# Movie contrivances that annoy. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 3, 2014, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-contrivances-that-annoy/689911 "2014-06-03T12:03:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Mann\_Slaughter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@Mann\_Slaughter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mann_Slaughter)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-contrivances-that-annoy/689911/221 "2014-07-24T17:59:59Z")
I’ve read the thread, but not sure if mine have been covered… 1. Groups of bad guys armed with semiautomatic weapons who must close to within arms reach of the hero before pulling the trigger. Of course this gives the hero the chance to display their awesome martial arts skills and disarm/disable the entire group. 2. Bad guy minions catch the hero but before one of them can dispatch him another says, “The boss wants him/her alive.” Me… :-/ ---
**Author:** ![Mann\_Slaughter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@Mann\_Slaughter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mann_Slaughter)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-contrivances-that-annoy/689911/222 "2014-07-24T18:05:33Z")
> [@Absinthe\_Anecdote](#): > > Excellent example and commentary. > > I hope you liked the ending scene, despite the tension and awkwardness of the moment. > > I thought it was realistic, the medic was being so professional and relying on her training, she probably wanted to comfort him on some level, but behaved almost robot like in some regards. Still, you could see some compassion leaking through, but it was definitely restrained on her part. > > Captain Phillips just wanted to **let loose and cry, and was barely holding it together**. > > It was very realistic. Bolding mine. I did that for him! I cried like a baby during this scene. All the tension that had built up through the course of the movie, and finally a release. Fantastic movie, but I felt that Tom Hanks should have been awarded the Oscar based on this scene alone. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-contrivances-that-annoy/689911/223 "2014-07-24T18:14:35Z")
> [@Absinthe\_Anecdote](#): > > I thought it was realistic, the medic was being so professional and relying on her training, she probably wanted to comfort him on some level, but behaved almost robot like in some regards. Still, you could see some compassion leaking through, but it was definitely restrained on her part. BTW, around the time Captain Phillips was released, I saw a story about the movie, perhaps on [CBS Sunday Morning](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-real-captain-phillips/). The medic in that scene was a real US Navy hospital corpsman. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-contrivances-that-annoy/689911/224 "2014-07-24T18:39:44Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Had a class on ducts as part of my HVAC class in college. Ducts start out huge because of the volume of air that must be moved to support a large office building/skyscraper. As air flows along a tube/pipe/duct, it is subject to pressure loss, such that the outlet pressure is lower than the inlet pressure. Couple this with having outlets along the duct to put air into rooms, which results in pressure falling in the ducts more. > > The solution is that the ducts periodically transition to smaller passages. So the giant tube and the giant fan narrows down as it flows along, branches off, etc, until the final end is a small shoe-box sized tube. > > Since all of this ductwork is interconnected, it has to be supported somehow, and if is run overhead, it will be suspended from the ceiling. But that much metal will add up to significant weight, such that 1 person or 2 people may be a small variance. > > That said, the ducts themselves may not be that sturdy. > > Amen. This looks like an interesting movie except for that premise being such an integrated element of the plot. At least when _Limitless_ used that line, it was spouted by a dumb character who didn’t really know anything, it was just his folk explanation and could be dismissed. But this seems to actually be the explanation and integral to the plot. > > Defibrillators stop the heart. The heart’s internal pacemaker then kicks in as the heart restarts. If the heart isn’t beating, then stopping the heart won’t cause the heart to start beating again. > > Many elevators do have a hatch in the roof, used by service crews. I’ve seen them on office buildings that have glass elevator shafts. You can see the roof from the outside and see the hatch. However, it may be covered on the interior by paneling and whatnot. Many may, but most, based on my observations, don’t (there usually isn’t paneling – you can see through to the metal). That said, I’m surprised to learn that here in Boston they actually rescued a guy from a stuck elevator using an overhead hatch. The guy was lucky in more ways than one, but one of those ways was having an elevator with a hatch. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-contrivances-that-annoy/689911/225 "2014-07-24T20:28:58Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > Thank you! Would that every thread were graced with a summary like this. I do appreciate that! 