Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Top Movie-Making Blunders
1. Switching out actors: I was watching some period mini-series a few years ago—I can’t recall which one (it’s probably not worth being recalled)—and at the start of a new episode, I was startled to find the set populated with different actors. I think I dropped the series within minutes of that realization, as my motivation to stick with the story had disappeared. I know that the writers wanted to convey the passing of time, but couldn’t they have found some way other than swapping out characters I had come to care for, even a little? Did they think viewers wouldn’t notice?
2. Sloppy old people makeup jobs: Although switching actors is a no-go, movies trying to get by with bad makeup jobs is also a bad option. With all the technology available, why do some flicks try to pass off a hunched figure caked with high school stage makeup as the character we know and love?
3. Lazy script writing: By lazy, I mean dirty, full of innuendoes, double entendres, and outright crude jokes. I’ve had to abandon movies with great appeal in terms of time period, story, actors, and costumes because the writers will hit us right off with a clumsy bedroom scene, wink-wink-nod-nod situations, and cliched sexually-charged scenes. Becoming Jane, Shakespeare in Love, and the wildly popular Sanditon all made my no-watch list because of this bottom-shelf script-writing technique. I get all primed for a beautifully shot story and then am subjected once again to a scene with a prim lady scoping out a guy going for a swim. So original—actually, so easy to write—the script almost creates itself. I have experienced many of these disappointments.
4. Thoughtless story: A script doesn’t have to be dirty to be bland and cheap. Viewers are canny about obvious signs that writers were rushing to meet deadlines and satisfy demanding audiences by pushing out productions. With thoughtless writing, you have superficial action where characters seem to be listlessly working out a lame plot in lush settings. You have anachronisms and stories stuck in the wrong century. Stock characters do their thing, as if the writers felt they could wind them up and let them go while attending to more important things. I’m looking at you, Downton Abbey, especially in season openers. I’ll never forget when the lady of the house, during a mundane discussion about upcoming events, told the lord in her hard, curving ‘r’s: “Don’t forget—Thursday’s our anniversary!” That was likely the beginning of the end for me. I won’t get started on Sanditon. We’d be here all night.
5. Ultra-sad plots: I don’t watch movies to get depressed. I watch to escape, to revel in beautiful scenery, to enjoy good stories well told, to get the satisfaction of catching subtleties the skillful creators put there for us. This doesn’t mean that there can’t be some unhappy circumstances in movies. Sad aspects in endings are fine, too, as long as a hopeful note of truth is sounded. But I generally avoid the nihilistic, the despairing, the unrelentingly dark stories. I don’t have time for those.
What other blunders should movie writers, producers, and directors avoid?
Published in Entertainment
The only thing like that I remember is “Brian’s Song.” Maybe just because of the title.
Thanks, Occupant. Interesting points, too.
I like the movie “Space Cowboys” in spite of the massive plot hole in the middle of the movie.
Which one are you referring to?
Kinda sounds like the beginning of the Hallmark movie factory.
They have the Christmas Movie, The wayward child returns, The inspirational disease biography… More recently the LesRomCom and the coming out drama…
A weekly tear jerky for the lonely cat ladies…
The idea that one of the astronauts would have the repair procedure for the satellite and could blackmail NASA into giving his crew a shuttle flight because they didnt know more about the satellite than the old man remembered.
You think that’s not possible, after so many years passed? It was also a secret Russian military satellite.
And last I heard, they still can’t fix the Iowa gun turret.
I thought a more serious problem with “Space Cowboys” was that supposedly nobody at NASA knew about fooling the vision test. Even if I didn’t have a clue already, I would have learned about that from watching JAG. I expect anyone dealing with pilots etc, even the FAA let alone NASA, would know. (It’s true that the one set up special goggles for the Donald Sutherland character, rather than reporting him. But none of them should have gotten away with it. At least not without “winks and nods” or something.)
That kind of… not situational awareness, more like situational unawareness… is a problem in a lot of things. Where, for example, a character who’s supposed to be a doctor, is surprised by something that anyone who even STARTED Medical School would likely know. Yes, the AUDIENCE may be supposed to be surprised by that, but the character shouldn’t be.
Totally takes me out of the movie.
I’d forgotten Donald Sutherland was even in the movie.
That’s not really a “hole” so much as an implausibility.
I dunno, the movie was almost 30 years after Skylab, which is what the control system was supposed to have been designed for. Is it really so hard to believe that they wouldn’t lose a certain type of expertise after that long? Considering that it apparently was not used again?
