Things that Hollywood gets wrong (and when they get it right)

[MCRoads]

Alright, so there are 2 big pet peeves in movies that make me annoyed:

Crash Barrels filled with water
Nailguns being used as projectile weapons after just picking them up)

I just saw a movie where they got the nail gun thing right:
Nailguns have a safety mechanism that prevents use of the device unless the tip is compressed. The movie showed the person picking it up, pulling the trigger, and... nothing. She put it on a price of wood, and when the tip was pressed, it fired. She then took some duct tape, and pulled it taught so that when she stuck the ends to the gun, the tip was compressed. It's little details like this that I think make a movie great.

This particular movie also had a good audio editing scene (as in, it took some effort to filter out some loud music that was recorded along with the voices she wanted to hear), but that's not something that annoys me as much.

[Rothman]

Alright, so there are 2 big pet peeves in movies that make me annoyed:

Crash Barrels filled with water
Nailguns being used as projectile weapons after just picking them up)

I just saw a movie where they got the nail gun thing right:
Nailguns have a safety mechanism that prevents use of the device unless the tip is compressed. The movie showed the person picking it up, pulling the trigger, and... nothing. She put it on a price of wood, and when the tip was pressed, it fired. She then took some duct tape, and pulled it taught so that when she stuck the ends to the gun, the tip was compressed. It's little details like this that I think make a movie great.

This particular movie also had a good audio editing scene (as in, it took some effort to filter out some loud music that was recorded along with the voices she wanted to hear), but that's not something that annoys me as much.

Um...Lethal Weapon 2 did it right, quite infamously...no need to go to an obscure reference.

Heck, American Psycho as well...

In fact, maybe the idea of using a nail gun as a projectile weapon is in the minority of popular movies.

[nexus73]

The 007 movie "Dr. No" has a shot of James Bond ready to be picked up in a 1957 Chevrolet convertible.  When the camera cuts to an inside the car shot, it shows the dash that was used in 1957 and 1958 Fords.  WTF over?

Rick

[jeffandnicole]

Movies with cars blowing up into big fireballs. (And then people believe cars frequently explode like this). Same movies also show similar crashes that result in minimal damage.

[formulanone]

Front-wheel-drive cars that can suddenly perform rear-wheel-drive burnouts. If they keep it real, usually they'll intersperse some action shots from a greased skidpad or closed course. Or use just a partial shot a stunt/dummy car which just shows a wheel losing traction or whatever stock footage is needed. Probably depends a lot on whether the auto brand is a sponsor of the movie.

Seatbelts are rarely worn (I suppose they get this partially correct), though it can be used to establish caution and safety of the actor, or that some sort of action is going to suddenly occur to the otherwise mild-mannered situation.

Headrests are sometimes absent; it makes it easier to see the actors' and any action behind the actors. Usually, interior shots use a far different vehicle than the one filmed from the exterior. Filming a car interior at night? Just use the same old vehicle with a camera on top of the hood, because those details are largely irrelevant and invisible.

Manual action of an automatic transmission shift lever, something that almost nobody performs. Or manual transmissions that seem to exist on this one example...again, the stunt or dummy car.

Depending on the budget of the film and means of the studio, it's understandable when a lower-budget comedy/family movie does this, but less so for a so-called summer blockbuster.

Crash Barrels filled with water

I'm sure they're sometimes filled with some sand, or stabilized and act as an energy dissipater, but rainwater just happens to collect in them (at least in the eastern half of the US). Seen enough dashcam footage to notice this is an actual occurrence. 

[davewiecking]

Squealing tires/burnouts on dirt or gravel roads.

[SP Cook]

The biggest road related gaffe that Hollywood uses is how road trips work.  For 90% of road trips, one finds an interstate, and that system takes you where you want to go.  If you need to stop, services are available everywhere, and are pretty standard across the nation (and beyond).   But in the movies and on TV, trips are usually on two lane roads and the locals one deals with are dangerous hilljacks.

Sometimes its for the plot, but not always.  That is just how out of touch those people are.

[Pink Jazz]

Gay men always wearing pink. Don't mean to offend anyone, but this is a harmful stereotype. I am straight myself and I wear pink a lot.

