SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
TV and Movie Chat
>
Oh no. Not Again!
Not just in TV shows, but in movies too. Yes, it's frustrating when they make obvious mistakes that would've taken 30 seconds to look up - like one movie I saw where a character said someone was "quoting the Old Testament book of Hebrews."I suppose you could make a drinking game out of it, but you might end up with alcohol poisoning. ;)
Being lazy is easier than being accurate, and the general public doesn't care.
Trike wrote: "Being lazy is easier than being accurate, and the general public doesn't care."
Mostly true, but some will still raise a stink, either to correct what they believe to be a mistake, or simply to look smart. Same goes for books. A lot of the problems/misunderstandings can also be traced to searches made on Wikipedia, whose accuracy can be questionable, but many people believe that what they read in Wikipedia is as good as Gospel (not that I personally give any credence to gospels).
Mostly true, but some will still raise a stink, either to correct what they believe to be a mistake, or simply to look smart. Same goes for books. A lot of the problems/misunderstandings can also be traced to searches made on Wikipedia, whose accuracy can be questionable, but many people believe that what they read in Wikipedia is as good as Gospel (not that I personally give any credence to gospels).
Perhaps they had legal reasons to use a fictional organisation?
Poor research can be a real downer if the plot hinges on a certain fact that turns out to be nonsense. Can't remember the name of the book my wife had me read, but the main character had a genetic abnormality that determined his personality. Unfortunately, the genetic mistake was on the X chromosome and it was a recessive gene, meaning he would not have been affected by it. Many people loved the book, but for a physician, it was a disappointment. The author would have been better off to invent a disease if he didn't understand the one he chose to portray.
Michel wrote: "Trike wrote: "Being lazy is easier than being accurate, and the general public doesn't care."Mostly true, but some will still raise a stink, either to correct what they believe to be a mistake, o..."
Those people who complain are so few and far between that even in the most popular TV shows with millions of viewers I'd wager you'd have a hard time filling a city bus with them.
Criminals have gone free because lawyers successfully argued that the forensics lab didn't do things the way CSI portrays investigations. CSI is so utterly divorced from reality that I genuinely consider it to be Science Fiction. People are ignorant and don't care.
In a similar thread earlier this year I said that you shouldn't watch TV shows or movies which pertain to your profession, because none of it will be accurate. In fact, filmmakers care so little about accuracy that they don't even portray filmmaking accurately.
It's so rare, in fact, that when they bother to get anything correct, it is lauded. One of the most accurate representations about trial law is -- and I kid you not -- My Cousin Vinny. The writer's best friend from high school is a lawyer and the director went to law school, so the end result is a movie that, while it's a simplified version of what goes on, is accurate enough to be taught in law school and included in textbooks as an example of how the system functions.
But usually? No one cares. Not the filmmakers and not the audience.
Trike wrote: "CSI is so utterly divorced from reality that I genuinely consider it to be Science Fiction."That and all of those police procedurals where they have regular Joes kicking down the door with a vest and a gun, or the coroner is going out with a gun to catch the killer, etc...
My wife and I love Longmire because the crimes are always solved with good old-fashioned police work, and never through some ridiculous triumph of science. It may still be inaccurate, but it's simpler and more believable.
V.W. wrote: "Perhaps they had legal reasons to use a fictional organisation?"Or even the remotest possibility of a legal reason, like someone in an executive committee discussing the concept goes, "If we use a real organization, are we going to run into legal issues?" and everyone else goes, "Oooooh, yeah. Well, let's just make it something that sounds good."
Legal issue (real or imagined) avoided...plus this allows the writers "artistic license to just make shit up instead of actually researching actual procedures, institutional organization, legal statutes related to how they operate, etc.
"It's a fictitious organization so we can do whatever we like; it's not meant to represent real life."
