|
Okay, so this is really dorky, but it never fails to drive me nuts. The world was conquered on the backs of ponies. Not horses, ponies. And before you say that there isn't that big of a difference, there really is. Ponies are stronger, faster, hardier and better jumpers pound for pound, they eat far less, they live far longer, and are generally smarter. Horses, on the other hand, are big weenie princesses that require a lot of care, a lot of food and a lot more thought in general. The Mongols rode ponies, Native Americans rode ponies, badass celtic warriors rode ponies, they all used the type of equine that's the toughest and will last the longest. And yet in every drat movie you see the heroes riding these huge, exquisitely groomed horses with long flowing manes and tails. You never see any brush or in those luxurious locks, you never see any battle scars, and they're all fat and sleek. It's just not realistic. And it kills me to see a movie that's been exquisitly researched, only to see the common every day soldiers on horses that would have died 2 weeks into a campaign.
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
Ok, irrational irritation ahead... When a movie is based on a true event or events, and there's ample pictures or evidence about those events, it annoys me to no end when the people making the movie ignore the simple things. In James Cameron's Titanic, he had access to everything fans of the great doomed vessel have; pictures, transcripts, Ballard's findings, all of it. He also had access to things a Titanic fan would give her left arm for - he went there. So why didn't he take the five minutes it would have taken to get the floor tile patterns right? Each section of the ship had a different and distinctive pattern - and we know these patterns because that's one of the ways the explorers are mapping what came from which part of the ship in the debris field. Every single time they show a floor in the movie, it's either a generic white with blue diamond tile pattern or a wooden deck. The Titanic had linoleum - it was new and exciting then, and it was showcased through the boat. Not once did he bother to match the patterns. The smoking room had Persian carpets - in the movie it's a wood floor. He re-created the grand staircase down to the carved wood filigree bannisters but he put the wrong floor pattern in it. I guess it's a little thing, but he put so much real history in it, it really bugged me to keep seeing the wrong floor patterns. And my other peeve is From Hell... I realize it was based on a graphic novel. I realize Jack the Ripper was never even close to caught. I realize all the witnesses, places and evidence are no longer around, but... the Hughes Brothers came to Casebook: Jack the Ripper several times, asked questions, participated in the chats, even (I think) came to one of the Rippercons in Baltimore before they made the movie. And they still completely screwed up the physical layout of most of Whitechapel, from having Dorset Street run north-south instead of East-West to putting Mary Kelly's bed in completely the wrong corner of the room. This sounds really nit-picky now, but really, it had nothing to do with the plot or anything. Couldn't they get it right? tl;dr Merricat sperges about things that nobody else cares about...
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 21:29
|
|
|
patb01 posted:Edit: Pagan Thanks I did not know that actually. Much appreciated for the information. Clavietika has a new favorite as of 21:39 on Sep 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
Clavietika posted:That's my point though, the act was pretty moot so why keep it in the movie at all? It doesn't really make me like the guy more, because it didn't really make much of a difference in getting the girl to safety faster, and it's not like that's a painless, humane euthanization for the horse. I just think that they should have left it out, let the horse collapse out of exhaustion instead. The people who know horses would know it's dead, but some people can be left blissfully ignorant I guess. To me it was just lovely and unnecessary, but maybe I'm just sensitive to things like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 22:03
|
|
|
I get annoyed when films try to give the impression that they're based on realistic science, but then just make poo poo up because the real science is inconvenient. Even when it's some sci-fi/fantasy movie, it can be annoying when they get something completely wrong because the plot wouldn't work otherwise. For example, Mimic. All about cockroaches somehow becoming gigantic and intelligent and taking on the appearance of humans. Giant insects? Fine, I can go along with that. But the token scientist "explained" it by stating that evolution causes creatures to look like their predators, so of course the cockroaches are going to end up looking like people. I'd rather they didn't even try to explain something if they're going to something like that out of the air. Many alien-invasion films are guilty of bad science as well.  Greetings, puny Earth-humans. We have travelled a million light-years from Betelgeuse, to kill you and steal your DNA. What? A million light-years is half-way to the next galaxy. Did you get lost? And how can your DNA possibly be compatible with ours, assuming you even have DNA? And why kill us? You can have all the DNA you want from a hairdresser's floor-sweepings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
