747 posts shown.
Jerry Martin19 said:I used to get hung up on those mistakes too. Eventually, I realized I was watching movies way too shallowly back then because I was constantly "hunting" for errors instead of actually following the plot or the point. A massive error for me is a script hole—like when a character suddenly knows something they shouldn't. Everything I just listed is just minor stuff...
furthermore...
A guy shows up at someone's house, rings the bell, and the door opens in five seconds flat, like he was standing right there. It's basically that instant phone answer thing someone already mentioned.
You know how movies can just skip over the boring parts, like a character waiting around after making a phone call?
🙂
Did you notice how Fox Mulder and Dana Scully sometimes zip through a couple of cities in just 42 or 43 minutes before they crack a case?
😁
Of course a glaring script error bothers me more than an unlocked car. But that doesn't mean I should just overlook the car. Every detail in a film matters to me.
You realize you can just skip over the filler scenes, right? Like when a character is just sitting around waiting for someone else after a phone call? 🙂
Have you noticed how Fox Mulder and Dana Scully sometimes zip through several cities in just a few minutes while trying to crack a case? 😁
Those two aren't the same thing. You don't see Scully eating or using the restroom, but a scene involving a phone call is vital—even if it's brief—and therefore needs to happen in real time.
Jerry Martin19 said:If you’re lugging a damn shotgun while chasing someone and you corner them in an alley, isn't the unarmed guy running for his life actually more dangerous than you? You can just reload in a second and blast him ten times before he even reaches you... 🙂
Great, suddenly I have the urge to be an unarmed fugitive (😎)
Especially if you're some kind of badass motherfucker (:Clint🙂 style. Wouldn't it be way cooler to unload that shotgun with your right hand while holding a kid you just caught falling from the 7th floor in your left? Just drop a tough line in his face and splatter his brains all over the wet pavement... 😎
You clearly aren't reading closely enough. I specifically wrote 'armed.'
Jerry Martin19 said:but seriously... if there’s nothing in the chamber before he practices, and then he goes through the motions and shoots whatever happens to be in his way, where's the mistake?
The error lies in the timing. Suppose you’re chasing someone armed with a shotgun, sprinting after them. They hit a dead end, which means they have to face you. It would be far better for you if you had already cycled the slide; otherwise, you might not get the shot off in time. In those moments, seconds are the difference between life and death—just ask Janica Kostelic.🙂
Jerry Martin19 said:It really depends on what kind of movies we're talking about. Personally, those logic gaps haven't bothered me much because I've noticed they mostly happen in the same types of flicks—the ones made purely for entertainment. Honestly, most of these "mistakes" just make me laugh rather than making me cringe... like, how could it possibly be any more realistic?
Even in high-quality cinema, you find stuff like that.
It’s not that I’m outraged, but if you're asking if I enjoy it, the answer is a resounding no.
Furthermore...
A character walks up to someone's house, rings the doorbell, and within five seconds, the person is opening the door as if they were standing right at the entrance waiting for them. It's very similar to that instant phone response issue someone else mentioned earlier.
Dennis Doyle3 As specified by:
Why exactly is this considered unrealistic? I’ll be the first to admit that I don't know the first thing about firearms, but based on what I've seen here, it seems like the protagonist didn't actually commit a mistake.🤷
Why are you taking things out of context?
If that were actually realistic, he would have spent his entire career repeating the same tired clichés, only to turn around and punch the villain in the face the moment they appeared on screen.
Just another bit of nonsense that grates on my nerves...
People don't bother locking their cars. Why that is, I haven't the slightest clue. 🤷
Furthermore...
Person A is talking on the phone with Person B... Person B hangs up... Person A can't handle the rejection and slams the receiver down, acting as if pressing a button could somehow change the outcome... 😕
I find myself wondering where this cinematic trope even originated.
And there is one more thing regarding caliber:
"What kind of caliber is that?
