Conversely, whenever two actors share an elevator car, they almost always stand shoulder to shoulder and stare straight ahead … even if they’re having a conversation.
I’ve never stood shoulder to shoulder with anyone in an elevator … unless I was in it with 20 other people.
I don’t like this, but I’m also bothered by how much movement there usually is on the steering wheel too. Look, he’s supposed to be driving straight, but you have him moving the wheel a little bit constantly. He ought to be driving erratically, and possibly running over pedestrians, but the scenery makes it appear as though he were driving safely.
Actually, in my opinion conspicuously *not *driving when the character is supposed to be driving makes the point of the scene the not-driving, especially when it’s really blatant. If they actually, obviously drove then I wouldn’t be thinking “this scene was poorly done- we’re supposed to believe he’s driving but he’s obviously not… now what were they talking about?”
Yes, and I also notice the lack of headrests when there’s somebody in the back seat.
Huh?
I recently did see a movie or TV show which actually did have a rear-view mirror*. I was surprised by it – but only, I suspect, because I notice such things. Contrary to what is always asserted, I didn’t find it distracting.
*I can’t recall which one, at the moment.
Serious Whoosh
The purpose of any scene in the car is not to be a driver’s ed film on the correct way to drive. It’s to tell the story and advance the plot. It is part of something known as “fiction.”
If you want accuracy, watch a driver’s ed film. If you can’t handle fiction, then don’t blame actors, writers, and directors who put the story first.
I always stand next to someone if I’m talking to them in the elevator. Are you saying you stand facing them? Then someone is backwards towards the door.
How about each with their backs to the side of an elevator? So your side is to the door.
But mostly the way I stand in an empty elevator is lounge in the corner, leaning on the two walls.
And it’s stupid and kinda mean to go “If you can’t handle fiction”…Come on. I read/write/watch fiction constantly and can suspend my disbelief pretty darn high. This is just one of the things that sticks in my craw constantly.
But there are probably a million other similar conventions that you accept and don’t notice. That’s the way movies work. Some people do catch some devices but others don’t. If you took them all away you wouldn’t have anything left.
You can always complain about them, but you really need to understand why they’re done the way they are. The OP blamed the screen writers! If you’re that clueless about the way movies work you’ve forfeited your right to complain.
And the fact that the biggest, stupidest, most nonsense-filled films make the most money are also a problem for complainers. It’s possible that nobody in this thread who’s complaining ever goes to see those pictures, the ones that are destroying intelligent adult moviemaking, but it’s unlikely. The threads that pop up lavishing praise on every blockbuster tell me that people love stupidity and phoniness in their movies. We’ve had many threads about the silliness of movie conventions. Roger Ebert got a whole book out of them. The TV Tropes site got a whole website out of them. They’re legion. I’m not denying their existence.
But giving me a clear shot of the actors in a car ranks about 1,698,993 on my list of problems. And at least I understand enough about moviemaking to know why it’s done and how ridiculous realism would be in this case.
You’re hip to my jive.
On one of the shows I worked on the car did have a rear view mirror, but it was glued higher up than in real life. The back seat was set up higher than in real life (if it had been a reel car, everyone would have looked like they were sitting on booster seats), and the head rests were replaced with much lower fake ones.
No, Cal, I wasn’t whooshed. I was trying to pay homage to Burns and Schreiber’s taxicab routine, but I guess I was too vague.
“They laughed at Burns and Schreiber, too. Ya know what I mean?”
“Yeah.”
“Huh?”
“Yeah.”
“Huh?”
“Yeah.”
“Huh?”
“Laughed.”
While I’m not hugely bothered by this, I do think it can be varying degrees of annoying. It really depends on the circumstances. If I find myself irritated by such things, it’s probably a sign that the rest of the movie / tv show isn’t captivating me enough to let me fall into the fictional universe. It is sloppy directing and there’s really no reason not to be more accurate. Enough movies get it right that this approximation of realism is obviously not some impossible high standard.
I also find the holier/artsier-than-thou “It’s FICTION idiots!” replies to be, well, kind of over-defensive and protective. Just because a movie or TV show is fiction doesn’t mean we can’t expect some nods to believable human behavior. Obviously some find it less bothersome than others, but there’s no need to get huffy. RealityChuck found Tron absurd and cheesy, but I don’t see anyone in that Tron 2.0 thread sniffing “IT WAS FICTION!” or bitching at you for not being able to excuse said cheesiness.
As to the complaint? Frankly this is how my sister drives. She cannot have a conversation without looking at the person beside her, and it drives me freakin’ nuts. When I’m in the front seat with her, I consciously don’t look at her and stare at the road in front of us, hoping desperately she’ll get the point and stop trying to look at me (or maybe just hoping that I’ll see whatever danger she’s blithely ignoring in time to yell a warning / slam on the brakes for her).
Ah, I see.
Second order Whoosh.
I think that would be a meta-whoosh.
In Police Squad when Drebbin was driving in Little Italy of his town they showed the Leaning Tower of Pisa (I think) in the background. Same guys, of course. In this case I don’t mind if the characters talk and not look.
This bugs me too. My only consolation is that 25% of the time this leads to a dramatic accident. I also hate the considerable lack of seatbelt wearing.
This bothers me as well. And it’s not a matter of the scene not being “realistic” enough (oh please with the “don’t be such purists” commentary), it’s that my brain starts saying “hey you, turn your head back…HEY YOU!..YOU AT THE WHEEL, LOOK AT THE FREAKING ROAD YOU IDIOT!”
More of an automatic reaction than anything analytical.
Certainly. Directors and actors are both aware of this, too – it’s their business to convey and elicit reactions, so they’re perfectly aware of the reaction this unwarranted lack of attention in a potentially dangerous situation elicits from you. Which makes all those complaints about us being too literal pretty much irrelevant.
Someimes they just want to be able to hold a look for a period, but it’s also pretty evident to me that the director is unable to resist the dramatic tension he or she can get from the simple act of not having the actor paying proper attention to the road*. If it’s warranted, I have no problem with it, but too often it’s just a cheap way to grab and hold on to the audience’s attention and concern.\