What Really Annoys You About Realism in Films?

First topic message reminder :

There are certain things in films that really annoy me; mostly in action flicks, but also things which can change the laws of physics etc.

1. Hiding behind an upturned table/furniture to shield oneself from gunfire. Unless your furniture has been coated with thick kevlar, you're getting drilled behind your makeshift shelter by bits of lead passing through said table like it was butter. The same goes for hiding behind cars/car doors.

2. US backed films that don't think about how long it takes to get across our tiny little country. e.g Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. "Tonight we shall dine with my father in Nottingham". Ok Kevin. You have just landed at Dover, or at least nearby. It's a 200 mile journey. Even taking into account breaks you'd be looking at a minimum of about 50 hours. You're WALKING!! Remember the lack of roads in the Middle Ages too. And even with a horse, it would get knackered very quickly, and probably still take about 18 hours. Work it out people - do your research!!

3. Blokes being able to knock out another guy cold with one punch. Professional boxers struggle to do this to one another in the ring and they are highly trained how to punch. I just don''t believe it.

4. Cars with manual gearboxes. Need to go faster than flat out in top gear? No problem, change down. It'll make you accelerate. Really? Try it. See what happens. And no I won't pay for your gearbox/engine rebuild as your pistons shoot from your bonnet as they hit 9000rpm... Also let's not forget the 8-speed manual box at the start of The Fast & The Furious. Or the world's longest runway in Fast & Furious 6.

I know films are escapism, but I do like a little bit of realism too   

My biggest gripe is when they are driving and not looking at the road.

When a woman has sex with a man in bed, but when she gets / sits up she insists on holding the covers up to cover her jubblies. Sorry, but if you have just shagged your husband / boyfriend / lover for the night, you really aint gonna care that he can see your jubblies. He has probably just been suckin on em anyway!!

Really? "t-i-t-s" is a banned word?!?! Really?!?!?!

Its a good job we dont have a bird-watching section on this forum!!

Bunch of jubblies...

Shot 21 LCFC wrote:When a woman has sex with a man in bed, but when she gets / sits up she insists on holding the covers up to cover her jubblies. Sorry, but if you have just shagged your husband / boyfriend / lover for the night, you really aint gonna care that he can see your jubblies. He has probably just been suckin on em anyway!!

Are you sure you're 25 and not 15?

i wonder...
jubblies
man sausage-a-doodle doo
midfielder-cum-striker
Dick cheney

lol, Dick got through...

"Wanked" gets through as well for some reason.

DAVE667 wrote:

Shot 21 LCFC wrote:When a woman has sex with a man in bed, but when she gets / sits up she insists on holding the covers up to cover her jubblies. Sorry, but if you have just shagged your husband / boyfriend / lover for the night, you really aint gonna care that he can see your jubblies. He has probably just been suckin on em anyway!!

Are you sure you're 25 and not 15?

??? Im confused...

Rom coms . ugly nice funny man meets beautiful girl . beautiful girl goes out with handsome rich hunk . handsome rich hunk turns out to be a dick and a cheat . beautiful girl ends up with ugly nice funny man . the end . not in this life , not in the next life or any life at all . beautiful girl would still be with handsome rich guy and wouldn't look twice at ugly funny guy    

So let me get this right you want a robin hood film to be 50 hours longer so he can get to Nottingham........

As for US films what about your ww2 films set in Dunkirk and places like that...........Where the boat trip takes 30 seconds.....

I feel shortchanged.........We should see two hours of sailors puking overboard and waves crashing into the side of the ship..before a shot gets fired............and it only took your Captain Scott twenty minutes to get to the South pole........Usain Bolt eat your heart out !!

You can keep your realism..........

"Get an urgent missive to his majesty in York. It must be there by nightfall. Send your fastest rider."

Two hours later

"Eeey whaasmatter...Isa me...Frankie Dettori...I'm a ride all the way from the London to see his Kingness. I have de message for him"

...and even then, you might not get there in two hours mate!

I get the Robin Hood problem, and thought it at the time. He could have at least made reference to it taking him days to reach Nottingham. I would have said the M1 wasn't even in action, but that would have taken longer, going up that road   
His accent was a bigger issue though. He apparently didn't have time to perfect an English accent, so didn't bother.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So let me get this right you want a robin hood film to be 50 hours longer so he can get to Nottingham........