A detective arrives at a crime scene, takes one look at the victim, and immediately declares, 'Looks like they were killed with a 9mm.' That’s just impossible. A gunshot wound fills with bodily fluids almost instantly, and the tissue surrounding the entry point swells, making it fundamentally impossible to determine the caliber without an autopsy. Even determining the diameter of a bullet hole on a hard surface, like wood, is incredibly difficult—let alone on a human body."
Regarding the whole situation with those phone numbers starting with 555... that convention was actually established because moviegoers would frequently try to call the specific numbers they saw on screen 🙄
From the era of the 555 prefix convention all the way to the sheer absurdity surrounding firearms...
It's all just one big collection of tropes we've come to expect.
To start things off, here is a little copy-paste I found on a site:
Silencers on revolvers
Only an idiot would ever attempt to put a silencer on a revolver. Silencers are designed for semi-automatic pistols where the gases vent through the barrel; with a revolver, the gas escapes from the cylinder gap, which is essentially wide open.
The empty gun
We have all sat through those scenes where the protagonist—or more often the villain—presses a pistol against someone's head after a long, completely unnecessary monologue, only to pull the trigger and hear a hollow 'click,' revealing the gun was empty. It's another tired cliché. When a semi-auto runs dry, the slide locks back in that position. Furthermore, the firing mechanism locks up, so you wouldn't get a rhythmic clicking sound upon pulling the trigger. Anyone with half a brain can tell if an automatic is empty just by looking at it.
Super-precise snipers
Movie snipers always aim directly for the head, with their crosshairs perfectly centered on the target. Sure, you could do that, but only if the target is within 100 yards. A real sniper has to account for windage, distance, air pressure, and humidity. Under ideal conditions, a sniper will actually aim slightly above the target rather than directly at it. And one more thing: actual snipers aim for the torso, almost never the head.
Clouds of gunpowder smoke
This is the kind of mistake that creeps into the work of writers. The phrase 'the stench of cordite' shows up constantly in cheap crime novels, but cordite has nothing to do with modern ammunition. Cordite was a component of gunpowder used in the late 19th century and hasn't been relevant for ages.
Pump-action shotgun repetition
We’ve all seen this one. After dropping a gritty line like 'Go ahead, make my day,' the hero pumps the shotgun and kills the villain, the monster, the alien, Little Red Riding Hood, or whatever else is standing in their way. This implies only one thing: there wasn't a shell in the chamber. By pumping the shotgun, they are chambering a round; if the hero had pulled the trigger before that, absolutely nothing would have happened.
Side-shooting
If you ever find yourself holding a handgun, try shooting while holding it out to the side of your body. You’ll miss the target by two miles. It looks great on screen, but it bears zero resemblance to reality. There is a reason we hold a gun at eye level and in front of us—it's the only way to actually hit anything. Shooting from the hip gives you about the same chance of hitting something as a long shot at a casino. Slim.
Pressing against the wall
Police officers creep along, guns drawn, scraping their backs against the walls. It doesn't work that way. Real cops fire a few shots and then immediately seek substantial cover. After that comes the shouting and the intimidation to get criminals to surrender. Walls, especially in the US, aren't thick enough to stop a bullet, and bullets have a nasty habit of ricocheting off walls and floors.
Anonymous said:that scene where Denzel Washington fires a rocket launcher from his apartment at a car... honestly, only a complete moron would attempt something like that.
So, you're saying it's impossible?
Could someone please walk me through the reasoning here? I don't know the first thing about that kind of weaponry.
northerncrane4 said:If my memory serves me—and I suspect it does—the film mentions several times that they are professionals.
That’s actually quite simple to verify; just grab some subtitles. 🙂
I did exactly that, yet I couldn't find a single shred of evidence to back up your recollection.
Then again, perhaps I simply wasn't looking for the right phrasing.
who, should their terms go unmet, resort to immediate execution without any unnecessary questions before moving straight to the next contract.
