Professionals Annoyed By Entertainment

[Telok]

Dinochompyitis is now officially my favorate word for at least the rest of the year. I feel a strong need to send some characters to the hospital in my next game and have them diagnosed with that.

On topic, I'm regularly annoyed by the misuse of the word 'analog'. Possibly the most recent and egregious abuse is in Pazios Pathfinder game where they actually mean "does not use electronics, springs, or gears".

[LordEntrails]

When this thread started some time ago I read the first few posts and said, "nah, that's not me. I take a show or movie for what it is and I just ignore the inaccuracies."

That was until I was sitting here watching New Amsterdam tonight. And I got really annoyed at the astronaut with the heart problem. And I'm not sure yet, but I'm still not sure it's the medical or other inaccuracies that annoyed me. Maybe it was just the extreme selfishness of the astronaut character and the inaccuracies used to support the story line.

So I'm still not sure it's the technical things I have an issue with. But it certainly annoys me when a character is put forth as some sort of admirable role-model yet they are plagued with moral and ethical flaws.

Don't get me wrong, I love plots where characters have to deal with their flaws, but not when those flaws are ignored, or presented as normal, desirable or otherwise acceptable.

[Brother Oni]

On topic, I'm regularly annoyed by the misuse of the word 'analog'. Possibly the most recent and egregious abuse is in Pazios Pathfinder game where they actually mean "does not use electronics, springs, or gears".

Surely the Pacific Rim 'Gipsy Danger is analog' line is even worst than that?

The annoying thing is, it could be easily fixed with a single line - 'Gipsy Danger is so old, we're still EMP shielded' and make perfect sense. Gipsy Danger is one of the older Jaegers, thus built to combat a variety of scenarios since the kaiju capabilities were still largely unknown at the time. Since the kaiju never exhibited use of EMP weaponry, the later Jaegers didn't include such protection to save on cost and weight.

[McNum]

Surely the Pacific Rim 'Gipsy Danger is analog' line is even worst than that?

The annoying thing is, it could be easily fixed with a single line - 'Gipsy Danger is so old, we're still EMP shielded' and make perfect sense. Gipsy Danger is one of the older Jaegers, thus built to combat a variety of scenarios since the kaiju capabilities were still largely unknown at the time. Since the kaiju never exhibited use of EMP weaponry, the later Jaegers didn't include such protection to save on cost and weight.

That, and, you know. It has a nuclear reactor where previous models were shown to have inadequate shielding on those. GD could just be in that sweet spot where it's old enough to run on nuclear power, but new enough to have radiation sheilding, which hardens it against EMPs.

That line is just so odd. We see holograms and computers inside it. Things that an EMP very much could mess up.

[Telok]

Note too that analog electronics are not immune to EMPs.

[factotum]

Note too that analog electronics are not immune to EMPs.

They are less prone to taking permanent damage from one, though.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

The Asylum ripoff of Battleship, American Warships, wins again!

They use the same "we need to use old **** because there are no computers in it" excuse, but when it actually matter, when they're starting up an old communicatioms device because the new one got fried, they explain this one only works because it was turned off when the EMP hit.

Ironically in real life newer equipment might actually survive the blast better. Military electronics nowadays, even laptops and such, usually contain a Faraday cage. Not against EMP's, but to remain undetected and unspied upon.

[Imbalance]

They use the same "we need to use old **** because there are no computers in it" excuse, but when it actually matter, when they're starting up an old communicatioms device because the new one got fried, they explain this one only works because it was turned off when the EMP hit.

This one makes me cringe on a personal level ever since the secondary effects of a powerful lightning strike on a nearby bell tower randomly scrambled devices in my apartment whether plugged in or not. Examples include my beloved Aiwa shelf system, unprotected by the power strip that I had switched off upon hearing the approaching storm, utterly ruined; the old tube tv whose screen went tuity-fruity, later remedied with a strong magnet; the Toshiba laptop that was not only on and plugged into the wall but also connected via modem card, didn't even blip; the hardline phone next to it that never dialed out again; and the new-in-box baby monitor, had only been plugged in once to compare to another we received as a gift, placed back in original package in its entirety days earlier to await return to the store, now with the legitimate complaint of "doesn't work." There was no voltage surge.