Stoatbringer posted:Many alien-invasion films are guilty of bad science as well. I watched a Discovery Channel documentary about alien invasions recently, and it really got me thinking: Why would aliens want to invade our planet anyway? Okay, maybe because we're on a rock that's not too hot or too cold (assuming they have the same tolerances to them are we do) but other than that, what do we have? It can't be fuel or any resources, as we barely have enough for ourselves and the furthest we've managed to travel is the moon. We're talking about creatures who can send massive fleets over many light years of distance. Combined with whatever resistance we could muster, even if a little, they probably wouldn't obtain enough resources to make the stop at our solar system worth it. If aliens were going to land on any of our planets, they'd do better with our gas giant moons. Or even asteroids. Cowboys and Aliens is a good example of this. The aliens in that movie land on Earth to take our gold that powers their ships, despite the fact they'd find way more of that stuff in our asteroids. The amount they'd find on the entire earth would be smaller than several Olympic sized swimming pools. We wouldn't be worth the trouble.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
patb01 posted:As for what bugs me Inglorious Bastards The big plan to wipe out the Nazi leadership, I saw Hitler, Goering, Speer, Goebbels, Bormann, but no Himmler. If the plan was to totally decapitate Nazi leadership he seemed like a big dude to miss and if Himmler went from reichsfurher SS to furher that would make things worse because he was less of a micromanager and he might have been able to push back the Normandy landings The final scenes in Basterds took place after the Normandy landings. When Hitler is making his decision to attend the movie premiere, he says something about the Americans being on the beaches. For my irrational gripe, I'm not going to spoiler because it's a lovely movie that I don't expect anyone here to care about, but when I saw Couples Retreat, I was dying on the inside during the Guitar Hero scene. "Lonely is the Night" by Billy Squier is an exceptionally easy song to play, even on expert. It's a simple riff, and both characters are strumming like they're playing the second part of the Fire and Flames intro. They'd fail the song by the end of the first verse playing like that. Then they get to the solo where the antagonist says "The second solo is what separates the men from the boys." I guess relative the riff and chorus, it's kinda tough, but it's just a couple quick tapping parts. Again, the characters are acting like they're playing Dyer's Eve or something. How can you pretend to be good at Guitar Hero and not be able to loving tap a loving Billy Squier song???
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 23:06
|
|
|
I can't stand the bad guy giving away his plans. He's a supervillian with an IQ of 190 who has created a scheme over the course of decades that's about to come to fruition in ten minutes. Luckily, these 10 minutes give him and his hubris a chance to explain where the big red ABORT button is located. I loved the end of Watchmen "Do you seriously think I'd explain my master-stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting its outcome? I did it thirty-five minutes ago.Der Luftwaffle posted:In the same way, it really gets me now that I can reliably recognize which movies are using the most over-used stock gun and explosion noises. It's simultaneously hilarious and mood-shattering when I'm listening to an epic gunfight with sounds from the first Command and Conquer game. Allen Gamble: I can't hear! I can't hear! There's blood blisters on my hands! Oh, my God! How do you walk away in a movie without flinching when it explodes behind them? There's no way! I call bullshit on that! When they flew the Millennium Falcon outside of the Death Star, and it was followed by the explosion, that was bullshit! Terry Hoitz: Don't you dare badmouth Star Wars! That was all accurate! But in the same movie, some of the guns sound like "pew pew pew." The only part I can think of right now is the opening with the gangsters in the Escalade. There's a gangster in the back spraying with a machine gun and its sounds like a spoon getting rubbed on a washboard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 23:07
|
|
|
Silence of the Lambs: Even the most incompetent of EMTs would have noticed Hannibal was wearing someone else's face. And he's able to slowly sit up without either EMT in the back of the ambulance noticing until he attacks them? No...and how can he attack them? Again, even a bad EMT will have him strapped to the gurney.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
There's a scene in Spiderman 2 where Peter Parker is having a lunch at a bistro with Mary Jane when his Spider sense goes off and he does this absurd Matrix twist thing to avoid a full size car that was thrown at him by Doctor Octopus. Doc Oc then commands Parker to reveal the identity/location of Spider man or something like that and then stomps off into the city. If Peter Parker wasn't Spiderman then that car would have flattened them both, and if he wanted to talk to Parker then why would he throw a loving car at him???
