In action films, the leading female character will (when first appearing in the film) get the drop on the lead male character - proving herself to be faster, stronger or more capable than the main (male) character. Nevertheless, in the finale she will cringe helplessly in the corner, a hostage of the bad guy, while the male character fights to save her. (ex: Kevin Costner’s “Robin Hood”)
The female character will originally despise the male character’s “misogynist macho postering” at the start of the movie. She will, by the end of the film, be hopelessly in love with “the virile, rugged warrior.” (They are of course the same man.)
Just prior to the point in an action movie when the hero / heroine launches into an ultraviolent assault on some otherwise innocent bystander, the said-bystander will be shown performing a despicable act. Ex: “Terminator 2” - When Linda Hamilton escapes from the mental hospital, she mercilessly pummels a hapless atendent with a broom handle. This is considered entirely excusable because in the scene prior to the beating, the same attendant was shown licking Hamilton’s face while she was (supposedly) helplessly restrained.
After losing their beloveds, long-haired females sometimes demonstrate their grief by savagely hacking at their locks with a pair of cloth scissors or a dull-edged knife. The result will always be a fashionable bob cut that RL women must spend hundreds of dollars in a salon to get. (ex: the English Patient)
When anyone dials a telephone, they NEVER get a wrong number or a busy signal. They may get a phone that rings and rings and rings, or an answering machine, but NEVER a wrong number or a busy signal.
During ANY martial arts movie, the Martial Arts Hero will always face off with the most loudmouth of a group of antagonist.
As fisticuffs begin between these two the other 15 antagonists must form a circle around the combatants and only approach the MAH after he has disposed of the original antagonist.
At this point they are free to approach MAH and get their butts kicked ONE AT A TIME untill the whole group is lieng scattered all over the street or alley.
At this point the ORIGINAL antagonist MUST revive himself from a comatose state and approach the beaten up and weary MAH only to get his ass kicked again.
He WILL however survive and be featured in the final and deciding fight to the death for the finish of the film.
Any white collar worker shown talking on a cell phone will be an insufferable jerk and/or a soulless automaton.
If that person is the main character, they will cease to be an insufferable jerk and/or regain their soul as soon as the cell phone is taken away from them. Usually by a happy, unemployed free thinking member of the opposite sex.
“Keeping the Faith” is the only movie I can think of off the top of my head where a cell phone using executive (Jenna Elfman) was actually a normal person.
Now you have me wondering. I was certain that I’ve seen this device used more than once on TV or in the movies, but it’s possible that it’s actually just a real-life cliche. I would wager that anyone who has not seen Chinatown will still recognize the ploy. I wish I could recall where else I’ve seen it done.
I thought intially of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade before remembering it was the reverse, a loud noise making a small act somewhere else seem much louder.
Never saw it, but I heard about a fan-written Star Trek play at an SF convention: Kirk assembles a team to beam down to a newly discovered planet, and a red-shirted security officer is dragged through the corridors to the transporter room, screaming, “No, not me! I’m too young to die!” Later, Kirk, from the planet’s surface, calls Scott on the communicator:
KIRK: Five to beam up, Scotty!
SCOTT (INCREDULOUS): Ye only lost ONE security officer, captain?!
Movie cliches are not always wrong, Rik… And it is a plain and obvious fact that nowadays, Christianity is more often a force for evil than the contrary.
If the chief of police is talking with his detectives and his/her phone rings - it’s always about the exact case he was just discussing with the detectives. (this has happened in about 330 odd episodes of “Law and Order”)
In Disaster/ Alien invasion movies, if the family has a dog, it will survive, often reapprearing wihtout explanation at the very end.
Similar rules apply to homosexuals, who are flamboyantly camp, yet curiously asexual. Seldom having relationships of their own {and never having visibly sexual ones}, and seemingly able to maintain fabulous lifestyles without recourse to sordid employment, they always have ample free time to mince about the heroine’s apartment {or hero’s flat, if it’s a Hugh Grant movie} playing Judy Garland songs, criticising the decor, and offering relationship salvation for hapless straights who can’t sort out their own love lives.
That would be your opinion, but like anything else you pulled out of your ass it smells and looks like crap. And if you want to discuss this or any other portion of the crap you pulled out of your ass, please refrain from stinking up Cafe Society with it and take it to the Pit.
DING! DING! DING! ::: Moderator rings bell to attract attention ::::
OK, first:
RikWriter, this kind of language is inappropriate for Cafe Society, and you damn well know it. If you feel that another poster is misbehaving, your proper response is to hit the REPORT BAD POST button (the little exclamation point in the red triangle in the upper right corner of each post.) Let the Moderator handle it, do NOT respond in kind. That’s why we have Moderators. Consider yourself slapped about the head with a dead fish.
Second, BrainGlutton, your comments about Christianity are out of place in this thread. Take it to the Pit or to Great Debates forum. This thread is about movie cliches. If you want to say that the church has become a movie cliche for evil, that’s fine, but as soon as you try to tie that to reality, you’re behavior is inappropriate for this thread or this forum.
And you know better. Consider that I have dropped a twenty pound weight on your foot, from a significant height, doing damage to your great toe.
Please, folks, when the teacher comes out to the playground and finds two children fighting, both of them get punished. I have neither the time nor inclination to track back to where a fight started or who was responsible – in this case, both parties are responsible for escalation. Rik, if you had just hit REPORT BAD POST, then there would have been only one miscreant. Let the rest of you take note, please.
If a young character is played up as a slacker, indifferent, directionless, a disappointment to his/her parents, etc., we know that at some point in the film, the character will go through a life-changing experience that will teach him/her the value of hard work, having a purpose, and/or acting to help others. E.g., Maid to Order, Don’t Tell Mom the Babysitter’s Dead, Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle. Even Rebel Without a Cause had an element of redemption in the tragic ending. Exception: Idle Hands, where the slacker remains a slacker at the end, so far as we can tell – but at least he’s shown a bit of heroism in the course of the story. Just once I like to see a movie that sends the unambiguous message that it’s all right to be a slacker.
If a woman claims a man raped her and he denies it, or claims the sex was consensual – he raped her. Always. (It’s probably the same with most such cases IRL, but just once I’d like it to turn out to be a case of Potiphar’s wife – that happens IRL too.)
It’s not a movie, but Law & Order: SVU has sometimes dealt with false rape accusations or cases where a corpse was mistakenly taken to be the victim of a rape/murder but had in fact engaged in consensual sex shortly before being killed.
Another one I forgot about. In a horror/SF film, anyone approaching what seems to be the corpse of a creature suspended in a vat of some fluid will get very close to examine it, at which point said creature will suddenly turn out to be alive.
Actually, that scene was the first that occurred to me after reading the OP, and I really believe it’s a counterinstance. I mean, Ron Shelton obviously needed to have Crash Davis doing something during that scene, or it’d have been way too static. The ironing bit gives him a reason (excuse) to be standing around in his skivvies when Annie bursts in. But one of the most important ideas in this movie is that Crash really is a grownup deeply involved with a child’s game, unlike most of the other members of the Bulls, who really are still children in many ways. Is there any other member of the Bulls that you can imagine bothering to iron their shirts? Crash takes the time and invests the energy to try to do things the right way, whether it’s on a baseball field or off. Even Annie, who’s the closest to Crash in maturity of all the other characters, still has to grow up to some degree in order to bring the movie to its conclusion.
