|
Esroc posted:Supernatural bugs me about this. The Winchesters have met all manner of Gods across multiple pantheons, have straight up visited Heaven and Hell, and by all accounts should realize death has no consequence in their universe. Because so long as you're a decent person you'll go to heaven and even if that's not your cup of tea there's a million and one ways to be brought back to life. They probably even have their own penthouse suites waiting for them for all the times they've saved the world. Yet they still act like death is a huge deal. There's all sorts of really stupid angsty story behind it, but there are parts when they do just want to die and get it over with (mostly Sam, who even tried to make a deal with Death so he could never be brought back), but the other brother/god/whoever keeps bringing them back. Also I don't think either of them are ever going to heaven legitimately considering all the angels they've killed and deals with demons that they've both made. Also there's the end of season 9 that might complicate things for one of them.
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
Gaunab posted:In movies where a character goes off to college and their freshman professor is tough and strict to introduce them to the real world. I don't know about most people but most of my freshman professor didn't really give a gently caress. It's always the "look to your left, look to your right. By the end of my course 2 of you will have failed/dropped out/whatever" speech too. There are some professors who really do that, but it's pretty cliche and hardly ever actually true if it's a first year course. On a similar movie note, it always irritates me when there is a highschool/college party. It's always some huge event with hundreds of people and live music and alcohol that never runs out. Maybe I missed out on these parties when I went to school, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of them are nothing like that. Also the "everyone is a professional dancer doing perfectly choreographed moves" thing that not another teen movie made fun of.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 13:39
|
|
|
My favorite mistake in Gladiator is the dude walking around in blue jeans in the background for a second or so during one of the earlier scenes, where Russell is petting a horse or something. I guess something like that is easy to miss if you aren't specifically looking for it, but you'd think they'd be extra careful about stuff like that for a "historical"/period movie.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 11:17
|
|
|
Speaking of gathering evidence, one thing that has bothered me about The Shield is the bit with Shane and Antwon Mitchel (spelling?). Specifically, the part about the bullets in the girl's body coming from Shane and his partner at the time's gun. Do they regularly check murder bullet ballistics against databases that include cop guns? They made a huge deal about it and it got Shane to do basically whatever he said, but it seemed far-fetched to me that they'd check that. vv I guess I assumed they'd have a database of known guns used in crimes and a separate one for cops, like with fingerprints where if you get fingerprinted for say a government job, you aren't included in searches for murder investigations unless they specifically search for government employees. Also is it really even a thing they can identify a bullet to a specific gun, or is that just tv show/movie magic? yeah I eat ass has a new favorite as of 20:47 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
My irrationally irritating thing in movies is when characters are irrational about when they need something. There's always someone who says "when do you need this by" and the one in charge says "YESTERDAY" and storms off. That isn't helpful at all. If the deadline was in fact yesterday, how will you getting it now help? If it can still help, then there is in fact a new deadline when you really do need it by, so just say that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2014 11:13
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:When you call your friend and ask how much more driving he has left, and he says "a million miles", he doesn't actually mean a literal million. It's a metaphor, a type of comparison without using "like" or "than" in it, but rather conveying the meaning through hyperbole or seemingly similar expressions. I am aware of the definition of a metaphor, thanks. As someone else said, this isn't the "rationally irritating movie moments" thread. I know that they really mean "as soon as possible", I just think it's a stupid way to say it. All I was saying is that when you're working on something, it is helpful to know when the deadline actually is, so you know when/if you need to start cutting corners to get it done in time. yeah I eat ass has a new favorite as of 15:27 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:I didn't like any of the versions, but I truly hated the one from the second season. That singing sounds like he's passing a kidney stone. And here I thought I was the only one who hated the theme. Nothing made me grab for the remote to fast forward faster than the start of it. I guess my irritating moment is unnecessarily long and grating theme songs - Oz is also a very bad offender of this. Your intro song does not need to be a solid 2 minutes long. If you need to have an annoying theme song, at least be kind to the viewer like The Shield and make it only last like 10 seconds.