[abefroman329]

The biggest road related gaffe that Hollywood uses is how road trips work.  For 90% of road trips, one finds an interstate, and that system takes you where you want to go.  If you need to stop, services are available everywhere, and are pretty standard across the nation (and beyond).   But in the movies and on TV, trips are usually on two lane roads and the locals one deals with are dangerous hilljacks.

Sometimes its for the plot, but not always.  That is just how out of touch those people are.

"Out of touch"?  Rural areas are, in fact, filled with inbred toothless hicks.  Source: every rural area I've ever been to.

As for the part of your post that isn't an errant swipe at your ideological foes, there's nothing interesting about a road trip on interstates.  You get on, drive, stop when you need to eat or drink or sleep or your vehicle needs gas, and arrive at your destination.  Roll credits.  Now that I think about it, Rain Man did a nice job of acknowledging that fact by having Raymond state that he didn't want to drive on interstates.  Smokey and the Bandit kinda did that at the beginning of the movie, but then forgot it.

And speaking of Smokey and the Bandit, Bandit was driving a Trans Am with an automatic transmission, but the sound they used was of a car with a manual transmission.

[formulanone]

I think the trope of "a shortcut is anything but a shortcut" is also a common one. As a fable, it punishes those who "cheat the system" or just unprepared. In this case, they get both parts right and wrong.

You will rarely make up time, except in select situations (massive traffic back-ups or direct routing). But Hollywood gets it wrong: most people do not come to any sort of mortal danger, other than some lost time, usually with better fuel economy (not discussed). But hey, gotta tell a story.

Breaking the fourth wall...tropes themselves are mental shortcuts.

[jeffandnicole]

One thing I liked about the movie Hangover is that they showed Las Vegas as it exists. They even show a casino across the street under construction, rather than trying to hide the construction. While the movie was largely based at Caesars, they freely showed casinos from other corporations.

Other movies, 'Conair' for instance, shows a sequence of events that are impossible to occur based on the actual locations of the casinos.  As the plane crash lands, it hits the Hard Rock Casino guitar which was several blocks from the Strip, then lands somewhere on the Strip in an impossible to occur flight path.

[cwf1701]

sometimes even the wrong car is shown. In a Adam-12 episode, they show a 1971 LAPD Plymouth Satellite, then cut to the taillights of a 1969 LAPD Plymouth Belvedere. Some season 1 episode of Emergency! often show the wrong year front for both Engine 51 and Squad 51 (some of the Crown Firecoach shown as engine 51 was pre-1965 as Engine 60 (which played Engine 51) was a 1965 Crown, and some scenes of Squad 51 show the silver grille of a 1972 Dodge, but the painted grille of a Pre-1970 Dodge in the next).

[ran4sh]

The worst thing that Hollywood gets wrong is fictional depictions of the court/legal system. Which causes effects in real life when people think that that's how court cases work.

[skluth]

Alright, so there are 2 big pet peeves in movies that make me annoyed:

Wow. Just two things. I'm impressed.

[abefroman329]

The worst thing that Hollywood gets wrong is fictional depictions of the court/legal system. Which causes effects in real life when people think that that's how court cases work.

True.  Many courtroom scenes assume the Federal Rules of Civil/Criminal Procedure don't exist.  Accused criminals don't "get off on a technicality" nearly as often in real life as they do on the big/small screen.  And you could go an entire trial without the judge saying "I'll allow it, but watch yourself, Counselor" to anyone.

[Scott5114]

The worst thing that Hollywood gets wrong is fictional depictions of the court/legal system. Which causes effects in real life when people think that that's how court cases work.

True.  Many courtroom scenes assume the Federal Rules of Civil/Criminal Procedure don't exist.  Accused criminals don't "get off on a technicality" nearly as often in real life as they do on the big/small screen.  And you could go an entire trial without the judge saying "I'll allow it, but watch yourself, Counselor" to anyone.

Additionally, most of the time, prosecutors won't bring a case until they're certain they will win it. That usually they already know ahead of time what a witness is going to say in response to all of their questions (i.e. "never ask a question you don't already know the answer to"), and all of the questions defense might bring up under cross-examination. Damning information coming to light mid-trial that wrecks the prosecution's case rarely happens.