[tomandtish]

Well, that depends. Is it a government contract? Because a) sometimes you've got 1.3 billion in your budget that's getting "lost" (to you, anyway) if you don't spend it, and b) maybe the contractors you're paying those 1.3 billion to are your buddies and/or have invested a small portion of that cash in campaign financing to make sure they get just that sort of contract. And, along the lines of what snowblizz said, appropriating 1.3 billion doesn't necessarily mean spending 1.3 billion. Hey, it happens.

Speaking of which, as a government worker, the only thing that really strains my suspension of disbelief from a professional standpoint is when the government does thing too fast or too competently. Then again, it doesn't really bother me, I just get a laugh out of imagining the hoops you'd have to jump through to do it in real life

Sorry for the delay. It's not a government project. It's funded entirely by one business man. It's literally a line in the movie said TO the man funding the thing: "In that case you've wasted $1.3 billion dollars".

[Peelee]

Sorry for the delay. It's not a government project. It's funded entirely by one business man. It's literally a line in the movie said TO the man funding the thing: "In that case you've wasted $1.3 billion dollars".

Well then that just sounds more realistic.

[jayem]

Well then that just sounds more realistic.

I suppose one stretching at straws justification could be that he not only needs to determine the false floor exists but get a monopoly on the goodies behind. While he might be throwing his money away the big boys will wait, but the second they know it is viable they will throw 2 billion at it (of course that just means that the exploratory journey needs to be deniable, but maybe it would make a sufficient dent in his budget or some such magic to slow him down)

[Knaight]

I suppose one stretching at straws justification could be that he not only needs to determine the false floor exists but get a monopoly on the goodies behind. While he might be throwing his money away the big boys will wait, but the second they know it is viable they will throw 2 billion at it (of course that just means that the exploratory journey needs to be deniable, but maybe it would make a sufficient dent in his budget or some such magic to slow him down)

There's an alternate justification where stupidly rich businessmen with questionable scientific credentials throw lots of money at deeply stupid projects that can be spun as flashy science. Suffice to say that it's not hard to find precedent for this.

[Tyndmyr]

But Hollywood has apparently realized that science advisors work for cheap, and so in recent years, it's been getting better. Like, in Interstellar, I don't know how relevant the science was to the plot (I haven't seen it), but the science itself was superb: They got Kip Thorne to do it, and then actually ended up teaching him some things about wormholes (they've got some really good computer programs for ray-tracing). And heck, even most of the Marvel movies (except for the Ant-Man movies and Endgame) have made at least a good-faith effort to get it right (to the extent that it doesn't interfere with superheroics).

Interstellar was great until they decided that everything ran on love magic at the end.

The Martian was generally pretty good, though. I'll even forgive the windstorm conceit. Sure, it wouldn't happen, but they did the best they could with what they had to work with.

From Wednesday's RPG game "You can't hold acids in a plastic container, everybody knows that!" *everyone at table nods, continues drinking soda*

So frustrating.

[Son of A Lich!]

Also, this was the early nineties, and she had access to and an interest in a machine running on a similar OS. It may not make her good at it, but it sure makes her better than 95% of the population. Also it would have been less believable if the tiny teenager had been holding the door and the guy who can't handle seatbelts (slight exaggeration) had been handling the computerized locks. So I'll let it pass. (Apart from the ridiculous 3D interface of course.)

That seat belt bit is probably one of my favorite foreshadowings in cinema history. He picks up two female ends of the seat belts can't get them to connect, so he just ties it together. The park only has Female dinosaurs, so life finds a way and the dinosaurs breed by changing genders. It also establishes that Grant is really resourceful when he needs to be and to follow safety rules that no one was going to enforce on him, while sharing that he doesn't like being made a fool in view of colleagues.

Not even 10 seconds of film says so much, I love it.

Truth in fiction really. Yes, being able to be familiar with a (Unix) system so you have some idea of how and where you could operate it or its commands can matter greatly. The most unrealisitc thing there was that godawful slow GUI they had.

Also, Alex isn't doing anything a software engineer couldn't have done, and much better, since the 2 on the island were operators of said system. The problem, however, was that they both had come down with rather severe cases of dinochompyitis. Shedoesn't do anything a random person could not have done. She is probably a bit faster than rando woulda been, and surprise, that woulda been just enough to let a Raptor in. Not to mention she's the only one not holding said Raptors out.

My mother couldn't figure out how to shut down Windows 95 the first time either. "What do you meant open the Start menu, I want to close it down!"