I find it much worse when they pull crap that is just dumb. Case in point: Fringe. One episode the FBI just turns over a highly dangerous (but currently unconscious) suspect to the nutty professor, his son, and one agent...as in put the suspect in the back of a normal sedan on its way to a completely insecure private lab. Gee, I wonder might go wrong with that? OMG! The suspect gets away! Never saw that coming in a million years! **face palm**
It is incredibly annoying when someone gets a simple fact from your wheelhouse wrong. But I have to agree with the general sentiment that most of the public doesn't care. Things don't have to be true, they just have to sound trueish.Where my pet peeve drive is engaged is when the truth would have been awesomer/prettier/scarier/more badass/all around more emotionally engaging than whatever the writer(s) came up with without the help of a google search.
Micah wrote: "V.W. wrote: "Perhaps they had legal reasons to use a fictional organisation?"Or even the remotest possibility of a legal reason, like someone in an executive committee discussing the concept goes..."
I'm not even sure that legal has to come into it. I'm in favor of making up an organization even if only because people will have less cause to say, "that guy never worked there," "they don't have an S.U.V. on their fleet," etc.
It bugs me much more if the story is presented as a contemporary, realistic setting, and the writers make the tech and general processes so unrealistic that, like Trike said, they become science fiction.
That and plot holes, non-sequiturs, and a general failure to think things through. I'm not always the best at spotting these, but when I do, they bug me way more than some of the stuff we're talking about here. It's fiction, so I'll forgive a lot, but at least try to be internally consistent.
I can sympathise with hating errors. There is a best selling author, whom I shall not name, who has mistaken Nomex for Kevlar, started fires by striking a knife against a granite wall, and much more laziness that I can't be bothered to remember. It is infuriating, especially with the Internet making that kind of research so easy.
V.W. wrote: "who has mistaken Nomex for Kevlar, started fires by striking a knife against a granite wall"At least he was protected from burning up in his self-inflicted fire....
V.W. wrote: "I can sympathise with hating errors. There is a best selling author, whom I shall not name..."Why not? I'd like to be warned off from any idiocy. Who is it?
Tannera wrote: "I often wonder why writers don't research."I would guess the following covers most of the territory: Research is work, like punctuation. Some authors think they know it all, already. Others are lazy. Some don't know any better.
It depends on the specific instance. People shouting 'fire' for loosing/shooting arrows is wrong but doesn't annoy me too much. That said, when they 'draw' and then make hundreds of men (or elves) just hold fully drawn bows for a minute or two irritates me because it's so obviously stupid.The worst was the premise of the film Lucy. Based on the commonly held but completely wrong notion we use only about 10% of our brains (it's almost 100%, almost all the time. Why would we grow a brain ten times larger than we need?). Not only that, the childish nonsense that if we could use more, we'd somehow gain magic powers. Humbug!
I don't often get too bothered by such things, unless they're glaring in their sloppiness. I've seen this in The Strain. Why don't they just call in the army to deal with the vamps? It didn't really get explained. As much as I love Guillermo Del Toro, that one irks me.
What bugs me most is when details are wrong that even the general public should catch. For example, if I'm watching CSI and they say something wrong about DNA, I can forgive that because most people, including me, aren't experts on the subject. But when they show someone receiving an email and a huge 108-point "New Email" message starts flashing on their computer screen, it really bugs me because most viewers have email and know that it doesn't work that way. But what REALLY honks me off is when I mention things like this to coworkers and they say things like, "I never noticed that."
Steve wrote: "coworkers and they say things like, "I never noticed that.""And neither did the director or producer. Maybe you should direct your anger in that direction.
As I pointed out earlier in the thread, so few people care about that sort of thing -- on either side of the screen -- that you'd have a hard time gathering a crowd big enough to make a Groupon worth the effort.
Trike's right, it just doesn't matter to most people. I notice things(and I'm sure miss many more) that are incorrect and just genuinely don't care. I watch/read to be entertained, so as long as it's entertaining I'll forgive inaccuracies.
I taught HSC Biology and also marked the state exams. I would constantly tell my students that if it was in CSI it was wrong. The number of students in an exam that would quote how they did the DNA tests AAAHHHH!!!I am often amazed that people believe that what happens in tv/ movies is correct. Hello it is fiction!!!