🙂 My categories are wholly subjective, of course (and others may want to put forward lists that they put together differently). But I do think there is some basic difference between a contrivance like “_solar ping sound in all submarine scenes_” and, say, the classic “_interruption after Character A says to Character B 'there’s something I have to tell you._…” In other words, some contrivances are there to make the plot work, and others are just ‘window dressing’ that filmmakers believe we expect. > [@BrotherCadfael](#): > > Before you get too far into this effort, you should know that [it’s been done](http://tvtropes.org). I’m curious: do you sincerely believe that a succinct list (mine or anyone else’s) is less useful than a site with thousands of pages and millions (billions?) of words? If so, what are your reasons for believing that there is less value in a succinct list? ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-contrivances-that-annoy/689911/226 "2014-07-24T21:35:04Z")
> [@Just\_Ed](#): > > How about the tired old trope of humans only using ten percent of their brains? I’m actually surprised Luc Besson is using this currently for [Lucy](http://youtu.be/MVt32qoyhi0) and even more surprised to hear Morgan Freeman spouting that nonsense (I guess _Through the Wormhole_ taught him nothing). I’d have thought they both would know better, and Besson especially should have been able to come up with a better reason for Lucy’s abilities. I might have been able to block it somehow and suspend disbelief if it was only mentioned in passing or something, but in the trailer Freeman bangs on about the whole percentage myth way too much. It makes a movie written and directed by Luc Besson and starring Scarlett Johnansson and Morgan Freeman sound ridiculous instead of awesome. > [@Irishman](#): > > Amen. This looks like an interesting movie except for that premise being such an integrated element of the plot. At least when _Limitless_ used that line, it was spouted by a dumb character who didn’t really know anything, it was just his folk explanation and could be dismissed. But this seems to actually be the explanation and integral to the plot. … I quote these posts (with which I agree wholeheartedly) to show–if it needs to be shown–that the “Lucy” ad campaign is, indeed, leaning very heavily on the “10%” myth to market the movie. Though the full trailer begins with backstory (which is not uncommon in longer-form trailers), the television commercials cut to the chase immediately by highlighting what the makers most want us to associate with this movie: the ‘10% of the brain’ aspect. > [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > You believe that Lucy is being sold on the back of some “Everyone Can Be Special!” marketing campaign because people respond to that because they want to believe they can be special. Again, I think this is dumb because… > Lucy’s specialness is nothing more than a riff on Captain America’s origin (knowing Luc Besson, this might even be intentional). > She does not become special through her own hard work and determination. She was dosed with some superhero drug. Which the trailer (that you yourself linked to) uses half of its running time to explain. You have misunderstood the plot of the film (as much as we can know what the plot is from a bunch of trailers), the intent of the marketing team, and possibly the director himself. > Have I about got it? Not even remotely. (Though I sincerely salute you for taking up the challenge to explain what you believe–wrongly, as it turns out–that I was saying.) You believe that my claim was that the character Lucy “become[s] special through her own hard work and determination.” You are mistaken in this belief: of course I made no such claim. What I was claiming follows this chain of reasoning. I’m going to lay it out in detail, in the hope of preventing further miscomprehension: 1. People are most likely to open their wallets to see movies they think they’ll enjoy. 2. Marketers, therefore, craft television and Internet commercials to highlight aspects of the movie they believe are likely to provide such enjoyment. Another way of putting this: ads are not created at random; what’s mentioned/shown first and often is the “hook” that marketers believe will intrigue people into buying tickets. 3. People enjoy movies featuring humans with powers superior to those found in real life. 4. The movies featuring superior-power humans that have done particularly well at the box office (and with ancillary sales of merchandise, games, etc.) have been those with ‘more identifiable’ superiority. Specifically: in recent years Batman and Iron Man have both sold exceptionally well. The common element of those characters: they use their brains and will (and money) to demonstrate their superiority. This is more “relatable,” to at least some extent, than “powers conferred by a green-clad alien” or “powers conferred by dosing with gamma rays” and the like. 5. Perhaps in response to the financial success of the “brains and will” superior-human stories, the makers of “Lucy” made the choice NOT to make ads that said “Lucy has been exposed to a mysterious drug and now has powers”…but instead to begin every television commercial (and probably every ad other than the long-form trailer viewable on YouTube) with the voice of Morgan Freeman talking about the “10%” myth (presented as Science in the movie, regrettably). 