And I constantly have trouble operating Macs because nothing is where it should be and it has a stupid extra button that's not optional.

Not only that, they explicitly say that the system is specifically designed to run on tiny skeleton crew, if needed. The entire Nedry subplot was due to that. "You think that kind of automation is easy? Or cheap?" Lex was able to reboot the system because it was supposed to be that easy.

Huh... I guess it's my lack of computer knowledge that said she was rebooting the system that Nedry shut down, and the other programmer said he had to go through 2 million lines of code to find out what the problem was. But, right, they shut down the system and had to reboot it manually, I remember that now. I thought she restarted the system when no one else could.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

That seat belt bit is probably one of my favorite foreshadowings in cinema history. He picks up two female ends of the seat belts can't get them to connect, so he just ties it together. The park only has Female dinosaurs, so life finds a way and the dinosaurs breed by changing genders. It also establishes that Grant is really resourceful when he needs to be and to follow safety rules that no one was going to enforce on him, while sharing that he doesn't like being made a fool in view of colleagues.

Not even 10 seconds of film says so much, I love it.

Oh, I agree, that stuff is all there and it's done well. But aside from that it also helps establish him as an old school person, more at easy with knots than fancy technology. It's a sentiment that grows during the movie, focused at these lab born theme park monsters that are eating people. It contrasts with that other early established dislike he has, of children. Those he's actually pretty okay with by the end. (Which is why it's counterintuitive when we see him again in JP3 and it turns out he's still single and the only women the audience knows he knows well has a kid with another guy, turns out we weren't watching a turning point in the story of his life after all.)

Note that he's old enough to, when the movie came out, have grown up a bit before arcades, TMF and all that generation X goodness became popular. So he's of a generation the audience expects to be bad with computers and all his interactions with technology we see show him managing at best (he has to scramble to protect his dig site from helicopter wind, the seatbelts, he almost gets eaten in a car but finds safety in a tree, he fails to talk the boy down from the fence). So it's perfectly in character that he wouldn't know too much about computers.

He's also holding back raptors that look to weigh easily around 300kg. I'm fine with a 14 year old maybe 50kg girl who brags about not playing outside when she could be using a computer not being the one who's handling that duty.

Long story short: I agree with you, and with me.

[hamishspence]

He's also holding back raptors that look to weigh easily around 300kg.

According to the wiki they're half that, at 150 kg:

https://jurassicpark.fandom.com/wiki..._(movie_canon)

hollow bones and air sacs may explain this.

[Peelee]

Huh... I guess it's my lack of computer knowledge that said she was rebooting the system that Nedry shut down, and the other programmer said he had to go through 2 million lines of code to find out what the problem was. But, right, they shut down the system and had to reboot it manually, I remember that now. I thought she restarted the system when no one else could.

On my part, it's less computer knowledge and more unbridled love of Jurassic Park, both film and book.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

According to the wiki they're half that, at 150 kg:

https://jurassicpark.fandom.com/wiki..._(movie_canon)

hollow bones and air sacs may explain this.

Okay, maybe the suit based designs from movie one looked a little sleeker, I'd need to watch it again, but in Jurassic World they looked about the size of a cow, which is around 500kg. And a cow may be a bit beefier than a raptor, but even an industrial pig can go up to 350. Birds are usually a lot lighter than they look, that's true, but that's more feather volume than hollow bones I figure. So I'm marking the low number up to a very mild case of "sci-fi writers have no sense of scale".

Doesn't really matter though, it would still look silly if the kids were holding the door if it was just a grown man with a machete or even a really big dog. There are two people there who are easily bigger, heavier and stronger than them, and the thing trying to get in is pretty big too. And the fact that Lex (the girl) is the only one with an established interest in computers helps the scene the rest of the way along.

[Vinyadan]

Oh, I agree, that stuff is all there and it's done well. But aside from that it also helps establish him as an old school person, more at easy with knots than fancy technology. It's a sentiment that grows during the movie, focused at these lab born theme park monsters that are eating people. It contrasts with that other early established dislike he has, of children. Those he's actually pretty okay with by the end. (Which is why it's counterintuitive when we see him again in JP3 and it turns out he's still single and the only women the audience knows he knows well has a kid with another guy, turns out we weren't watching a turning point in the story of his life after all.)