Bearing in mind also that if folks come across as too nitpicky they start to sound like the comic book guy from The Simpsons.
John wrote: "Bearing in mind also that if folks come across as too nitpicky they start to sound like the comic book guy from The Simpsons."When films still use things like the stupid 100% of the brain idea they deserve all the rotten tomatoes they get. CSI and NCIS are worse because they mix what is possible with absolute nonsense, making the rubbish they spout sound feasible and confusing their audience.
Randolph wrote: "I think everything on NCIS is true and possible otherwise it wouldn't be allowed on tv."I'm a French model!
Trike wrote: "I'm a French model! "Of the Eiffel Tower, or an upstairs maid?
Thaddeus wrote: "The worst was the premise of the film Lucy. Based on the commonly held but completely wrong notion we use only about 10% of our brains (it's almost 100%, almost all the time. Why would we grow a brain ten times larger than we need?). Not only that, the childish nonsense that if we could use more, we'd somehow gain magic powers. Humbug! "I'm not a science person, and most of the stuff that bothers people doesn't bother me. (Sound in space? Yeah, I know it shouldn't be there, but don't really care. It's more interesting with sound.)
But the 10% of the brain thing is a particular pet peeve of mine, and I couldn't even see the trailer for Lucy without it making me angry.
colleen the fabulous fabulaphile wrote: "I'm not a science person, and most of the stuff that bothers people doesn't bother me. (Sound in space? Yeah, I know it shouldn't be there, but don't really care. It's more interesting with sound..."I actually like spotting the issues, whether they are science mistakes or cheesy production.
Like I watched Disney's old Around the World in 80 Days with David Niven the other day just because I hadn't seen it in 30 years or more and I, uh, might have been drinking. The production values in that were so laughable. Set in Victorian times, but you could tell the horse and carriages they were using were just tourist carriages pulled in off the streets...they had rubber rimmed wheels! And they didn't even bother to disguise the fact that some of the streets they were filming on were asphalt. [More shocking, though, was the racial stereotyping, the sexism and imperialism on obvious display.]
As for sound in space, I think it's actually more interesting and striking when movies get it right. The utter silence in 2001: A Space Odyssey really brought home the alien quality of outer space.
Most people watching Star Wars don't really even consciously hear the star fighters zooming by. Their brains expect to hear a vehicle zip past, so when they hear it, their brain filters out that information from conscious thought. Had they zipped by in silence, your brain would suddenly have woken up...something's important going on!
Randolph wrote: "I think everything on NCIS is true and possible otherwise it wouldn't be allowed on tv. The nature of entertainment is to be as truthful as possible and help you learn something like you are watchi..."Joke, right??
V.W. wrote: "John wrote: "Bearing in mind also that if folks come across as too nitpicky they start to sound like the comic book guy from The Simpsons."When films still use things like the stupid 100% of the ..."
^this
I get sick and tired of people saying "But it's fiction! It doesn't have to make sense/be correct."
I call bullshit. Of course, those are usually the same people who advocate for rape in fantasy because "realism."
I generally get irrationally mad whenever the hacker character is on screen.Totally Acceptable I broke into the NSA months back and put in a backdoor let me access their database.
Not-Acceptable this is one of the most secure things evar let me hack it by mashing buttons in a few minutes.
Somewhat-acceptable it's going to take 15-20minutes for it to crack the code with my supercomputer botnet thing I built using my megatech skills.
Video games tend to be just as cringe-worthy as well they are improving at it, I remember one of the first films to even try to get it right was Grandma's Boy. They actually hired local top players as consultants or something. Is it perfect...nahhh...but it also doesn't make my face get stuck in the cringe position.
As far as science goes like the 10% of the brain it really doesn't bother me much I kind of feel like you are allowed to bullshit in order to setup the premise of the show. As far as stuff like no sound in space in starwars personally the fact that all combat is velocity based is the bigger uhhh guys, but again it doesn't bother me that much because it strikes me as well they want to have a WW2ish dogfight in space.
If you guys want to get off on a tangent, how about the medical tests that come back in minutes, instead of days or weeks?