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:The same thing they do in real schools - nothing. The thing that got to me is how arbitrary the value of each point was from book to book. In the first book, losing 50 points was treated like some devastating irrecoverable loss, and not just by the first years - the entire good-guy portion of the school was pissed off about it. Meanwhile you had scenes like in the second book where Gryffindor earned either 30 or 40 points in like a minute for answering questions about mandrakes, or something like 50-80 points in a single one of Lupin's class for fighting the boggart in the third book (I think it was 10 points to each of them). If correct answers were this valuable, you would expect, if they have classes every day for an entire year, the point totals should be in the thousands, especially if you assume a know-it-all like Hermione is getting a few questions right per class. Then you have Harry doing something like killing a basilisk, saving a girl's life and destroying a horcrux, and he gets 200 points. Ron gets the same amount for basically babysitting Lockhart while Harry does his "hero" thing - even though Harry didn't really do any of the work, it was the phoenix who did all the hard work. Is that really equivalent to answering 20 questions right in class? The point values and the reactions to them don't make any sense when you spend any time at all thinking about it. In the end it clearly doesn't matter of course - the headmaster will just give just enough points to give their favorite house the lead. It's just meant to be a motivational tool to the students. The irritating part is none of them seem to realize this and actually take it seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 10:50
|
|
|
In the various Buddies movies that spawned from air bud, it always irritates me how terrible the owners of these puppies are. Puppies should be at home, not going into space, finding ancient egyptian treasure, defeating the howloween hound or participating in a sled dog race. I mean, they always end up being fine in the end, but most people assume their puppies can't talk to other puppies and know that the only adventures they are going to have outside the house will be running into a highway and dying.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:I don't know if you're joking or if you're autistic. Well, i'm pretty sure if/when they release a buddies movie involving time travel it just might turn me autistic. And I mean, to be fair, they really ARE bad owners, but I am repeatedly watching movies designed for 5 year olds where "making sense" takes a back seat to "talking baby animals", hence why it is irrationally irritating.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Is Adam Sandler intentionally making awful movies these days? Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison are the only Adam Sandler movies that exist to me. All the newer stuff he has been making has been pretty universally terrible. Click was OK I guess though despite the extreme heavy-handed way it bashed you over the head with the "this is where we want you to cry evry tiem" scenes. It's up there with the beginning of "Up" on my list of scenes i'm irrationally irritated about when people gush about how amazing they are.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:Wait, people actually gush about Click? That would be pretty rationally irritating. I've heard a lot of people who put it on their "saddest movies of all time" list just because of that hospital scene near the end. I don't know if they like the rest of the movie or just that part, but I disagree with them either way. vv I don't know, I mostly stopped watching since Stabler left. Yeah he was annoying and had anger issues, but to me he and Benson were the face of the show. It doesn't feel the same since he left. yeah I eat ass has a new favorite as of 15:41 on Apr 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
ElGroucho posted:Rewatch Billy Madison, it's really loving bad if you aren't 12 anymore I'm wondering whether or not it's wise to admit I did watch it just a couple weeks ago on netflix, and enjoyed it as much as the last 15-20+ times. The song part is cheesy and stupid, I agree, and Happy Gilmore is much better, but it's still alright.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
You guys have been talking about the comics and cartoons, but how does the netflix version compare to the ben affleck movie? I had never heard of the daredevil character until that, and based on what I thought of that I am hesitant to try the TV show.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 08:45
|
|
|
My rationally irritating movie thing is people trying to make logical sense out of comic book movie plots. They just don't make any sense if you think about them even just a little bit. They are comic books. They just make up poo poo as they go along.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:In Underworld, the vampires don't have any of the powers or abilities vampires are supposed to have. A vampire is checking out a hole in a wall but it's dark so he can't see. A vampire cannot see in the dark. I don't think there's much in that movie that isn't irritating - I mean, UV bullets...come on.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