Oh Trussy - you know I'm just talking about the research being sloppy. 50 hours of Kevin Costner? Are you SERIOUS??!!!   

Any film with Kevin Costner feels like about 50 hours of Kevin Costner

Rowley wrote:One thing people do in films is when four or five mate are walking down the street they all walk next to each other in a line. People in the real world never do this, it is borderline sociopathic to do so.

you obviously haven't been on any road while school/college finishes, kids talk the whole pavement up making you walk on the road round them rather than just a couple tuck in and leave a space for other pedestrians.

massive pet hate that, i just walking right through them now. they soon get the message.

think any football game in a film, why is it the keepers are truly terrible.

and the biggest gripe in films is in wars films when everybody speaks english. think it was war horse where there was a french, english and german around and i couldnt tell the difference because there accents were so poor. just to appease simple people who cant read and watch a film at the same time

musicals . if you start singing and dancing in the rain ,you going to look mental .

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:musicals . if you start singing and dancing in the rain ,you going to look mental .

This can be improved on in Musicals when they have those big numbers in the street or wherever and everyone joins in knowing the words. I'd like see when the song ends, everyone looks really awkward and confused as to what just went on and then carry on what they were doing before the song started.

gcBlues wrote:

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:musicals .    if you start singing and dancing in the rain    ,you going to look mental .

This can be improved on in Musicals when they have those big numbers in the street or wherever and everyone joins in knowing the words. I'd like see when the song ends, everyone looks really awkward and confused as to what just went on and then carry on what they were doing before the song started.

I'd like to see one where a character starts singing and someone else walks on screen, punches them square on the nose and says in a stern voice, "We'll have none of that...not now...not EVER!"

Shot 21 LCFC wrote:When a woman has sex with a man in bed, but when she gets / sits up she insists on holding the covers up to cover her jubblies. Sorry, but if you have just shagged your husband / boyfriend / lover for the night, you really aint gonna care that he can see your jubblies. He has probably just been suckin on em anyway!!

I'm sorry but the man doesn't have a sheet cellotaped to his genitals either after sex. If the actor doesn't have to show why should an actress? Look at a Lad's mag for the jubblies and use your imagination in a movie

Realism wrongs?

Well, we all know it's a movie we're watching - costs a fair bit of money to make one these days. Still handheld cameras all over the place, shaking to the left, shaking to the right, shaking to the left and swinging all about.

We get it. We got it. It's passe now. Move on. Yesterday's style toy. Put the cameras on stands or use steady cams...
I don't buy the idea that more shake equals better action. It doesn't, it means blur and badly set up fight scenes passing vision quality control that they'd never pass if the camera was steady.

Galted wrote:"Wanked" gets through as well for some reason.

But not the surname of an Austrian ski jumper who I have to type in as "Vank" to get it past the blocker.

SecretFly wrote:

Shot 21 LCFC wrote:When a woman has sex with a man in bed, but when she gets / sits up she insists on holding the covers up to cover her jubblies. Sorry, but if you have just shagged your husband / boyfriend / lover for the night, you really aint gonna care that he can see your jubblies. He has probably just been suckin on em anyway!!

I'm sorry but the man doesn't have a sheet cellotaped to his genitals either after sex.  If the actor doesn't have to show why should an actress?  Look at a Lad's mag for the jubblies and use your imagination in a movie

I think you missed the point.

Hulking_up wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Shot 21 LCFC wrote:When a woman has sex with a man in bed, but when she gets / sits up she insists on holding the covers up to cover her jubblies. Sorry, but if you have just shagged your husband / boyfriend / lover for the night, you really aint gonna care that he can see your jubblies. He has probably just been suckin on em anyway!!

I'm sorry but the man doesn't have a sheet cellotaped to his genitals either after sex.  If the actor doesn't have to show why should an actress?  Look at a Lad's mag for the jubblies and use your imagination in a movie

I think you missed the point.

no - I haven't.

