that ends up on screen.
Here’s my favorite very common scenario:
Two people are watching a videotape.
“Hey wait a second . . . rewind that, willya?”
“Sure, here ya go . . .”
And invariably we hear that rewind sound: Wheedliwhee!Wheedliwheedliwheedliwhee! You know, the one that no modern VCR actually makes.
I think they forgot that a few folks may have had hands-on experience with those new-fangled video-doodads.
Belowjob2.0 is right. A cruel irony of the screenwriting business is that if a movie is good there will be plenty of praise for the director and stars, but not much for the writers. However, if the movie is bad/stupid, the audience and critics tend to blame the script!
As a history buff, many movies drive me insane. My husband is almost to the point of refusing to watch them with me, because he says that having me sceam out every few moments, “They didn’t have THAT in [time period]” or “Those clothes are all wrong!” is extremely annoying.
He’s probably right. But he does the same thing during war movies. 
Well, some things can be covered by the idea of “internal consistency”. In the X-men movies, people do impossible things all the time, because the very premise of a movie provides a mechanism for that impossibility to happen. Other movies simply act as if those things weren’t impossible to begin with (absurdism, f’rinstance, or a David Lynch film).
But some things are just idiotic in context with the rest of the film… like cops making stupid blunders (which, I guess, is a common theme…).
Even the best shows can mess up. I saw an episode of West Wing in which they called Kant’s magnum opus, “Critique of Practical Reason”. It was just a bit shocking since these people are so anal about detail and spend much of their dialog ridiculing the opposition for exactly that sort of mistake.
A-men. Of course, even if you don’t care about law, the movie sucks.
I didn’t think about that - fair enough. Can I change my title to “Is 30 seconds of research too much to ask of a group of screenwriters, stars, producers, directors, and studio executives, all working at cross-purposes?” Actually, phrased like that, the question answers itself!
By any chance, were two out? If so, then the batter may attempt to advance to first on a dropped third strike even with runner on first.
Are you sure it was a mistake? Kant did write a “Critique of Practical Reason”.
Yes, but what they meant was Critique of Pure Reason, which featured a prominent criticism of Anselm’s ontological argument. That’s my point. The same character (it was Josh) would have ripped an opponent a new one for a similar mistake… Come to think of it, maybe that was intentional by the writers.
In our defense, when we get in a huff and scream, “For God’s sake…the 2nd SS Panzer division wasn’t within a hundred miles of here in September of '44!” it’s just a cover. We’re really reflecting back on the last scene, thinking, “My God…THOSE shoes with THAT dress…PUH-LEEZE!”
“Bob types password into computer, it appears in a
HUGE FONT that can be read by everyone within 100 yards.” It’s a little known fact that all actors are sight impaired in front of a computer.
Actually, I remember a time when computers would produce a “keyclick” sound. It was a beep on the DEC220 terminal, and some people preferred it to the alternative (turning it off). That was back before 1988.
What I like is that computers in movies are so incredibly easy to break into. For example, you can type in “access secret files” and it will work!
Another fun fact is that viruses seem to always have easily identifiable file names. For example, in Office Space the virus is cleverly named “Virus.exe”. No one would ever be able to trace that one!
Seconding what Belowjob2.0 said.
Don’t blame the writer; most writers mean well and do responsible work, only to see it crushed by the whim of a guy behind a Great Big Desk.
The way it actually works:
Writer creates airtight screenplay. Producer likes it and buys it. Project put into development. Another movie comes out and bombs, and producer gets to be fall guy. Project is moved to successor producer, who asks for rewrite so he can demonstrate ownership of said project (called “pissing on it”). Original writer thinks requested rewrites are dumb. Original writer is fired. New writer is brought in to make the requested changes. New writer doesn’t worry about taking blame for stupid material because unless he contributes substantially to the project his name won’t appear anywhere on the finished film. New writer knows he’s nothing more than a monkey with a typewriter, and might feel bad about it, but at the end of the day he’s an anonymous monkey with a fat paycheck. In this case, the original story might have been set in Virginia or another state with more appropriate laws, but the producers decided to move the story to Texas because Bruce Campbell looks funny in a hat.
That’s one example. It’s also possible for material to be rewritten on the fly on the set, especially dialogue. Now, dialogue is actually one of the least important aspects of a script in terms of its design and construction, but that reality is almost completely unknown outside the industry; most casual moviegoers think the dialogue is the script, and blame the writer for dumb lines and such. Most of a screenwriter’s effort goes into structuring the plot and organizing the flow of scenes, because that invisible architecture is what really makes a movie work. So the progression of specific scenes is usually followed by the director, but the spoken words can diverge from the page quite substantially. Still, because a lot of exposition is handled in the dialogue, it’s certainly possible for factual errors to crop up because the actor or somebody else decided to “correct a mistake in the script,” or just didn’t like the way the line sounded. (Note that in the professional theater, the playwright has the power to enforce fidelity to his script down to the letter. Screenwriters fantasize about a fraction of that level of power.)
And it’s quite possible that they actually knew the fact was wrong, but they figured the overwhelming majority of the audience wouldn’t know better. I sure wouldn’t know anything about Texas divorce law. (There are many other good reasons to hate that movie. :)) Most of the time, this is right. There are a handful of astrophysicists who cannot take Star Wars seriously because spaceships don’t make noise and can’t perform banking turns in a vacuum, but most people don’t know and/or don’t care. In this case, if the producers had moved the story to Texas, the writer(s) might have said, “Um, Texas law doesn’t work like that,” and the producers could have brushed them off.
I’ll agree that it’s a pretty stupid factual mistake to make, but I’ll fervently disagree that the blame can be laid at the writer’s doorstep. Rather, it’s probably a combination of the above factors.
Obvious, easily-avoidable plot holes are only forgivable if the movie in fact kicks ass anyway.
Example: The Blues Brothers. The entire premise is negated by the obvious “wait a minute…churches don’t pay taxes!” train of thought. But the movie rules.
Serving Sara is not granted this immunity.
Weren’t the Brothers Blue making a mortgage payment and not a tax payment? Just going from memory…