6. The reason that the marketers chose NOT to highlight the “exposed to a mysterious drug and now has powers” angle–which is an actual plot element, and so _could_ have been highlighted–is that they believe the 10% myth is more intriguing/more likely to sell tickets. 7. _Why_ do they believe that “Lucy is using more than 10% of her brain” is more intriguing and more likely to sell tickets than would be “Lucy was exposed to an unknown drug” (even though _both_ are actually part of the movie’s premise)? The answer to this is the basic claim that I was making: 8. People get enjoyment from believing that they have the _potential_ to be smarter and more powerful than they are. Because we enjoy believing this, we enjoy works of fiction (or nonfiction, for that matter) that tell us: \*Yes–you can be powerful. You have it in you! \* This is not a claim about “hard work,” but rather a claim that “the potential is inside you.” Citations abound in support of this claim I’m making. Look, for example, at the massively-lucrative ‘human potential movement’–it encompasses a huge variety of motivational speakers, book sellers, fire-walkers, seminar-givers, performers (such as Criss Angel), DVD-marketers, and on and on. Bottom line: people like to believe they can be more than they are now…and telling them it’s possible will intrigue them into handing over that ticket money. Some references: > **[Category:Human Potential Movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Human_Potential_Movement)** > > This category has the following 2 subcategories, out of 2 total. > The following 37 pages are in this category, out of 37 total. This list may not reflect recent changes. > **[Human Potential Movement](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Human_Potential_Movement)** > > The human-potential movement (HPM), a loosely-confederated conspiracy mixture of secular and religious woo, had a certain amount of popularity from the late 1960s to the early 1980s. It incorporated much of what was then fashionable in paranormal and... These discuss, at least briefly, the reasons that people enjoy believing the 10% myth: > **[Do People Only Use 10 Percent of Their Brains?](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-people-only-use-10-percent-of-their-brains/)** > > What's the matter with only exploiting a portion of our gray matter? > **[Nine Stubborn Brain Myths That Just Won't Die, Debunked by Science](https://lifehacker.com/nine-stubborn-brain-myths-that-just-wont-die-debunked-5867049)** > > Brain games will make you smarter! The internet is making you dumber! Alcohol is killing your brain cells! The brain is a mystery we've been trying to > **[Movies that perpetuate the "10% of our brains" myth. | Other Media](https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads%2Fmovies-that-perpetuate-the-10-of-our-brains-myth.565604%2F)** > > So if you've seen a movie recently, you may have seen a trailer for Limitless. If you heard an audible groan when it got to the part where the protagonist claims "people only use 20% of their brains", that was likely me. That "humans only use 10%... (There’s a lively discussion of movies featuring the myth in that last one.) ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-contrivances-that-annoy/689911/227 "2014-07-24T23:21:01Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > You believe that my claim was that the character Lucy “become[s] special through her own hard work and determination.” You are mistaken in this belief: of course I made no such claim. Oh really? I quote… > [@Sherrerd](#): > > To have Lucy’s powers of telekinesis et al. come from some sort of laboratory breakthrough or alien intervention or magical elf wouldn’t be as effective a ticket-seller, because those plot devices don’t flatter our ever-irrational egos. > > But to be told that if we’d just try a bit harder, _we, too_, could levitate busses—that fits in with what we (secretly or not so secretly) believe of ourselves. If I just started using more of what I already have, I could rule the world! And whatnot. Lucy’s powers are the result of a “laboratory breakthrough” and (from the trailers) her powers do not come from “[trying] a bit harder.” We can keep doing this, or you can just admit that you previously misunderstood the plot of the movie. It happens, it’s cool. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-contrivances-that-annoy/689911/228 "2014-07-24T23:31:00Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > Oh really? I quote… > > > [@](#): > > > > _But to be told that if we’d just try a bit harder, we, too, could levitate busses_ > > Lucy’s powers are the result of a “laboratory breakthrough” and (from the trailers) her powers do not come from “[trying] a bit harder.” We can keep doing this, or you can just admit that you previously misunderstood the plot of the movie. It happens, it’s cool. Somehow you are continuing to fail to understand that what you quoted from me is about the ‘potential inside each of us,’ which is what the “ten percent” myth refers to (and promises). That’s what the movie’s hook is. How might you be brought to this understanding? That is quite a conundrum. My best advice is that you re-read my last post, in which the reasoning is laid out in what _should_ be easy-to-follow steps. Beyond that, I throw up my hands. If you still can’t understand, and still want to try, then I believe this discussion must move to the Pit. But if you are content to remain ignorant, then we’ll bring this discussion to a close, here. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-contrivances-that-annoy/689911/229 "2014-07-25T00:49:17Z")
