Another Way to Avoid Writing: Pet Peeves On-Screen

[holdouttrout]

abyssinia4077 and I were talking about our on-screen pet peeves. Hers has to do with bad science. Mine is any time it calls for a character to "play" piano. Ninety-eight percent of the time (yes, I'm making that up), the hand movements aren't even in the right SECTION of the piano. Even when they don't show the hands, I can tell by body language whether or not the actor is even making an honest attempt.

And don't get me started on music syncing.

So what's your pet peeve? Something you know so well that any little thing wrong jumps out of you and takes you right out of the story?

Comments

[majorsamfan.livejournal.com]

Well, I agree about the piano. I love when they actually pan down from the face to the hands or zoom out from the hands so you can see they actually are playing.

Inconsistencies (discontinuity) and failure for show writers to follow their own canon is another biggie. For (bad) example, when SG-1 disobeyed direct orders and gated to the coordinates Daniel had acquired in "There but for the Grace of God"...and ended up on Klorel's ship, and Daniel got shot and stayed behind "to watch their six"...he crawled to the sarcophagus to get healed. When he emerged, the gaping hole in his jacket was also fixed. But in "The Abyss", when Jack was put in Ba'al's sarcophagus, his tunic still had holes. A good example of consistency was the scar across Jack's eyebrow that they kept as part of his character's make-up.

Another example is when they show an age or other character information and then later contradict it. (e.g., in 1997 Jack O'Neill says he's forty but later when we see his records, they say he was born earlier than the 1957 that forty would have meant in 1997)

I mean it's kind of fun to note things they didn't catch, and minor stuff (like prop or person placement, changes of clothes, or whatever) isn't a big deal. But the bigger things that come up over and over through ten years of a show...you'd think they'd work hard to make those consistent.

Maybe they *do* work hard and I'm just too hard to please...

[holdouttrout.livejournal.com]

I think it's really hard on the writers, because the fans' job is knowing the show, inside and out, and they really truly memorize the weirdest things. So I will cut them a lot of slack--it's very within the realm of possibility that they forget they even *mentioned* someone's birth date. Why would they remember? And part of the things that are inconsistent is because it just doesn't work, production-wise.

However, I agree on clothes repair/details like that. Maybe Apophis had the upgraded version of the sarcophagus? "New! With Insta!Robe Repair! Never Have to Change Your Clothes Again!!!"

[majorsamfan.livejournal.com]

Well, all shows tend to have a "bible" they use...and you'd think they'd settle on character's ages and such when they start a series. I mean, they had a 2-year commitment for SG-1 from the get-go from Showtime and quickly gained a second 2-year commitment. So yeah, as a writer myself, I'd expect them to plan for age references and the like. But that's me.

"New! With Insta!Robe Repair! Never Have to Change Your Clothes Again!!!"

ROFLMAnatomyO! That's apparently the case because the Goa'uld were *always* in the same get-ups. Well, maybe not the women - Nirrti and Osiris had different outfits, I believe.

Another good one was the reference in Threads - in the Jacob-Selmak's dying plotline - to Jacob having nearly died "four years ago", which in RL time it was about seven years...

I loved how they had Daniel say (in "1969") that he was 4yo in 1969, when Michael Shanks wasn't even born then. But the producers have commented how *young* Shanks was when he took on the role; in fact, it was a big concern for them as he was supposed to be a well-respected (then *not* respected) PhD. So I'm guessing they needed the character to be that old, even if he looked 18 when he came back from Abydos.

Anyway...it gives us fans something to talk about!

[supplyship.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think we have to cut them *some* slack with show-wide inconsistencies, especially with a show as long-lived as Stargate. We fans will always beat the writers in the Trivial Pursuit contest! :)

What really gets me is inconsistencies within a single episode. For example, Jack has 2 General's stars in Act 1, 1 star in Act 3, and back to 2 stars in Act 5. Or when a weapon/radio/other prop "magically" appears where there was no sign of it before. That kind of stuff makes me want to have a stern word with the Props Dept. or convince them to hire me as a continuity consultant.

[holdouttrout.livejournal.com]

I don't notice most magical props--but I know a lot of people do! (I'm so bad that I often don't notice entire wardrobe inconsistencies, but I know I'm special that way.)

Wouldn't it be fun to be in charge of something like that that you always noticed? I would love to consult on that kind of thing...