[J N Winkler]

When I served as a juror in a murder trial several years ago, the two biggest surprises were voir dire being conducted like a seminar (except to elicit basic biographical details, prospective jurors were not questioned individually in sequence) and the defense opting not to present a case in chief (the defense attorney relied solely on cross-examination).  We acquitted the defendant, though not without reluctance.

[Max Rockatansky]

The 007 movie "Dr. No" has a shot of James Bond ready to be picked up in a 1957 Chevrolet convertible.  When the camera cuts to an inside the car shot, it shows the dash that was used in 1957 and 1958 Fords.  WTF over?

Rick

See Vanishing Point and the 1970 Hemi Challenger morphing into a 1967 Camaro when it explodes. 

[Rothman]

The worst thing that Hollywood gets wrong is fictional depictions of the court/legal system. Which causes effects in real life when people think that that's how court cases work.

True.  Many courtroom scenes assume the Federal Rules of Civil/Criminal Procedure don't exist.  Accused criminals don't "get off on a technicality" nearly as often in real life as they do on the big/small screen.  And you could go an entire trial without the judge saying "I'll allow it, but watch yourself, Counselor" to anyone.

Additionally, most of the time, prosecutors won't bring a case until they're certain they will win it. That usually they already know ahead of time what a witness is going to say in response to all of their questions (i.e. "never ask a question you don't already know the answer to"), and all of the questions defense might bring up under cross-examination. Damning information coming to light mid-trial that wrecks the prosecution's case rarely happens.

Or surprise witnesses not already on the witness list.  Trying to bring someone in based upon the usual catch-all phrase in the list is a big pain (had experience with this when I was a paralegal).

[formulanone]

The worst thing that Hollywood gets wrong is fictional depictions of the court/legal system. Which causes effects in real life when people think that that's how court cases work.

True.  Many courtroom scenes assume the Federal Rules of Civil/Criminal Procedure don't exist.  Accused criminals don't "get off on a technicality" nearly as often in real life as they do on the big/small screen.  And you could go an entire trial without the judge saying "I'll allow it, but watch yourself, Counselor" to anyone.

Additionally, most of the time, prosecutors won't bring a case until they're certain they will win it. That usually they already know ahead of time what a witness is going to say in response to all of their questions (i.e. "never ask a question you don't already know the answer to"), and all of the questions defense might bring up under cross-examination. Damning information coming to light mid-trial that wrecks the prosecution's case rarely happens.

Or surprise witnesses not already on the witness list.  Trying to bring someone in based upon the usual catch-all phrase in the list is a big pain (had experience with this when I was a paralegal).

I have heard that My Cousin Vinny is a slightly more accurate depiction of how the legal system works, and a better "how not to be an attorney" lesson than most other courtroom dramas. The last two days of the trial bend things more than a little, I suppose. Thoughts from the experts?

(Scenes filmed in Georgia standing-in for Alabama, not withstanding. At least there was something of an excuse why two New York kids were driving through rural "Alabama" via two-lane backroads instead of interstates...they were on winter break.)

[abefroman329]

I have heard that My Cousin Vinny is a slightly more accurate depiction of how the legal system works, and a better "how not to be an attorney" lesson than most other courtroom dramas. The last two days of the trial bend things more than a little, I suppose. Thoughts from the experts?

The only major thing they got wrong was calling discovery "disclosure" (as in, Mona Lisa Vito should have said "He had to, ya dickweed!  It's called discovery!").

[triplemultiplex]

Building collapse.
How many big super hero smash 'em ups and monster movies have skyscrapers flopping over like trees?  It's physically impossible for a skyscraper to do that.  The structure is not and cannot be designed to bear more than the weight of what's above it.  If you try and shift the weight laterally, eventually that will overload the columns on that side and they will fail vertically because of the additional weight.  This is demonstrated in the collapse of 1 World Trade Center in 2001.  You see the building begin to tip, but as soon as those vertical columns get overloaded, they fail and the movement becomes 100% downward.