You kind of have. I wasnt angry at not being able to see them myself - I have the internet for that. Its just not realistic. In the film, it is just the guy and the girl in the room. and if they have just had some, she wouldnt then be shy about him seeing any parts of her body afterwards. They should maybe just be clever with camera angles (unless its rated 15) so you cant see them.

Shot 21 LCFC wrote:You kind of have. I wasnt angry at not being able to see them myself - I have the internet for that. Its just not realistic. In the film, it is just the guy and the girl in the room. and if they have just had some, she wouldnt then be shy about him seeing any parts of her body afterwards. They should maybe just be clever with camera angles (unless its rated 15) so you cant see them.

But I haven't Shot.  Because I know exactly what you mean about holding the sheet.  It wouldn't happen, I agree.  
But you do isolate the woman.  I've seen many male actors who walk to a bathroom holding a sheet over their genitals..... wouldn't happen.  It's there for ratings and sometimes it's bluntly there because actresses don't want to expose themselves (their right just like it's the right of actors with their strategic sheets going walkabout )

So no, I'm not missing the point, I'm saying that it's pointed that most people fixate on the woman covering up when discussing realism but forget about the man wandering around with the sheet stuck to his groin.

Getting your t.ts and your pe.is out are slightly different.

Stella wrote:Getting your t.ts and your pe.is out are slightly different.

No it isn't............. men are sensitive about their genitals, some women are sensitive about their breasts. It's their right to judge what they want to show and what they don't. Do you expect a director to shout at an actress under contract; "Get them out, woman!!! They're only T*ts! It's not like I'm asking you to expose your genitals!!!"
She'll decide what they are and how significant a gesture it is for her in exposing them. The director and producer don't decide those issues they just hire an actress willing to expose if they really want that exposure scene.

I would think most actresses are use to getting their 'attitudes' out over a long career. There is a difference. I would get arrested if I flopped my knob out on bournemouth beach for instance.

Stella wrote:I would think most actresses are use to getting their 'attitudes' out over a long career. There is a difference. I would get arrested if I flopped my knob out on bournemouth beach for instance.

???  Female actresses - stop being so precious about your t*ts?  
Male actors - realism doesn't matter in your case, nobody wants to see your manhood, carry that sheet around with you

I think this topic has gone about as far as it can go so.

SecretFly wrote:

Stella wrote:I would think most actresses are use to getting their 'attitudes' out over a long career. There is a difference. I would get arrested if I flopped my knob out on bournemouth beach for instance.

???  Female actresses - stop being so precious about your t*ts?  
Male actors - realism doesn't matter in your case, nobody wants to see your manhood, carry that sheet around with you

I think this topic has gone about as far as it can go so.

Think you're being a little PC mate. They are different. I'm not saying they should get them out, just that it's more of a done thing in the film industry.

Stella wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Stella wrote:I would think most actresses are use to getting their 'attitudes' out over a long career. There is a difference. I would get arrested if I flopped my knob out on bournemouth beach for instance.

???  Female actresses - stop being so precious about your t*ts?  
Male actors - realism doesn't matter in your case, nobody wants to see your manhood, carry that sheet around with you

I think this topic has gone about as far as it can go so.

Think you're being a little PC mate. They are different. I'm not saying they should get them out, just that it's more of a done thing in the film industry.

The argument is realism....and most specifically the lack of realism in a woman covering up the morning after the night before.  I agree - lack of realism.  BUT...isolating the woman for lack of 'realism whilst ignoring the man wandering off to the bathroom with his towel or sheet covering his genitals is being selective with the word 'realism'.

I'm not being PC, I'm pointing out the trouble with logic when that distinction is made, that's all.

Ok, no bother.

Them Eastwood movies with the ape..where he trashes about 8 guys in a bar and then sits down and drinks his michelob and there is no hard feelings..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Them Eastwood movies with the ape..where he trashes about 8 guys in a bar and then sits down and drinks his michelob and there is no hard feelings..

Never been to Dundee have you, Truss? Swap "ape" for "ape like wife" and "Michelob" for "p**s thin Tennants" and you have an average night out in the Arctic Bar.