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 23:44
|
|
|
I absolutely hate shoehorned in happy endings that don't fit the film. In particular, Rent. Normally I hate musicals, which I refer to as the anime of the stage, with a passion that comes with being the kind of guy who pays  to post on the internet. The film was all about how these bohemian artists and LGBT dudes come together and learn to deal with the consequences of their lifestyles through love and friendship. At the end of the film, one character dies of Aids, a pretty well-handled scene that brings the film to a pleasant end.Then she comes back to life because they sung about how much they love her. Never mind that it goes completely against the themes of what was a half-decent rock opera that was realistic enough. Just go against everything the film was about because it had to have a happy ending. And don't get me started on I Am Legend.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 23:45
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Iron Man What bugs me even more is a prior scene, when Stark is testing his fly-boots. He has no armor on at all, sets the boots to "thrust level 10" thinking that's sufficiently low, and promptly smacks himself into a wall at what looks like about 30-40 mph. How in the gently caress can he not have broken bones after that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
Psalmanazar posted:I absolutely hate shoehorned in happy endings that don't fit the film. In particular, Rent. Normally I hate musicals, which I refer to as the anime of the stage, with a passion that comes with being the kind of guy who pays I took the ending of Rent as a memory of happier times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 23:57
|
|
|
I just watched this movie and I am pretty sure the entire thing has irritated me. The Vanishing on 7th St. What point was this movie trying to make, because it was definitely trying to make one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 00:40
|
|
|
A couple things that bother me about movies in general is that gunshots are way quieter than they would be in reality. If you have someone firing a pistol, let alone a shotgun or AR-style weapon, the report inside a structure is going to be exceedingly loud, to the point where most people would probably drop their weapon and cover their ears. The only movie I can recall off the top of my head that accurately portrays weapon noise is Heat, specifically the big shootout. That being said, none of the characters are wearing ear protection and would at best be yelling "WHAT" at each other for a while afterward. Pointless, as making guns realistically loud would make a movie uncomfortable to watch, but still annoying. Also, whenever someone has a Glock-style (striker-fired) pistol on-screen, it always makes the sound that something hammer-fired would, like cocking a single-action pistol. Glocks don't do that, except for the first time the slide is racked to chamber a round. And if you weren't carrying loaded, why did you draw it in the first place?!? co199 has a new favorite as of 00:46 on Sep 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 00:42
|
|
|
co199 posted:The only movie I can recall off the top of my head that accurately portrays weapon noise is Heat, specifically the big shootout. That being said, none of the characters are wearing ear protection and would at best be yelling "WHAT" at each other for a while afterward. That shootout in Heat is incredible. It's a great example of how keeping things realistic can still make it cool. That's an irritation I have with a lot of movies : X is cool enough, why'd you have to fake it? co199 posted:Also, whenever someone has a Glock-style (striker-fired) pistol on-screen, it always makes the sound that something hammer-fired would, like cocking a 1911-style pistol. Glocks don't do that, except for the first time the slide is racked to chamber a round. And if you weren't carrying loaded, why did you draw it in the first place?!? Or people cocking guns in general. Racking a shotgun is the worst thing. It means they didn't have it loaded and ready to shoot in the first place! Why would you menace and threaten someone with what is essentially an unloaded gun?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 00:46
|
|
|
This might be a bit meta (I believe that's the right use of the word. :shobon) for this thread, but it irritates me when people refer to movie characters by their actor's name. Like, if two people were talking about A View To A Kill, and one said " Then Christopher Walken says 'To a KILL!'"Well yes he did technically say that. But Christopher Walken isn't Max Zorin, Max Zorin is a character who 'actually' said that. 