Bill wrote: "If you guys want to get off on a tangent, how about the medical tests that come back in minutes, instead of days or weeks?"Oh yes! They always irritate me ;)
Bill wrote: "If you guys want to get off on a tangent, how about the medical tests that come back in minutes, instead of days or weeks?"I suppose it depends on the test and circumstances. When I was bleeding to death, my tests came back in minutes.
Which tells me they CAN do that, they just don't have a sense of urgency unless you're literally dying in front of their eyes.
Every time you have a character in a show who studied psychology because they want to become or are a psychiatrist/therapist and then they quote Freud.*facepalm*
That's older than old. No one does that anymore. URGH.
colleen the fabulous fabulaphile wrote: "But the 10% of the brain thing is a particular pet peeve of mine, and I couldn't even see the trailer for Lucy without it making me angry. "Aaron wrote: "I generally get irrationally mad whenever the hacker character is on screen."
I always find it interesting to see which items are hot buttons for people, because everyone is different. I remember when we went to see Honey, I Shrunk the Kids and my brother was enjoying it right up until they got to the part where they befriended the ant. "Ants don't act like that!" he exclaimed.
But you're fine with a bunch of kids being miniaturized to a 16th of an inch tall?
Heh, yeah.I know some people who get annoyed with Disney movies because every animals acts more or less like a dog.
I'm like... talking animals are ok, but the fact that a horse is acting doggish is bad? Ok...
colleen the fabulous fabulaphile wrote: "But the 10% of the brain thing is a particular pet peeve of mine, and I couldn't even see the trailer for Lucy without it making me angry. "The people who are using 10% of their brains are the screen writers, director, producer, and audience who fall for it.
I am usually ok with the whole time compression parts of unreality. If the test can be done, I don't mind if an author speeds it up unrealistically. I want "things" happening fast in my books.Butcher just did that 10% brain use in the Dresden book I am reading. Disappointing!
Trike wrote: "Bill wrote: "If you guys want to get off on a tangent, how about the medical tests that come back in minutes, instead of days or weeks?"I suppose it depends on the test and circumstances. When I ..."
Having worked in a Lab doing Blood tests I find it offensive that you think we don't have a sense of urgency. We work very hard. If a test is very urgent then it jumps the queue but it is only a very limited range of tests in which this can occur.
Bill wrote: "Poor research can be a real downer if the plot hinges on a certain fact that turns out to be nonsense. Can't remember the name of the book my wife had me read, but the main character had a genetic ..."A recesive gene on the X chromosome would affect a male but not a female (usually) eg Haemophilia A. So I am not sure what the error is?
Randolph wrote: " Like in Star Wars where the spacecraft make noise and there isn't zero gravity, that should never be allowed. "Hmms. Star Wars is a fantasy (Science Fantasy) set "a long time ago", in a "galaxy far far away." Yet they have humans walking around. Many of whom are speaking English (unless you happened to have watched a translated version of the film).
Aaron wrote: I generally get irrationally mad whenever the hacker character is on screen.
Totally Acceptable I broke into the NSA months back and put in a backdoor let me access their database.
Not-Acceptable this is one of the most secure things evar let me hack it by mashing buttons in a few minutes.
That was one of the neat scenes I saw the other day. Not a hacker but a 'computer expert'. Came in, started banging away at the computer. Spouted gibberish. Guy he was helping was looking at him like he was spouting gibberish, but . . . was probably correct gibberish.
And it was all a con. That guy at the keyboard knew as much about computers as a donkey.
Okay, it wasn't a great scene, but the comment reminded me of it.
(That was in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)
Katrinasam wrote: "Having worked in a Lab doing Blood tests I find it offensive that you think we don't have a sense of urgency. We work very hard. If a test is very urgent then it jumps the queue but it is only a very limited range of tests in which this can occur. "I'm not questioning your professionalism or commitment to your job -- a lab tech literally saved my life by breaking the rules when she couldn't contact my doctor through normal means -- but there's something wrong with the staffing or process when cases that can be done in fifteen minutes get backed up to two weeks.