I just watched a fairly bad movie called "Killing Season" with Robert Deniro and John Travolta playing a Serbian guy who is mad about something Deniro did during the war and is trying to kill him. Throughout the course of the movie each of them has the other one completely powerless and ready to kill, but they keep talking and dicking around, giving the other a chance to get the upper hand and escape. This happens like 5 times each. Stop talking, kill the guy. You don't have to get your dramatic monologue in before you do it, just get it over with.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
The thing that irritated me the most about In Time was the ridiculous poker scene where he makes idiotic moves and gets all smug about how he knew the other guy was weak the whole time (despite the fact that he had the second best possible hand and was winning before the final card). Actually pretty much all movie poker scenes, especially when it involves "reading" the other person, irritate me.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Away all Goats posted:It bugs me when a character is looking for a vehicle, finds a car or truck or whatever, opens the sun visor and the car keys fall right in their lap. I prefer that to the hotwiring scenes where they just fiddle around under the steering wheel for a few seconds off the camera and the car starts. I guess it would make sense at a beach and didn't want to get them wet/shove them in your shoes, or if you didn't have pockets for whatever reason. I've never personally known anyone who does it in real life though - maybe some people keep a spare set up there? Who knows.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
Dr Scoofles posted:I am extremely irritated by exorcism movies. I watched the Exorcism of Emily Rose yesterday and found myself going 'shhhhhhh' at the TV like an angry librarian whenever the non stop screaming got too much. I also find the whole screaming with a big mouth, contorting, speaking in Latin, scratching up the walls as though human nails can tear into wallpaper like a cat etc to be incredibly goofy. (I exclude the Exorcist from this because that is genuinely a good movie) It always kind of bothers me how they always pick some major king of hell demon or a sumerian god or something to do the possessing, but they all get their asses easily kicked after showing off their powers which almost always consist of just levitating and tossing people around a bit while yelling latin at the priest. It just seems to me that if you are going to say some god-like thing is back on earth, have it do more than twist a girl's neck around and creep people out for a while. Also it seems like the exorcist is always a "questioning my faith" priest who falters at first but then finds it again just in time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
DecentHairJelly posted:In It Follows, (not spoilering because it was in the trailer) what was the entity doing standing on the roof of the house when the group pulled out of the driveway? Like, how did it even get up there? I wondered the same thing. Honestly I enjoyed the movie but there were so many irritating things - what was with the hair pulling? Why was their plan at the pool so terrible? Why can it move quickly sometimes but other times is really slow? Why didn't they just fly back and forth between Europe every year or two?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
I can't think of a specific movie that does it, but I know I've seen it in some (maybe more in TV shows - the specific example I'm thinking of was in an episode of Supernatural where it happened twice in the same episode): when a character is expecting someone to come for them in their house/hotel room/whatever but they break in only to find them not at home. Then immediately the person they were looking for calls them on the phone and makes some smug comment like "looking for me?". Were they just sitting in their new location calling the phone every few minutes hoping this time someone would pick up the phone or what? vv Sometimes, but in the ones I'm thinking of the person making the call is in a car - in the specific episode I'm talking about she says "I'm about 2 states away by now" or something like that. And it was a hotel room, so you can't blame it on a security system alerting them e2: and even if they are looking through a gun or whatever, there's no reason to call them - if you want to shoot them, shoot them. On a related note: people who yell "HEY" when they sneak up behind a thing they're trying to kill, so they have time to turn around and disarm them or throw something at them or wahtever and get away. Just shoot. yeah I eat ass has a new favorite as of 16:45 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
I just assumed it decided it had enough, and killing something that isn't currently posing a threat wasn't worth the effort.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