Cuntellectual has a new favorite as of 00:51 on Sep 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 00:49
|
|
|
Derringer posted:I just watched this movie and I am pretty sure the entire thing has irritated me. That's the one with the shadows, right? It confused me too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 00:49
|
|
|
Pagan posted:Or people cocking guns in general. Racking a shotgun is the worst thing. It means they didn't have it loaded and ready to shoot in the first place! Why would you menace and threaten someone with what is essentially an unloaded gun? I mean I can see if it was a battlefield pickup (tap, rack, bang) but for god's sake Hicks, you have the shotgun on your backpack, racking the slide and saying "I like to keep this for close encounters" is just wasting ammo! (It is badass though.) 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 00:52
|
|
|
co199 posted:I mean I can see if it was a battlefield pickup (tap, rack, bang) but for god's sake Hicks, you have the shotgun on your backpack, racking the slide and saying "I like to keep this for close encounters" is just wasting ammo! (It is badass though.) I can see someone carrying their sidearm without a round in the chamber, uncocked. I consider the shotty to be a sidearm in that scene. When I conceal carry, I normally carry without a round in the chamber, un-cocked. However, if I was expecting trouble, or waving my gun in someone's face, or about to enter a standoff of some sort, that would be different.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 00:56
|
|
|
co199 posted:A couple things that bother me about movies in general is that gunshots are way quieter than they would be in reality. If you have someone firing a pistol, let alone a shotgun or AR-style weapon, the report inside a structure is going to be exceedingly loud, to the point where most people would probably drop their weapon and cover their ears. Black Hawk Down addressed the noise of gunfire as well. Actually, so did National Lampoon's Vacation Oh, and if you appreciated the gunfight from Heat, it's worth checking out the relatively recent release of The Town. They did a pretty good (not perfect) job with both sound effects and realism in how guns work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 00:57
|
|
|
Pagan posted:I can see someone carrying their sidearm without a round in the chamber, uncocked. I consider the shotty to be a sidearm in that scene. And that's what bugs me. Everyone in these movies is expecting to get into a shootout! Eclipse12 posted:Oh, and if you appreciated the gunfight from Heat, it's worth checking out the relatively recent release of The Town. They did a pretty good (not perfect) job with both sound effects and realism in how guns work. Yes, The Town did have some decent gunplay in it. It was a fun game of "spot the cool gun" towards the end, too. co199 has a new favorite as of 01:04 on Sep 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 01:01
|
|
|
Pagan posted:That shootout in Heat is incredible. It's a great example of how keeping things realistic can still make it cool. That's an irritation I have with a lot of movies : X is cool enough, why'd you have to fake it? quote:Or people cocking guns in general. Racking a shotgun is the worst thing. It means they didn't have it loaded and ready to shoot in the first place! Why would you menace and threaten someone with what is essentially an unloaded gun? Guy 1:"This looks like the end" *cocks pistol* Guy 2:"Oh yeah?" *pumps shotgun* Guy 1:"Looks like a stand off" *cocks pistol* Guy 2:"What now?" *pumps shotgun* Guy 1:*Cocks pistol* Guy 2:*Pumps shotgun* Camera zooms in as Guy 1 and Guy 2 continue cocking ad naseum.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 01:02
|
|
|
This one gets mentioned almost every time someone talks about movie mistakes: Putting a silencer on a gun and having it mitigate any and all sound from it. The spy or assassin sneaks around the house, pulls out his pistol, and Thwip! Thwip!...he puts two bullets in the back of his target without waking the kids. Most filmmakers have decided that all silenced weapons sound like tiny blowguns. If you want quiet stealth, why not have the dude use a knife or a garrotte or krav-maga or anything more interesting and believable than Thwip Thwip?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 02:34
|
|
|