> [@burpo\_the\_wonder\_mutt](#): > > There is not a hospital in the known universe that would be allowed by its insurance company to permit Doogie Howser, et al, to perform operations. I never saw the show, though I’m familiar with its premise; you’re right, although I never thought about it before. Even if he wanted to go into private practice, he’d never get malpractice insurance. Was he an emancipated minor? in the real world, he’d need to be to sign contracts in order to be in the employ of a hospital, or to buy insurance-- that is, to sign the insurance contract. ---
**Author:** ![burpo\_the\_wonder\_mutt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/burpo_the_wonder_mutt/32/365_2.png) [@burpo\_the\_wonder\_mutt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/burpo_the_wonder_mutt)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-contrivances-that-annoy/689911/230 "2014-07-25T00:58:55Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > I never saw the show, though I’m familiar with its premise; you’re right, although I never thought about it before. Even if he wanted to go into private practice, he’d never get malpractice insurance. **Was he an emancipated minor?** in the real world, he’d need to be to sign contracts in order to be in the employ of a hospital, or to buy insurance-- that is, to sign the insurance contract. Bolding mine. Nope, Doogie lived at home with Mom & Dad. Even if he had been able to get insurance and secure a hospital job, what patient would allow him to work on them? Not me. The cynic in me is also sure House would never work in a hospital. Or anywhere else. Status Quo is the norm all over and I can’t imagine anyone putting up with his crap no matter how talented he may be. Excuse the de-rail into TV land. ---
**Author:** ![buddha\_david](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee7513/32.png) [@buddha\_david](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddha_david)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-contrivances-that-annoy/689911/231 "2014-07-25T04:45:32Z")
> [@Just\_Ed](#): > > How about the tired old trope of humans only using ten percent of their brains? Actually, most people on earth use only three percent of their brain; [three to five percent,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQmJl1CQx2o) to be precise. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![OffByOne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/45deac/32.png) [@OffByOne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OffByOne)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-contrivances-that-annoy/689911/232 "2014-07-25T09:31:59Z")
Here is one that I have not seen mentioned: Bad Guy has gotten the drop on Good Guy with a gun. Good Guy says, “You can’t shoot me! At least, not until you take the safety off first!” Bad Guy looks at the gun and, while distracted, Good Guy socks Bad Guy in the jaw and wrestles the gun away. Or: Bad Guy continues to cover Good Guy with the gun and says, “If that were the case, you’d have already socked me in the jaw and wrestled the gun away.” Bang! ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-contrivances-that-annoy/689911/233 "2014-07-25T09:50:24Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > Parent bundling child into car ALWAYS says, “We’re going to be late!” Sometimes, for a change of pace, “We’re late!” > > Person (usually a woman) searching frantically for a ringing cell phone. They were stalking my house when they invented those ones… ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-contrivances-that-annoy/689911/234 "2014-07-25T11:44:35Z")
Sherrerd, just so you know, about 15 years ago Roger Ebert put together a list of about thirty common and absurd film contrivances, rather like yours – it’s reprinted in several of his books. Some overlap with your list, but not a lot. Roger included a few that are really just in one movie, like “how did Rambo place the last bit of mud on his body before emerging from that muddy riverbank to kill that dude?” As you alluded to, the nice thing about your list is how you came up with distinct categories. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-contrivances-that-annoy/689911/235 "2014-07-25T21:29:25Z")
> [@OffByOne](#): > > Here is one that I have not seen mentioned: > > Bad Guy has gotten the drop on Good Guy with a gun. Good Guy says, “You can’t shoot me! At least, not until you take the safety off first!” Bad Guy looks at the gun and, while distracted, Good Guy socks Bad Guy in the jaw and wrestles the gun away. > > Or: Bad Guy continues to cover Good Guy with the gun and says, “If that were the case, you’d have already socked me in the jaw and wrestled the gun away.” Bang! This is one of the reasons good shooters learn to thumb the safety on or off by feel, without having to look at it. Of course, sure, this might work against dumb-as-a-puppy chubby middle-aged homeowner who is holding a gun on someone for the first time in his life. Member of SEAL-Team Lambda? Ha ha! ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2014, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-contrivances-that-annoy/689911/236 "2014-07-26T00:25:00Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > Sherrerd, just so you know, about 15 years ago Roger Ebert put together a list of about thirty common and absurd film contrivances, rather like yours – it’s reprinted in several of his books. Some overlap with your list, but not a lot. Roger included a few that are really just in one movie, like “how did Rambo place the last bit of mud on his body before emerging from that muddy riverbank to kill that dude?” > As you alluded to, the nice thing about your list is how you came up with distinct categories. Cool! I’ll look for Roger’s list. He was always good at seeing behind the surface–he and Gene Siskel made a deserved splash with their highlighting of the “camera IS the stalker” element of slasher movies. That sort of thing hadn’t been much commented on in the mass culture, before their choice to focus on it. I do need to get past page four of our thread…people posting here have come up with a huge number of contrivances. …If we’re doing television, too (as seems to be the case from recent posts)—how about the way that police procedurals awkwardly and mechanically get rid of witnesses, in scenes in which the detectives have come to question them? It’s often something like this; the detectives are at Mr. Doe’s place of business, and Mr. Doe has just spilled his guts about the suspect (or whatever): DETECTIVE A: Thanks for that information, Mr. Doe. MR. DOE: You’re welcome. Oops, there’s the phone–I’d better go answer that. [He walks away from Detectives A and B.] DETECTIVE B: So our suspect is still in play–since he gets his Brazilian wax at Salon Suspiciando. I hadn’t been sure about him before. DETECTIVE A: You’re right: this makes him look really good for it. So our next stop has to be the salon. All this is because it would be unnatural for the detectives to talk their shop talk right in front of the witness—but to have them discuss their next move in a different setting, without the witness present, would mean an expensive additional scene to set up. So Mr. Doe has to be given some excuse to walk away. And the number of plausible excuses the writers of these procedurals can come up with, for the witness to conveniently exit the scene, is necessarily limited–leading to an annoying number of witnesses who ‘have to go over and take that phone call’ (etc.). ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2014, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-contrivances-that-annoy/689911/237 "2014-07-26T20:23:20Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > All this is because it would be unnatural for the detectives to talk their shop talk right in front of the witness—but to have them discuss their next move in a different setting, without the witness present, would mean an expensive additional scene to set up. At least they try. I still see shows where they don’t even take that step, and the cops freely discuss shop right in front of witnesses. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-contrivances-that-annoy/689911/238 "2014-07-26T20:32:39Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > At least they try. I still see shows where they don’t even take that step, and the cops freely discuss shop right in front of witnesses. Yeah, that’s definitely a contrivance that can take a viewer right out of the story (as in ‘that would _never_ happen in real life’). Of course a police-detectives show that truly reflected real life would include a lot more dull sitting-at-the-desk-scrolling-through-search-results, and the like. So we just have to accept a certain level of unreality, to get a watchable story. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2014, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-contrivances-that-annoy/689911/239 "2014-07-28T04:02:27Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > We never did spot the guy though. Apparently you can’t enhance around corners or magnify the reflection in a doorknob. Sure you can if you have [the right software](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp77AjBdlEc). ---
**Author:** ![Lok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e8c25b/32.png) [@Lok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lok)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2014, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-contrivances-that-annoy/689911/240 "2014-07-28T04:53:19Z")
> [@Just\_Ed](#): > > How about the tired old trope of humans only using ten percent of their brains? I’m actually surprised Luc Besson is using this currently for [Lucy](http://youtu.be/MVt32qoyhi0) and even more surprised to hear Morgan Freeman spouting that nonsense (I guess _Through the Wormhole_ taught him nothing). And why do you blame Morgan Freeman for speaking the lines in the movie he is being paid for speaking? Do you think he should have insisted they rewrite the entire movie so he wouldn’t have to speak things he didn’t agree with? > [@Sherrerd](#): > > Of course a police-detectives show that truly reflected real life would include a lot more dull sitting-at-the-desk-scrolling-through-search-results, and the like. So we just have to accept a certain level of unreality, to get a watchable story. Most realistic police show ever on TV. Barney Miller. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-contrivances-that-annoy/689911.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-contrivances-that-annoy/689911.md?page=13)