To post an irrationally irritating movie thiing that isn't just "I don't like Harry Potter" about Harry Potter: in the first movie/book, it makes it out like Harry is the hero that stopped Voldemort/Quirrell from getting the stone thing...but the only reason the stone came out of the mirror and was at risk of being gotten by voldemort was because Harry followed Quirrell in, and almost got himself killed on top of that. If Harry had just done nothing besides contact Dumbledore, Quirrell would still be stuck in front of the mirror trying to figure out how to get the stone out. It's almost like Dumbledore wanted Voldemort to get the stone by putting it behind such easily beaten enchantments/puzzles and egging Harry, one of the few people who knew about the mirror and was capable of getting the stone out, on in to going after it. It probably would have been more secure if he (dumbledore) had just kept it in his pocket.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Its "Leviosa" not "Levio-sah"; ...except when you don't need to say anything at all They cover nonverbal spells in either the fifth or sixth book (or both). You just say the incantation in your head or something.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:On the basis of alcohol and friends, _Pet Sematary 2_ is the best movie I've ever seen. Do yourself a favor and don't rewatch it so you don't ruin the memory you somehow have that the movie was good in any way. e: also talking about sexual assault in harry potter is silly. Yeah you can imagine all these ways of raping people with magic, but it's just as easy/valid to handwave a magic solution that prevents it from happening in school. Or maybe wizards are all just a bunch of rapists - who cares, either way it's just pointless speculation about a fictional world because nothing was written about that kind of stuff, so you'll never "know" for sure. yeah I eat ass has a new favorite as of 10:02 on Dec 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:It would be if the bit where Ron gets drugged with a love potion didn't exist. And it just gets shrugged off as "Oh yeah, girls do this all the time, it's no big deal." I meant more along the lines of the professors being trained to detect the effects of it before anything serious happened. It's still a very stupid thing to talk about. Yes, in a world where magic is real it could be used maliciously, but what are we getting out of it to sit here trying to figure out if hogwarts students are all raping each other?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Rape by love potion shows up in the actual books as a major plot point. So what is your goal here? Do you just want everyone to acknowledge love potions are ~problematic~? Should we report JK Rowling to the authorities for creating a fictional rape device? Should we stop kids from reading it because love potions can be used to rape people? What is the whole point of this stupid discussion?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
I said it was silly not because it "doesn't happen" in the book/movies, but because it is a loving book and none of it actually happened. e: vv so why does anyone care? I can understand sperging out about actually important plot points, but hte hypothetical rape of students with love potions is not one of them. Yes it happened with Voldemort's mom, but it's not portrayed in a good light and any reasonable person would assume that kind of thing is rare. yeah I eat ass has a new favorite as of 20:03 on Dec 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:If you don't want to discuss things that happened in stories but not in real life then go make a PYF Irrationally Irritating History Moments thread. Yes, Voldemort's mom date-raped his dad. Nobody said this didn't happen. It's portrayed in the books and received by the reader as a negative thing. Everythign else is wild speculation about whether students are raping each other. Go back to your bad gimmick in the social media thread.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:I desperately want to jump on this lifeline, this sole flotsam in a sea of awful posts, and cling to it, let this new discussion carry me through these turbulent waters, but I have no clue what a Krank is. Was arnold Shwarzeneger in this movie? I Don't know why I think that. Someone, please post more about whatever a crank christmas is. You're thinking of Jingle All the Way, which is one of my favorite movies. It stars Arnold and Sinbad. How can you go wrong? Christmas with the Kranks was I think a Tim Allen movie which I remember being mediocre and not offensively bad. Just a boring family movie.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:Agenda like "you don't like Tarantino" I guess, not that you're part of the Great Hollywood Zionist conspiracy. Which is a thing, I seen it. Just don't argue with Zaphod42. He doesn't have an agenda, he's just really really spergy about certain things and you'll never convince him of anything.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
hottubrhymemachine posted:He knows a lot about game development. More than most people on this board. Love his posts about game developments. We're in a thread about movies though, who cares about video games.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:So ignore season 2-5? Anyone who believes this is the source of my irrational irritation, those are the best ones (although the latest season or two are back to being pretty good). Another is the fact that they still haven't resolved the brother in Lucifer's cage from the end of season 5 , and have only mentioned as a joke in the 200th episode, 5 seasons later. It made you think maybe they'd remember that thing and try and do something about it, but nope, back to not caring. I have heard one possibly reasonable explanation that it's not him, just his body in there...but still, you'd think they'd want to at least check to see if that is true. For a show that is supposedly about doing everything for your family to the point of stupidity and selling their souls right and left it seems out of character for everybody.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