SecretFly wrote:

Shot 21 LCFC wrote:You kind of have. I wasnt angry at not being able to see them myself - I have the internet for that. Its just not realistic. In the film, it is just the guy and the girl in the room. and if they have just had some, she wouldnt then be shy about him seeing any parts of her body afterwards. They should maybe just be clever with camera angles (unless its rated 15) so you cant see them.

But I haven't Shot.  Because I know exactly what you mean about holding the sheet.  It wouldn't happen, I agree.  
But you do isolate the woman.  I've seen many male actors who walk to a bathroom holding a sheet over their genitals..... wouldn't happen.  It's there for ratings and sometimes it's bluntly there because actresses don't want to expose themselves (their right just like it's the right of actors with their strategic sheets going walkabout )

So no, I'm not missing the point, I'm saying that it's pointed that most people fixate on the woman covering up when discussing realism but forget about the man wandering around with the sheet stuck to his groin.

I get what your saying now, and yes you are right. If a man had been with a woman, then he also wouldnt be that bothered about walking to the bathroom in the nude.

The difference is that breasts and bottoms, for some reason (never really know why) are considered different to the Winkle / vagina. For instance The Sun shows breasts on page 3 but could never get away with anything else. But that has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing, its a completely different context, so yes I agree with you.

I'll swap anything for my wife at the moment..supes

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'll swap anything for my wife at the moment..supes

Does she own a boat..? If so, I may be interested. Send photo of boat.

Probably the most irritating thing in movies is when somebody drives up to the front of whatever building he is going to and nips straight into a vacant parking space, right outside.

It never happens in real life. Never. Especially in London.

I think once you have animals talking and peacefully coexisting and playing out Shakespeare's Hamlet whilst occasionally singing, with spirit magic and A Fisher King link between lions and the landscape, one probably shouldn't be focussing on realism like whether the background songs are in the right African language. The lion king is based at Pride Rock, an imaginary place not a specific part of Africa. Just like there were no bears in English at the age that (the fictional) Robin Hood "occurred", yet in Disney's Robin Hood there is a bear. It doesn't make sense to me as a complaint

Tom Cruise kicking a gun off the ground into his own hand in Mission Impossible 2.

Some ridiculous motor bike cycling in that movie as well, front wheel etc.

And these are the only parts you felt were unrealistic?

People sitting down to a meal to discuss a plot development. Only to share about five sentences together, wipe their mouths with the napkins, throw some loose change on the table and walk out.

What a waste of a coffee break!

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Them Eastwood movies with the ape..where he trashes about 8 guys in a bar and then sits down and drinks his michelob and there is no hard feelings..

Never been to Dundee have you, Truss?  Swap "ape" for "ape like wife" and "Michelob" for "p**s thin Tennants" and you have an average night out in the Arctic Bar.    

How can you use the Artic as the standard for a night out in Dundee   

Most of the other pubs are far worse

SecretFly wrote:People sitting down to a meal to discuss a plot development.  Only to share about five sentences together, wipe their mouths with the napkins, throw some loose change on the table and walk out.

What a waste of a coffee break!

I agree. I hate when people order food or drink, then dont touch it and walk out 2 mins later leaving a full plate / cup. I would finish it or take it with me!

People climbing metal ladders (up or down, it doesn't matter) and being shot at by bad guys (or good guys, it doesn't matter) only for most of the dozen or more bullets to ping and whine off the bloody rungs. I find it incredible that people trained to have a certain level of proficiency in the handling of weapons can't hit a grown man (or woman, it doesn't matter) moving relatively slowly on a stationary piece of equipment.

Same thing happens when they're running down narrow corridors and the bullets are hitting wall and door frames instead of the relatively big person in a relatively confined space.

Did they buy these guns from Lidl?

Women being stalked by a serial killer.........Always hear the sound of footsteps around them and turn around .....where they see no one in a hundred yard proximity...

Then two seconds later there is a hand around their mouth..........

Usain Bolt can't be everywhere.......

It was only a dream though. She's safe in bed...with the sheet glued to her breasts

 

I seen Ted the other night, and was bothered by the fact that Ted could decisively beat Mark Wahlberg in a fight, but then he was totally helpless when kidnapped and held by the small, weak man and his child. I enjoyed the film but this ruined it for me a little.