Pagan posted:That shootout in Heat is incredible. It's a great example of how keeping things realistic can still make it cool. That's an irritation I have with a lot of movies : X is cool enough, why'd you have to fake it? That's one of the things I've always appreciated about Ronin. The action scenes were handled in a very frenetic and real feeling manner. One thing that always makes me crazy about many action movies is the notion that slow-mo makes things more dramatic when it often kills the rhythm and energy of a scene. Ronin also kept the energy high without resorting to shaky cam nonsense. John Frankenheimer's understanding of tension and release also contributes heavily to the impact of the film's action scenes. It's really a shame that more people don't seem to appreciate that sort of relatively subtle approach. Other than Heat and Ronin I can't think of many movies that use that approach to action scenes. Even less realistic movies could benefit from it. As much as I loved The Matrix it only spurred even greater use of slow-mo for action scenes (let's not even get into bullet time).
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 02:55
|
|
|
Electric Bugaloo posted:This one gets mentioned almost every time someone talks about movie mistakes: Putting a silencer on a gun and having it mitigate any and all sound from it. The spy or assassin sneaks around the house, pulls out his pistol, and Thwip! Thwip!...he puts two bullets in the back of his target without waking the kids. Most filmmakers have decided that all silenced weapons sound like tiny blowguns. If you want quiet stealth, why not have the dude use a knife or a garrotte or krav-maga or anything more interesting and believable than Thwip Thwip? Yeah, suppressors are ridiculous in movies and video games. It's much less a "holy gently caress silent" and more of a "we need to obfuscate where the fire is coming from". This video demonstrates the difference between suppressed and unsuppressed AR-15 fire. Now granted they aren't using subsonic ammo, but it's a pretty effective video showing just how loud firearms are using a suppressor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XmJsDdpt5Q
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 03:06
|
|
|
I am a cynic to a tee, but I hate the Masterstroke moment, where the bad guy says he'll do or kill X unless the hero surrenders. And the hero does. He always saves the day at the end, but... Let's look at the old Disney Little Mermaid. Ariel's run off, her father is all brokenhearted, and when he does find her she's a prisoner of the sea witch. Now Ursula offers to trade Ariel being a seaweedperson for her father's trident, which will let her rule the ocean. At this point Daddy needs to think. If he gives the trident over, there goes his power, and Ursula can step on him like a bug, and then kill Ariel for spite. All of his other daughters can and probably will die horribly. The ocean's life will be decimated. So do you offer all the lives in the ocean over for your bitch of a daughter, who is your favorite and you clearly spoil, who disobeyed you countless times and made a deal with the devil? Of course you do. I remember this in BeastWars too, where in season 1 the head bad guy threatens some loving tigers. If the Maximals take a step closer he'll shoot these animals. What is at stake? A stasis pod, which holds a member of the Maximal crew. Now of course the writers set this up as a lose scenario, but would even Autobot descendants go hey, animal life outweighs us saving our companion and friend! Another Disney one, more recent with Tangled. In the opening credits Gothel is described as selfish, keeping the magic flower only for herself and not sharing it. But in the next few lines the narrator Flynn describes how a pregnant queen is dying, and it's totally not selfish for her army to find this magic flower and grind it up to feed the queen. It is selfish when Gothel, an old woman, uses the flower to keep her youth and life, but it is not selfish when a pretty young queen uses the flower up all at once. At least with Gothel there was a chance someone else could use a petal or leaf or something. With the queen, the only way you'd get any of the magic would be to use her daughter. Which of course is the basis of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 03:06
|
|
|
Whenever a movie has an in-car camera focused on the driver, like 9 times out of 10 there is a red dashboard light lit, like the engine light. I've seen this in a ton of movies and for some reason it drives me nuts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 03:10
|
|
|
Hector Delgado posted:Whenever a movie has an in-car camera focused on the driver, like 9 times out of 10 there is a red dashboard light lit, like the engine light. I've seen this in a ton of movies and for some reason it drives me nuts. Maybe it's because they're driving like a maniac?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 03:12