I guess that’s a personal sliding scale. Unlikely, implausible stretching to impossible. It could also be, that I havent seen this movie in 20 years, and its a plot point that stuck in my craw a little, and I remember now.
Chekhov’s Gun. The playwright once stated that a loaded gun on stage must go off. But is it just the gun? Shouldn’t everything and everyone on stage have a purpose in the plot?
I think the best example of Chekhov’s Gun, is “Die Hard” … Every action and every object in the first 5 minutes of the film pays off later in the movie… The giant teddy bear John brings in the limo, The tipping over of the family photos, making fists with your toes in the carpet…
I think this is why DEI story telling fails… Because it sets lots of characters that dont have a payoff in the plot… What if Hans had to tell Karl, that it was his husband that was dead instead of his brother? Would that have changed the story? But it would’ve changed the audiences view of the hair band terrorists who took over the Nakatomi Plaza. But it would have ultimately been a detail that had no pay off.
I wonder if some of the things that we write off and bad writing are extraneous characters and details that propagandize instead of entertain us.
I heard that in The Drinker’s voice.
Usually, but not always. Marvel replaced Edward Norton with Mark Ruffalo as the Hulk, but they didn’t retell his origin story. And Tom Holland’s Spider-Man didn’t get an origin story. But those were refreshing exceptions to the rule.
And there’s at least one example of the exact opposite happening. Deadpool first appeared in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. A few years later Marvel completely rebooted the character with a new origin story, but keeping the same actor.
Who would do that character better than Reynolds?
Ben Affleck? Vince Vaughan? Joe Pesci? Will Ferrell?
Reynolds went straight to that role and held on for all he was worth. Hate the character, but a brilliant performance.
The character, in one of the comic book series, referred to himself as resembling Reynolds, and that’s reportedly one reason the actor became interested.
Well, yes, but the character is horribly deformed. Some actors might not have been too pleased.
Only because of the time they would need to spend in make up. But since Deadpool is normally (or frequently) masked the amount of time Reynolds spends in make up would be minimal on most days.
I do too!
Brando?
And Norton replaced Eric Bana.
Moment of geek pedantry: The character in X-Men Origins: Wolverine was not Deadpool but a character combining elements of “The Super-Adaptoid” (an android with no mouth which copies the powers of superheroes it fights) and “The Mimic” (a mutant able to absorb and copy the powers of other mutants).
Yes.
I get those 2 mixed up.
The credit says Ryan played Wade Wilson, Deadpool’s civilian identity. I won’t dispute your point that they mispowered him if he was intended to align with the comic book character, but I saw it once when it came out and disliked it on many, many points and would never argue for it as canon.
I distrust both your take and Sawadeetka’s. Human being are extremely sexual and that sexually needs to be expressed in great art. Some Christians dislike depicting human sexuality as it actually is and they feel to make great art and appreciate art.
Now are some Christians pearl-clutchers because of their Christian faith or are people who feel strange about human sexuality more devout Christians? Or perhaps there is a third option, where people who naturally feel strange about human feel comfortable expressing their discomfort through their Christian and actually there are many secular people who are weird about sexuality but just don’t talk about it.
For the most part Christianity improves humanity so I approve of most forms of Christianity. However, I suspect there is a design flaw in Christianity that makes Christian feel overly disgusted by sexuality and I disprove of it.
Henry, it’s not that. Christianity elevates human sexuality. Humans have natural dignity from God, and express their sexuality in a way that that aligns with that. Crass, vulgar scenes do not reflect the way God created human beings, which is part of why those scenes evoke discomfort. Now, great art that shows the beauty of the human body and love as God intended it to be expressed between man and wife can be a good thing. However, there’s a privacy in sex as well–it’s to be set apart, not a public toy to titillate viewers.
And I was talking about lazy writing in particular. It seems that script writers often use naughty exchanges as quick filler for their stories. These often show lack of originality. Cliches are not enjoyable.
Like you, I only saw it once, on a plane between Munich and Austin, and disliked it for falling apart at about the 2/3 point. I didn’t get that Wade Wilson was Deadpool at the time, having never read Deadpool.
#1: Plan 9 From Outer Space is probably the best example of this, and many other sins, for example, #6, which you somehow missed: Using Two Pie Tins and Some Fishing Line to Make a Spaceship.