It's why I can't read Jack Reacher. I read the first one and there was SO MUCH wrong with it about the military, police investigations, and using an impossible urban legend as a true story that the character witnessed that I just couldn't take it.I was practically convulsing in the theater watching the first JJ Abrams Star Trek movie. I wanted to stand up and yell "Yes in thousands of years of military combat we've never had the foresight to create a standard list of who gets command down to the last enlisted guy. NOPE, we're that FRAKING DUMB." By the end I was exhausted "fine give the guy with no command experience fresh out of school the flagship, can we leave now?"
As far as med tests go, yes if someone is critical the sample can jump the line of other tests waiting to go into the machine, but it still has a set amount of time for results. Or more likely, two different tests are run, the quick "good enough for now" results that can help rule out some things and the more comprehensive longer test.
Actually, the "sound in space" thing isn't always that bad. In most cases the "sound" is heard from the camera's viewpoint, not from another ship. I've never seen the crew of one ship all turn their heads at the sound of another passing ship.The "sound" could be explained in several ways.
First is that what the audience hears is the sound of the ship as heard by its own crew. After all, the camera viewpoint doesn't exist anyway in the sense of a real person or ship sitting in empty space and filming the passing ship.
Second is in the case of (e.g.) Enterprise type ships which use some kind of "warp" drive. While sound in the sense of vibrations through air cannot exist in space, vibrations transmitted in the form of (say for example) gravitational fluctuations of the ship's drive might cause something perceived as "sound".
I get annoyed with inconsistency of "rules" . If you cant do something at the beginning of the movie / tv show how can it suddenly be possible later on.for example identical twins who are different sexes, mmmm????
Lara Amber wrote: "It's why I can't read Jack Reacher. I read the first one and there was SO MUCH wrong with it about the military, police investigations, and using an impossible urban legend as a true story that the..."Lara Amber wrote: "It's why I can't read Jack Reacher. I read the first one and there was SO MUCH wrong with it about the military, police investigations, and using an impossible urban legend as a true story that the..."
That is true of some tests, which are now highly automated but some tests still take hours or days. Some tests can only be performed by specialists so aren't available 24 hours a day.
Trike wrote: "Katrinasam wrote: "Having worked in a Lab doing Blood tests I find it offensive that you think we don't have a sense of urgency. We work very hard. If a test is very urgent then it jumps the queue ..."I am sure understaffing and lack of funding plays a part but what people call "a blood test" can cover a huge range of things just as an "operation" could refer to a tonsillectomy or open heart surgery. And just like in an operation sometimes even the most straight forward of tests can show anomalies that require further more complicated testing.
Kateb wrote: "I get annoyed with inconsistency of "rules" . If you cant do something at the beginning of the movie / tv show how can it suddenly be possible later on.for example identical twins who are differe..."
This. 100% this. I know earlier I said I'd forgive inaccuracies so long as the story was entertaining. I do insist on a story at least being self-consistent, though.
Katrinasam wrote: "We work very hard"I'm a physician. I know you work hard, but some tests take a while: drug screen, CT, etc.
In this day and age of instant internet access to immense amounts of information, there’s no excuse for blunders like saying Jesse Stone is working with the “Massachusetts State Homicide Division.” For many years I worked as a crime and courts reporter in Massachusetts. Then and now, there isn’t any such animal. With only a few exceptions for the biggest Massachusetts cities, homicides are investigated by the various District Attorneys’ offices. Those investigations are handled by Massachusetts State Police Detective Lieutenants who often are hired from the retired ranks of local police agencies. I’ve never met one who began as a uniformed state trooper: entirely different skill sets.
It took me less than a minute to research and verify my recollections. That means it would have taken a script writer a similar amount of time to be authentic and factual rather than a blathering would-be writer who demonstrates his lack of talent by creating material sans research. Imagine how much better and more plausible TV scripts would be if their creators took even a smidgen of time to learn about what they’re writing?
I’m afraid to watch and see just how many other rudimentary blunders rear their ugly heads during the premier. Should we keep count?