|
|
|
Tombstone Very fun movie, partly because I think it's the best part Val Kilmer has ever done. In one scene, Wyatt Earp is crying in the street and it's pouring rain. Except that it dramatically ends about 10 feet up the street, where the rain/no rain cutoff line is painfully apparent. I know that you can sometimes see that in other films/TV shows, but this is the worst that I know of. There's no way they could have NOT seen it in editing, but I guess it was too expensive to bring the sprinklers back or something. I don't know why it bugs the poo poo out of me so bad, but it does. When that scene comes on, I screw up my face and point at it like it's a bad dog.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 03:12
|
|
|
It annoys me when movies have to use blatant plot stupidity. Like in Rise of the Planet of the Apes. So in the movie they take an unknown drug, increase it's potency and change it to an aerosol form. Okay, that's fine. But when it comes to testing it out on an ape, they're just wearing oxygen masks and the ape isn't restrained properly, so it gets to break free and rip the mask off one of the guys there. And no one even blinks an eye at this dude who just got a lungful of this untested experimental, potent drug. Not even the big CEO guy, nor any of the other lab dudes. And a few minutes later we see a dozen people or so suited up in full body hazmat suits, stuff with masks that wouldn't easy get ripped off by an ape. Why didn't you guys wear that while administering the drug? You obviously thought the people producing the drug should use these, but not the people testing it for the first time on a live subject? Usually I'm fine with dumb plots and all but for some reason this just got my goat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 08:13
|
|
|
Breetai posted:This isn't limited to a single movie, but rather occurs in way too many movies to mention. Something similar has always bugged me. The way-too-hot-for-him girl is always a nice person. So why the hell are they with the rear end in a top hat boyfriend? Surely they'd think, "well he pushed over that fat kid again, then beat up all the nerds, I think it's time to break up!". They're obviously not that great a person if they're willing to let all that rear end in a top hat behaviour slide.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 10:43
|
|
|
Lanky Coconut Tree posted:It annoys me when movies have to use blatant plot stupidity. Like in Rise of the Planet of the Apes. It does seem to be a common theme (I think the cool kids call them a trope) with fiction involving any kind of genetic or similar therapy: the pharmaceutical company, who only cares about money, will for some reason decide to make the vector they use transmissible through the air, and it will always infect 100% of everyone it comes into contact with. You'd think science would have either wiped out humanity numerous times over (or simply cured all disease) if it were really so easy. The scene you refer to is particularly stupid not just because the monkey is restrained, but because the gas tubing comes off so easily! There's any number of failsafes that would stop that. Hell, even a twisty tie would do it. Not to mention the accidental report forms you have to fill out for the slightest injury or incident. It's just all faintly ridiculous, and while I liked the way the science aspect was treated at times (Like the main character having post-it notes about transfection times, passaging etc. on his monitor), they might as well have had an earthquake or some Rhesus-Jesus come up and release the aerosol. But that really pales into comparison with Spliced. What I want to know is who are these science superstars that are in every major lab, that can do anything they want with whatever they want?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 12:10
|
|
|
Livingston posted:I prefaced this post with the fact that I saw it all as an adult because I have to assume the only reason people could love Aliens the way they do is because of youthful nostalgia. That's true of some people, but there's another reason that I don't think has been directly addressed: movies like Aliens codified that type of action/sci-fi film to a point where it's been imitated in film, television and video games (someone did mention this earlier) so often that if you haven't seen Aliens first, it's understandable how it comes off as cliched and boring. You've seen everything in Aliens already, thus it's no longer impressive. I've seen the same argument over the original Halloween - people have seen those horror tropes so often they're no longer scared. My one irrational moment is when I hear the generic bear growl/roar that's used in World of Warcraft. I can't think of specific examples, but I know I've heard it outside the game and it throws me off every time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 12:45