If I recall correctly, it was far more profitable for them to let the girl live, rather than kill her and face the consequences from her protectors.
northerncrane4 said:Because according to the internal logic established up to that point in the film, it simply doesn't make any sense.
Hmm... I watched that movie about two years ago, and if I recall correctly, that wasn't how it played out. Personally, I tend to lose my patience when a plot feels completely detached from reality.🤷
So, in your estimation, the kidnappers would just kill the girl and call it a day?
cosmicraven2 said:It’s entirely plausible that the rating is inflated simply because some fanatic teenage girls obsessed with Jesse McCartney were handing out perfect scores without even sitting through the movie. 🙂
Then again, there is also the possibility that the film is actually any good. 🙂
Andrew Booth12 said:I’m not making a definitive claim here; it is merely my own opinion.
On what basis? I should like to know. You mentioned certain American directors who consider Yasujiro Ozu to be an influence...
What sort of films do you enjoy, and which directors do you hold in high regard?
This discussion is not intended to be a catalog of my personal preferences or the directors I favor. However, if you are truly so curious, you might browse my profile to find posts that will provide the answer you seek. There are plenty of them, as the vast majority of my contributions are located within this specific sub-forum.
Kevin Lopez43 said:Now that I think about it, we’re looking at three different dedications here. I don't recall anyone being able to claim that kind of recognition for themselves.
Well, even Yasujiro Ozu can't claim that privilege.🙂
The fact that at least three major directors chose to dedicate films to him doesn't actually validate his filmography; it simply reflects how much those three specific individuals admired his work.
Consider this one example. There are people on this forum who absolutely worship David Lynch, and Lynch happens to be a fan of Rammstein. So what? Does that suddenly mean Rammstein is objectively good to every single Lynch devotee?
Brenda Lee50 said:It isn't quite as simple as just setting up a camera and waiting for people to wander into the frame. It requires an incredibly demanding level of planning and mise-en-scène.
The emoticon is there for a reason.
Just because something is difficult to execute doesn't mean it's actually good. Take a look at some overproduced prog-metal by Dream Theater, for instance. High effort, questionable result.
And let me be clear: I am not claiming that Yasujiro Ozu is a bad director. I think he was masterful at doing exactly what he set out to do. It’s just that I don't particularly enjoy the result.
his low-angle "tatami" shots are almost unique
Do you have a specific example from Citizen Kane? That was the last one I watched, so my memory of his framing is a bit hazy.
Kevin Lopez43 said:Wim Wenders is my ultimate North Star. He even went so far as to film a documentary as a tribute to him. Tokyo Story
Thanks for the heads-up. 🙂
Even Kairos captured a tribute to Yasujiro Ozu. I watched it, and honestly, I found myself quite taken with it. If anyone is interested, there’s more available on IMDb.
Andrew Booth12 said:mostly American, maybe some German, but that’s beside the point—I’m hardly a film director myself.
It would be far more elegant if you could actually substantiate your claims with evidence. You might find yourself a more formidable debater, and I, perhaps, might actually learn something.
You don't know me.
Your argument implies that "anyone who understands what Yasujiro Ozu is doing must love his work," which is simply untrue. For instance, I understand him perfectly, and yet, I don't particularly care for it.
Andrew Booth12 said:His approach to filmmaking is nothing short of genius—a masterclass that continues to serve as a blueprint for directors across the globe. 😉
I fail to see the genius in it. The man simply sets up a camera in a room and records whoever happens to wander in. That's it. 🙂
Just because something is different doesn't mean it's better.
I’ve heard the rumors that certain directors look up to him as a major influence, though I can’t quite pull a specific name out of my memory right now. Could anyone provide a few examples?
I hear from people who have actually sat through his filmography that there’s a certain repetitive quality to his work—every movie follows essentially the same formula. It’s a frustrating realization, really. Even knowing the history, that lack of variety makes it difficult for me to truly respect him as a director.
I find his directorial style rather disagreeable—having sat through two or three of his films now. It all feels incredibly pedantic.