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

[splash-the-cat.livejournal.com]

The misuse of carbon dating. Guaranteed to send me into a frothing apoplexy.

[daisycm83.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't say I'm in any way an expert, but I obsess over bad hair. If someone has a hairstyle I find really, truly obnoxious, it will completely distract me from everything else. Take Kitty Pryde from X-Men 3, for example. I mean, I didn't like the rest of the movie anyway, but I would've had serious troubles even if I had because of that HAIR.

[abyssinia4077.livejournal.com]

I have a weird science thing - a threshold where I'm okay with it not making sense (and I give more leeway to alien science and future science) but if a show crosses that threshold ("Red Sky" "Crystal Skull" anything out of phase) I FLAIL at the tv.

But it's the medic/first aid stuff that gets me quickest - they do CPR wrong or move someone wrong (or when they shouldn't) or splint something wrong or whatever and I lose it. Also when they're doing science-y stuff and wearing gloves and touch their face. I always yell at them for doing that.

[crazedturkey.livejournal.com]

stethoscopes on backwards. Argh. drives me mad.

Then I tend to get slightly unhappy if there's some medical stuff that's beyond the bounds of the ridiculous. Like Hot Zone on Atlantis. That made me cry tears of laughter. :p

[katcorvi.livejournal.com]

I didn't want to see The Horse Whisperer and against my will I was dragged to see it. The injured horse was played by at least three different horses and they didn't even try to make them look alike. One had a star and snip, the other had a full blaze, and the third had only a star. Aaaaiiiieeee!!

The movie sucked on many levels (continuity issues galore and not just with the horse's ever changing face) and I kept getting jarred by them all. Once I found one issue, lots more jumped out. I hate that movie.

I pay close attention to horses and riders onscreen. RDA can ride. I appreciate that.

[6beforelunch.livejournal.com]

Language in science fiction. Stargate is the worst offender with just about everyone speaking English for no apparent reason. Usually there's some sort of translator microbe/babel fish/universal translator explanation, but even that gets wonky. How can the universal translator instantaneously translate a language that it's never heard before? I don't care how good the program is, it needs some sort of reference sample. *headdesk*

[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...

[stargazercmc.livejournal.com]

Chess games. It drives me nuts when anyone shows a chess match and a) none of the pieces' positions make sense, b) when they edit and the pieces are in suddenly different places where they could never get to, and c) when you actually see someone move a piece the way it can't be moved. I'm like WTF?

Incidentally, one of the reasons I love to watch the character of House play piano is because Hugh Laurie plays (really well, in fact) and it's always him they're showing.

[pepper-field.livejournal.com]

Historical stuff that I know is wrong, and that I feel anyone with a basic interest in history would also know is wrong. Grr. Either a) they don't care enough to look it up / have an expert around to point out the inaccuracies, or b) they think the audience won't notice.

The entirety of the 1997-98 New Adventures Of Robin Hood series, for example. OMFG, I want the head of their researcher on a pike!

[sg1danny.livejournal.com]

Inaccurate historical data. I mean how hard is it to do some research???

Do...not...get...me...started...on...Braveheart!!!!

[nandamai]

Celtic anything. It's always wrong.