Unrealistic movie tropes and plot holes

Jerry Martin19 said:That’s just "on-topic spam." I mean, does anyone actually believe a car explodes just because it hits something?...🙄Honestly, pointing stuff like that out is just redundant...

What kind of reaction...?

Repeating the same old mistakes right before a total disaster...

It isn't about whether he knows or doesn't know; it's about whether he bothered to mention it.
I happen to know the things others don't, and vice versa.

So, we're just repeating obvious clichés in the face of criticism.

Perhaps there are people out there who wouldn't bother pointing out the obvious before they've even seen the opponent.

Emily Thomas3 said:Whether I'm in my room, walking outside alone without even realizing it, or just sitting at my computer... it just happens. Usually, it's just me vocalizing my thoughts—basically narrating my brain or playing out scenarios. Sometimes it turns into singing, too (I have this habit of making up lyrics and singing them, even though I'm a terrible singer). 🤷 A few times people have actually walked in while I was talking to myself and it was super awkward, though most of the time you don't even realize you're doing it.

When I was a kid, there was this older guy living above our house who would sing all day long, just making up songs on the spot. He had an amazing voice, though. Eventually, it either starts driving you crazy or you just tune him out completely. 🙂

Are you even forming coherent sentences here?
Because those characters in movies who talk to themselves... they actually *are* talking to themselves.

And this whole business about singing is a completely different matter.

Of course I’m speaking in full sentences—it’s just how my brain flows, kind of like voicing whatever pops into my head. Honestly, thoughts move way faster than speech, so I often find myself halfway through one idea while thinking about ten others, causing me to pause for a second before jumping back in.

goldenhound32 said:It isn't about whether he knows or doesn't know; it's about whether he bothered to mention it.
I happen to know the things others don't, and vice versa.

So, we're just repeating obvious clichés in the face of criticism.

Perhaps there are people out there who wouldn't bother pointing out the obvious before they've even seen the opponent.

So that would mean it doesn't have to be unrealistic for the hero to drop a cliché right in front of the bad guy. There, problem solved... 😁

goldenhound32 said:I don't overlook them. I binged all three godfather films in two days about seven years ago, so my memory isn't exactly sharp. If there are similar issues in the godfather movies, feel free to point them out.

You wouldn't even know half of these things if you hadn't started digging into them.

What am I supposed to say if I already know more? lol.

Honestly, it drives me crazy when someone comments on a movie like that. In fact, I don't even watch movies with people like that.

Fair enough. As for me, I just eat while I watch.

You already got your answer to all of this in an earlier message.

Aha, so you're just repeating yourself and calling it a day? fine.
🙂

When I say "it bothers me," I mean it's unpleasant, not that I'm pulling my hair out.

And I find myself getting dragged into all sorts of debates, too.😢
Let me repeat myself:
"It seems to me that debating whether or not something should bother us is pointless.
But whether something is realistic or not—well, that's a different story altogether. And that's exactly why this thread is open."

Why and how did you conclude that? 😕

Risk mitigation.

I don't remember either—it's been way too long since I watched them. But yeah, there's probably something to find in there.

What am I supposed to tell you if I know more than you? lol.

No. I know plenty too, but I don't stress over it, you get me?

Aha, so he just repeats her and gets ready? ok
🙂

That gets sorted out later in the messages; clearly, there's nothing unrealistic happening here.

Andrew Kim87 said:Look,

The Canadian guys are aiming at Americans in the head because Marines are wearing so much gear over their body armor that a bullet barely does anything to the torso. You can find videos on YouTube where a Marine gets hit in the chest by a sniper and just stands up and runs for cover. Instead of doubting me, maybe ask how many of those head or neck shots actually land, besides the ones you claim to have seen. If the target is staying still, sure, you might be able to aim for the head with some certainty.

So, we've pretty much reached a consensus—snipers are definitely going for the head shot.🙂

rustywalker42 said:I don't remember either—it's been way too long since I watched them. But yeah, there's probably something to find in there.

What am I supposed to tell you if I know more than you? lol.

No. I know plenty too, but I don't stress over it, you get me?

Aha, so he just repeats her and gets ready? ok
🙂

That gets sorted out later in the messages; clearly, there's nothing unrealistic happening here.

"Probably" just doesn't cut it.
I suppose I'll have to watch them again; I only caught them once the first time around. I just need to get my hands on a copy first.

