There’ve been plenty of threads here about things that take you out of a movie or TV show, such as continuity errors, anachronisms, over-used tropes, even hairstyles. What things that seem to bother other people DON’T bother you?
Here are some of mine:
“The film is set in the summer of 1962, but he’s driving a '63 Buick LeSabre, which didn’t come out until October of '62!!!”
I’m not a big car guy. As long as they get the general decade right, I’m happy.
“The cops were using Beretta 9mm 827-K’s, when EVERYONE knows the NYPD was issued the 827-J, and furthermore, in that one scene he was holding it as if he had a round in the chamber, but the fangdoodle widget was clearly in the second position so this was impossible!!!”
A gun is a gun. I couldn’t care less.
“They couldn’t possibly afford that apartment/house/lifestyle on a waitress/cab driver/reporter’s salary!”
You know what, they just can. That’s the reality of the show, and I just let it go.
I’m not trying to put other Dopers down. I get that if you’re intimately familiar with a subject, it’s annoying to see someone get it wrong. But what DON’T you care about in your entertainment?
If I enjoyed the movie story before learning “the true story”, I don’t care if its inaccurate. “The Sound of Music” is one of my favorite movies, and I don’t care they got the kids names wrong, timelines are condensed, and they didn’t hike over a mountain into Germany. I love the movie itself, and prefer the movie over history.
But if I know the true story first, I tend to really nitpick historical movies, no matter how entertaining. Like Gettysburg or The Patriot with Mel Gibson or Pearl Harbor.
They almost never show radio disc jockeys wearing headphones. In reality, you have to cut the studio speakers whenever the microphone is live, and headphones are necessary to hear what’s going out over the air. I spent nine years in radio so I know this intimately. Nevertheless, it doesn’t bother me.
Whenever there’s a phone call, the person on-screen never gives the person off-screen time to respond (excepting Bob Newhart.) That doesn’t bother me unless they spend two minutes recapping a 10-second phone call.
As a professor, romanticized notions of teaching turn me off. Yeah, there are moments of Inspiration in the Classroom, but few students are into standing on their desks and proclaiming Shakespeare. And few professors are manic-I’m-going-to-touch-your-heart-and-soul Robin Williams types – those who think they are tend to actually be weak teachers who rely on charisma and annoy students and fellow faculty.
I’m annoyed by detective/CSI shows where everyone is super duper attractive and sexxxy. I know a lot of LEOs and attorneys; taken as s whole they are at best average looking people.
Brit shows do well in casting average looking people in crime dramas. Brenda Blethyn (“Vera”) is mesmerizing to watch – wrinkles, warts, gray hair, overweight, and all. Spectacular looking 90 pound blonde detectives in American police procedural are uninteresting and unmemorable.
Anachronisms don’t bother me most of the time. I’ll note them and move on.
Errors in Geography bother me even less. Part of the fun of The Day After Tomorrow is realizing that for everything to work, Manhattan Island has to swivel 180 degrees. Similarly, the Robert Downey, Jr. Sherlock Holmes plays very fast and loose with the map of London. I noted the issue and sat back an enjoyed the film.
Sound in space still bugs me unless they’re doing at least SOME work to make it sound like the noise is being heard via vibration by a person in a suit or the like. Engines going whoosh or rumble without any human to explain how it’s heard drives me bugfuck.
On the other hand, I’m fine with whatever FTL, wormhole, or infinite improbability drive allows the story to move along without the weeks/months/centuries of actual travel the journeys postulated would actually take.
I count the number of shots in the infinite clips but it doesn’t really bother me.
Impractical outfits I don’t really pay attention to. Bring on all the gaudy and dumb looking superhero costumes.
Similarly long hair or beards on trained fighters. In real life long hair means an easy place for an opponent to grab you but I like the look of bearded badasses.
When a character somehow knows something despite not being told on-screen however he had the time and opportunity to have learned it off-screen. I’d rather that then having characters repeat stuff we already know.
Just a general thing – I accept that movies are as highly stylized as any art form – we just notice it les, because very often it gives a reasonable imitation of reality. So when a biopic combines people, eliminates characters, adds characters, re-arranges events and simplifies things in the interests of telling a story in reasonable amount of time, gaining audience sympathy, and minimizing confusion it doesn’t bother me as much as it once did.
This comes up because I’ve been writing a biographical section of a book about someone who had a biopic made of their life. My initial reaction was that the film was outrageously wrong. On second thought, they got an awful lot of accurate information in there. My last thought was that they could’ve done better – the real problem was that they really didn’t capture the force of will and drive that the character had. I could overlook a lot of the script’s minor sins in the name of making a watchable movie. There’s also a minor problem of the screenwriters too often taking a stupid way out of a situation or dilemma.
One general category: I don’t mind characters saying or doing stupid things. Like, in that one Firefly episode, where Jayne says that his favorite gun needs an atmosphere to fire, when it wouldn’t actually: That doesn’t mean that the show is wrong, or that Joss Whedon is wrong. It just means that Jayne is wrong, which is fine, because Jayne is an idiot.