|
|
|
Electric Bugaloo posted:This one gets mentioned almost every time someone talks about movie mistakes: Putting a silencer on a gun and having it mitigate any and all sound from it. The spy or assassin sneaks around the house, pulls out his pistol, and Thwip! Thwip!...he puts two bullets in the back of his target without waking the kids. Most filmmakers have decided that all silenced weapons sound like tiny blowguns. If you want quiet stealth, why not have the dude use a knife or a garrotte or krav-maga or anything more interesting and believable than Thwip Thwip? I don't know, I'm pretty sure I've heard silencers sound like this in movies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 13:27
|
|
|
While watching the recent remake of 'Night of the Demons' the main characters (accompanied with a rather portly Eddie Furlong) trying to decide how to fight the demons decide on the idea that they need to use rusted iron. Why do they plan on doing that? Because iron is an old element and when it becomes rusted then it has been corrupted, and since these demons are old then they too will suffer the corruption present in the iron. So just in case anyone was curious, demons are subject to oxidation because it has less to do with science and more to do with the age that something is. loving hell, that movie pissed me off and that most of all aggravated me. Well that and the original 'Night of the Demons' was amazing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 13:42
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:I don't know, I'm pretty sure I've heard silencers sound like this in movies. Mythbusters also had a segment where they tested this and found that even though guns with silencers doesn't exactly sound like the ones in movies they come close enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 14:57
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Mythbusters also had a segment where they tested this and found that even though guns with silencers doesn't exactly sound like the ones in movies they come close enough. Well it completely depends on the gun. James Bond's silenced 7mm Walther PPK is going to be a LOT quieter than a suppressor on an AR-15.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 16:05
|
|
|
blaarghh posted:I noticed it most recently in the latest Resident Evil film, but really it applies to most films aimed at the young male audience - the female characters are always sexily dressed even when all logic would point to them being dressed a little more appropriately to the situation, and they have perfect hair and makeup at all times despite living in a post-apocalyptic war zone and not even being able to find food, let alone find a lipstick and some eyeliner lying around. Sorry to bring this up almost 2 pages later but this actually was my sole complaint about The Book of Eli. I really hated how Mila Kunis's character looks far too good for her role. Everyone else looks great, her mom looks plain but not ugly (I would assume Oldman's character would in fact take someone who was attractive since he's in a position to do this) and Oldman and Washington look like hell. Kunis looks like she has no trouble finding makeup in a world where Shampoo basically can't be found. I'm not blaming Kunis for being attractive of course, just wish they picked someone who was more "girl next door" pretty. RagnarokAngel has a new favorite as of 16:15 on Sep 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 16:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
Lasher posted:Why the gently caress was everyone such a oval office to Ryan Reynolds in "Buried" Everyone bar that English bloke was so unbelievably twattish. I'm the most miserable, cynical person in the world and even I thought it was a bit much. I assume it was mostly just an extremely hamfisted to portray a lot of government agencies are all about procedures, beauracracy, and red tape. Really I thought Ryan Reynolds' character wasn't much better though. It's really not surprising that he never got rescued since everytime someone asked him for information that might help, he never actually told them anything and was just like "gently caress your questions, read my mind and magically figure out where I am while I whine at you!" I realize a person in that situation isn't going to be very calm, but I had a hard time sympathizing with him either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 18:24
|
|