No. I I know plenty myself, so I don't find it necessary to dwell on it, if you catch my drift.

For me, that isn't even a matter of choice.
That plot hole hits me right in the eye—it's just too glaringly obvious to ignore. 🙂 Robert Wilson, honestly, when someone rings my doorbell after only three seconds, it feels like they’re driving a finger straight into my ribs.

Anthony Roberts2 said:So, we've pretty much reached a consensus—snipers are definitely going for the head shot.🙂

Yeah, assuming the targets are wearing body armor and staying perfectly still.

goldenhound32 said:"Probably" just doesn't cut it.
I suppose I'll have to watch them again; I only caught them once the first time around. I just need to get my hands on a copy first.

No. I I know plenty myself, so I don't find it necessary to dwell on it, if you catch my drift.

For me, that isn't even a matter of choice.
That plot hole hits me right in the eye—it's just too glaringly obvious to ignore. 🙂 Robert Wilson, honestly, when someone rings my doorbell after only three seconds, it feels like they’re driving a finger straight into my ribs.

What am I even supposed to say? It's been way too long since I last watched him. And honestly, even if I sat down to watch him right now, I probably wouldn't pay any attention anyway.

For me, it’s not even a question of choice.
That plot hole hits me right in the eye. Like, seriously? It’s that obvious. 🙂 Robert Wilson, honestly? Someone knocking on my door after only three seconds feels like someone just shoved a finger straight into my ribs.

My advice? Just stop watching movies.👍

My advice? Just stop watching movies altogether.👍

Sure thing. As soon as I'm dead.

Robert Wilson said:That’s a perfect example, even if you’re just joking around; nice one.
Look, the movies explain certain things. In one of the sequels, they clarify stuff that wasn't in the first movie—like how his skin is basically invulnerable, letting him walk through fire or head out into the freezing void of space. To me, it feels totally illogical to sit there watching and wonder if he’s feeling too hot or too cold...
On the flip side, they never actually address what I mentioned earlier regarding why nobody knows who he is... and that is literally the whole point of the story, right? Just some random unknown guy....
Listen, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Tell me what you think, or let me know if I somehow missed the part where they actually gave an explanation in the films??

Yeah... fair point. I didn't think about it that way... he can't exactly feel the heat if he's fireproof.😂🤷😂
And as for changing clothes, why doesn't he just strip down while he's giving his speech?

rustywalker42 said:What am I even supposed to say? It's been way too long since I last watched him. And honestly, even if I sat down to watch him right now, I probably wouldn't pay any attention anyway.

For me, it’s not even a question of choice.
That plot hole hits me right in the eye. Like, seriously? It’s that obvious. 🙂 Robert Wilson, honestly? Someone knocking on my door after only three seconds feels like someone just shoved a finger straight into my ribs.

My advice? Just stop watching movies.👍

I don't recall them either, but here's some proof of the logic gaps and mistakes found just in the first godfather 1,2 - soprano. Source is the ultimate authority, IMDb 🙂

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/goofs

I mean, are people actually watching movies, or just hunting for errors? We all spot a little "mistake" once in a while, but obsessing over this stuff is honestly pointless. Real flaws are things like bad directing, bad acting, weak scripts, terrible characterization, or sloppy editing. Now *that* is worth talking about🙂

Besides, I barely even notice these glitches in "serious" films anymore. In other stuff—like trash movies or TV flicks—they stick out like a sore thumb and almost add to the fun vibe of those movies. This thread would be way better if we just kept it light and shared funny bloopers like:

Robert Wilson said:Or maybe just the sheer cliché of it all—whenever you hear "shoot the gas tank" in every single movie, it starts getting on my nerves. Honestly, I feel like just farting in the tank and watching the car go to hell would be more effective at this point.
And don't get me started on those horror tropes where some hideous monster chases a girl around. The villain moves at a snail's pace, which the whole movie emphasizes by showing how slow he is, yet the poor girl keeps tripping over her own feet. They just keep cutting back and forth between her and him, and then, in the grand finale, the famous bad guy catches her (probably because he hit the nitro when the camera wasn't looking, and then turned it off once he did).

Then there's that ridiculous physics where a villain gets hit with a 9mm Beretta—which is basically a standard movie trope where the lead actor shoots some side bandit and the guy gets knocked clean off the set by a single bullet. It’s unbelievable.