Len posted:More Supernatural. Everyone in this show is pants on head retarded. From God all the way down. So Lucifer is sealed in Hell right? Well there's 600 seals holding him in. Okay cool that's a lot of locks. But for some reason only 66 need to be broken and the only two set in stone are the first and last. That's like having a combination lock with a couple hundred number code but only a dozen numbers matter. Why is this a thing? That's a terrible system. My thoughts were why even have them at all? Surely if you were God you could make a cage you just couldn't get out of.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
Febreeze posted:they've literally seen a door to hell opened and have been fighting demons but AN ANGEL? THAT CAN'T EXIST. NO. To be fair, the angels that they had in mind don't exist. In their own words, they are actually dicks, not the forces of good they were picturing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:So this is an older movie, but everyone's seen The Stand, right? The mini-series with Lt. Dan with legs. Anyway, what precisely kills the military base in the beginning? The dude calls the guard shack and screams they've had a breach and are dropping like flies, and the guard grabs his family and barely escapes. But is the superflu airborne? Because everyone in that "Don't Fear the Reaper" intro is lying dead very suddenly, no blood on their faces, only a few signs some people had time to run to the doors. The cafeteria workers were still at work, the people at the pinball machines still playing, slumped over suddenly. So in case of a breach, was there some instant oxygen-killswitch so everyone died within minutes? I always assumed that was the case and was why the guard was so eager to get out before the gates shut. Either that or they released some kind of fatal poison, because if it was just removing the oxygen he could have just gone outside his booth and been fine.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 11:22
|
|
|
Danger Mahoney posted:I just watched The Babadook after like a year and a half of hype, and good lord that is a silly, terrible movie. Like a Raimi film played completely straight. Easily the worst horror film I've seen in years. There was a lot of internet hype about that when it first came out, and I think a lot of people just bought into it and didn't really judge it objectively. Also movies that try to be "deep" like they tried with the ending and all the "maybe it was all in her head" speculation appeal to a lot of people whether the movie pulls it off or not. I admit I liked it the first time I watched it, but rewatching it left me scratching my head wondering what I saw in it. They really beat the "allegory" over your head, and going through all the yelling and screaming (there's a shitload of it) was pretty brutal on my ears the second time through. Overall I didn't find it good, especially in terms of meeting the hype it got, but I have definitely seen worse.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
The Zombie Guy posted:Anyways, the movie was very so-so, and I wouldn't suggest watching it unless you love watching Survivorman. You had me sold on "found footage". I can't get enough of that garbage. I do get annoyed at horror movies in general where the monster/killer/whatever spend the whole movie toying with the victim, but understand why they do it. Yeah the alien could have just offed him the second he saw him, but then you have no movie. They have to make the monster/demon thing a dick that gets off from making them real scared before they die to at least preserve the illusion that the human has a chance. It makes me think of what annoyed me about movies like The Hills Have Eyes (the remake). Why spend all that time tormenting them and giving them a chance to escape when you could just ambush them with all your people straight away and eat them or whatever it is they do? The fact that I know the answer of "they would only act this way in a movie because the alternative is boring" is irrationally irritating I guess. I just wish they'd come up with some kind of scenario where the monster/whatever acts logically/intelligently and still leaves enough room for a feature length movie.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
I was just watching some movie called "Echelon Conspiracy", and aside from the fact that it was just a ripoff of every other prior "government computer develops a mind of its own" movie, it had a blatant use of one of the most irritating things in movies like that. If someone has an earpiece in, no matter whether it's supposed to be covert (as it was in this case) or otherwise, they always touch it with their finger when they're receiving a message. You know you're being watched by cameras everywhere you idiot, stop touching it. He had just gotten in trouble with casino security for having a cellphone out, and he thinks sticking his finger in his ear every couple minutes is going to be less suspicious?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2016 14:56
|
|