Additionally, the weight involved has tremendous potential energy such that if it starts moving downward mere inches, there is way more force than any design could ever hope to resist.  The building will collapse completely.  None of this half-destroyed bullcrap you see in the establishing shot of the post-apocalyptic scenario so the dumb audience might recognize where we are.

And sorry Planet of the Apes, but the Statue of Liberty would never survive with the arm intact like that for thousands of years.  That's the most structurally difficult part of the cast iron skeleton and it would be the first part to fall away.
Also, didn't humans destroy the world with nuclear war in that universe?  So how the hell did the Statue of Liberty survive that shit?

[formulanone]

I have heard that My Cousin Vinny is a slightly more accurate depiction of how the legal system works, and a better "how not to be an attorney" lesson than most other courtroom dramas. The last two days of the trial bend things more than a little, I suppose. Thoughts from the experts?

The only major thing they got wrong was calling discovery "disclosure" (as in, Mona Lisa Vito should have said "He had to, ya dickweed!  It's called discovery!").

I always wondered why she said it that way, but throughout the movie they called it discovery.

I guess the take was good enough and it was late...a funny scene all the way around which put a lampshade on Hollywood's handling of the trial process.

[Max Rockatansky]

Building collapse.
How many big super hero smash 'em ups and monster movies have skyscrapers flopping over like trees?  It's physically impossible for a skyscraper to do that.  The structure is not and cannot be designed to bear more than the weight of what's above it.  If you try and shift the weight laterally, eventually that will overload the columns on that side and they will fail vertically because of the additional weight.  This is demonstrated in the collapse of 1 World Trade Center in 2001.  You see the building begin to tip, but as soon as those vertical columns get overloaded, they fail and the movement becomes 100% downward.

Additionally, the weight involved has tremendous potential energy such that if it starts moving downward mere inches, there is way more force than any design could ever hope to resist.  The building will collapse completely.  None of this half-destroyed bullcrap you see in the establishing shot of the post-apocalyptic scenario so the dumb audience might recognize where we are.

And sorry Planet of the Apes, but the Statue of Liberty would never survive with the arm intact like that for thousands of years.  That's the most structurally difficult part of the cast iron skeleton and it would be the first part to fall away.
Also, didn't humans destroy the world with nuclear war in that universe?  So how the hell did the Statue of Liberty survive that shit?

Wasn't the original Planet of the Apes set in 3978?  That's certainly not enough time geologically for New York City to resemble coastal California.  None of the skyscrapers seen in Beneath Planet of the Apes in the Forbidden Zone would survive even two centuries standing.  The Doomsday Bomb in Beneath Planet of the Apes is incredibly unfeasible given they elude to it being capable of detonating the Earth.  Shame they didn't go with a Cobalt Bomb concept given that kind of fit the appearances of the members of the Atomic Bomb Cult.

[triplemultiplex]

Wasn't the original Planet of the Apes set in 3978?  That's certainly not enough time geologically for New York City to resemble coastal California.  None of the skyscrapers seen in Beneath Planet of the Apes in the Forbidden Zone would survive even two centuries standing.  The Doomsday Bomb in Beneath Planet of the Apes is incredibly unfeasible given they elude to it being capable of detonating the Earth.  Shame they didn't go with a Cobalt Bomb concept given that kind of fit the appearances of the members of the Atomic Bomb Cult.

Yeah they seemed to be going more for themes that reflected on contemporary civilization rather than hard science with their portrayal of a post-apocalypse.
The 'bathtub ring' of Lake Powell really stands out to me in the original film.

Beneath the Planet of the Apes really annoyed me that the conclusion was a human destroying the remnant human civilization and the ape civilization for basically no reason.  We've had tons of terrible eras in our past, so there was nothing redeemable about either society that they should have a chance to figure it out for themselves?  I get it that it's commentary about the destructive nature of man or the stakes of the Cold War or whatever but it didn't seem like a reasonable action for the human in the moment.  It was just a big "Kill me, will you? Well, I'll show you!  I'll show all of y'all!!"  He destroyed the world rather than let the apes conquer the last humans.  That's insanely short-sighted and accomplishes nothing.  Yeah, yeah, like nuclear war; super not subtle; but it still doesn't make sense for that one human in that one moment.