When I say "realistic," I mean realistic within the context of that specific film. To me, that means whether the movie actually provides an explanation for its logic, even if it is sci-fi or pure fiction.

For instance, there was one movie where the lead had a specific handgun, and in just a few seconds of screen time, he mentions he modified it to hold more ammo. Within the world of that movie, that feels realistic because they actually gave us an explanation. On the other hand, in other movies I've watched, you wouldn't believe for a second how much ammo could actually fit in a 16-round magazine.

To clarify what Jessica Rogers2 was getting at: I doubt anyone here is talking about real-life physics or things happening in the real world. Take a Superman movie, for example. Personally, I don't think it's great, but hey, I'm no critic. He flies around lifting buildings and destroying stuff, but the movie explains *why* he can do that, even if it's only for a few seconds. Because those answers are provided, the movie stays "realistic" on its own cinematic level.

Still, there are exceptions. When it comes to Superman, it always drove me crazy how he puts on that suit and suddenly nobody recognizes him, when in reality, he just took off his glasses... Give me a break. It's like an >.

🙂

http://www.moviemistakes.com/

Check this out—I've noticed quite a few mistakes in movies here that are actually pretty funny. But honestly, just like Jerry Martin19 said, there's no point in hunting them down. You should just try to ignore them and move on... that's really it.
Take the movie Titanic on that link, for instance... the sheer amount of errors, from factual inaccuracies to everything else... I mean, if it were some low-budget trash, whatever... but this was a massive production with an insane budget poured into it.

Jerry Martin19 said:I don't recall them either, but here's some proof of the logic gaps and mistakes found just in the first godfather 1,2 - soprano. Source is the ultimate authority, IMDb 🙂

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/goofs

I mean, are people actually watching movies, or just hunting for errors? We all spot a little "mistake" once in a while, but obsessing over this stuff is honestly pointless. Real flaws are things like bad directing, bad acting, weak scripts, terrible characterization, or sloppy editing. Now *that* is worth talking about🙂

Besides, I barely even notice these glitches in "serious" films anymore. In other stuff—like trash movies or TV flicks—they stick out like a sore thumb and almost add to the fun vibe of those movies. This thread would be way better if we just kept it light and shared funny bloopers like:

🙂

It’s simply incomparable. There was significantly less wine in the glass than when we last saw her, and then there was that awkward three-second delay between the doorbell ringing and the door actually opening.
First, we have to address the technical oversight, and then there is the matter of what isn't.

I find myself wondering about the mindset of certain viewers: are you actually watching the films, or are you just hunting for mistakes? Don't get me wrong, we all spot a little continuity error or a technical slip-up from time to time, but obsessing over them to this degree feels utterly futile.

It seems to me that this entire debate regarding whether we actually need something or if it’s just an obstacle is becoming entirely pointless.
Whether something is actually realistic or not—well, that’s a whole different conversation entirely. But that's exactly why I felt the need to open this thread in the first place.

goldenhound32 said:It’s simply incomparable. There was significantly less wine in the glass than when we last saw her, and then there was that awkward three-second delay between the doorbell ringing and the door actually opening.
First, we have to address the technical oversight, and then there is the matter of what isn't.

I find myself wondering about the mindset of certain viewers: are you actually watching the films, or are you just hunting for mistakes? Don't get me wrong, we all spot a little continuity error or a technical slip-up from time to time, but obsessing over them to this degree feels utterly futile.

It seems to me that this entire debate regarding whether we actually need something or if it’s just an obstacle is becoming entirely pointless.
Whether something is actually realistic or not—well, that’s a whole different conversation entirely. But that's exactly why I felt the need to open this thread in the first place.

I think there was a list there, like, a serious list. Look closer. They're even driving cars that hadn't even been manufactured yet (back in "that" era)😁

"it feels like arguing about whether it should bother us or not is pointless.
but whether it's realistic or not—well, that's a different story. And that's why this thread exists."

Alright, let's start listing the inconsistencies. ☕

Removing a bomb from under a car chassis using a tow hook in a harbor... Transporter 2

Jerry Martin19 said:I think there was a list there, like, a serious list. Look closer. They're even driving cars that hadn't even been manufactured yet (back in "that" era)😁

"it feels like arguing about whether it should bother us or not is pointless.
but whether it's realistic or not—well, that's a different story. And that's why this thread exists."

Alright, let's start listing the inconsistencies. ☕

I just skimmed past that part. It’s hardly worth quoting.