This is a common problem with sequels. Characters who have had an arc rarely are still interesting, so they are sent back to square 0 in the new movie. A good example is Ripley in Alien 3, where her surrogate family starts the film already dead.

The movie wisely leaves his relationship with the woman undetermined (so you can read it both ways), but I think the novel hinted to her being in a relationship with someone else.

What I really liked about the kids was how they looked like miniature versions of both the man and the woman.

Okay, maybe the suit based designs from movie one looked a little sleeker, I'd need to watch it again, but in Jurassic World they looked about the size of a cow, which is around 500kg. And a cow may be a bit beefier than a raptor, but even an industrial pig can go up to 350. Birds are usually a lot lighter than they look, that's true, but that's more feather volume than hollow bones I figure. So I'm marking the low number up to a very mild case of "sci-fi writers have no sense of scale".

I don't think you can compare a biped to a cow or a pig when trying to determine its weight. The silhouettes have nothing in common, and both cows and pigs have very little in the way of bends and voids. I guess that you could try scaling up a kangaroo or adding a tail to an ostrich.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

These raptors are much beefier than an ostritch. We could try calculating their volume and assuming they barely float in water, or we could try to match them to a pokémon about the same size and look in the pokédex to find a raptor weighs just 40kg. But at this point I'm inclined to leave it at "forget it, it's irrelevant anyway, they're just big".

[Gnoman]

You could email Randal Munroe (the XKCD guy). He'd probably turn it into a comic.

[Radar]

You could email Randal Munroe (the XKCD guy). He'd probably turn it into a comic.

It involves raptors, so yes, he would take this and give an overly detailed answer.

[Aedilred]

Courtroom dramas (and, especially, films which are not principally courtroom dramas but contain courtroom scenes) are frequently bad for this. Generally, writers simply do not seem to know what a leading question is, or who's allowed to ask them. And while some leeway can be allowed for dramatic licence ("You can't handle the truth!" makes up for a lot) much of it just seems to be wrong for the sake of it.

One film (or possibly show) I sat through had the examiner-in-chief ask exclusively leading questions of a witness, without objection, then counsel for the opponent stood up to cross-examine, asked a non-leading question, and was immediately objected-sustained for "leading the witness".

It's stuck with me (albeit the name is long forgotten) just because I struggle to think of how they could possibly have got that more wrong. It's a particularly bad instance, but some element or variation of the above seems to be more common than getting it right.

Aside from other artistic considerations, I will always have a special place in my heart for The Rainmaker for avoiding, and lampshading its avoidance, of this trope. Jon Voight asks Matt Damon's client a leading question. Matt Damon objects - "leading the witness". The judge looks at him and says, paraphrased, "Yes, Mr Damon. This is cross-examination, so he's allowed to lead the witness". There is still some unrealism in there in that it's hard to believe a qualified lawyer would make this mistake at all, but in-story it was pretty much his first day on the job and he was very nervous, so it's forgivable, not to mention rather satisfying.

[Peelee]

Courtroom dramas (and, especially, films which are not principally courtroom dramas but contain courtroom scenes) are frequently bad for this. Generally, writers simply do not seem to know what a leading question is, or who's allowed to ask them. And while some leeway can be allowed for dramatic licence ("You can't handle the truth!" makes up for a lot) much of it just seems to be wrong for the sake of it.

One film (or possibly show) I sat through had the examiner-in-chief ask exclusively leading questions of a witness, without objection, then counsel for the opponent stood up to cross-examine, asked a non-leading question, and was immediately objected-sustained for "leading the witness".

It's stuck with me (albeit the name is long forgotten) just because I struggle to think of how they could possibly have got that more wrong. It's a particularly bad instance, but some element or variation of the above seems to be more common than getting it right.

Aside from other artistic considerations, I will always have a special place in my heart for The Rainmaker for avoiding, and lampshading its avoidance, of this trope. Jon Voight asks Matt Damon's client a leading question. Matt Damon objects - "leading the witness". The judge looks at him and says, paraphrased, "Yes, Mr Damon. This is cross-examination, so he's allowed to lead the witness". There is still some unrealism in there in that it's hard to believe a qualified lawyer would make this mistake at all, but in-story it was pretty much his first day on the job and he was very nervous, so it's forgivable, not to mention rather satisfying.

You ever see My Cousin Vinny? I suspect you would enjoy it.

[bobthehero]

Studied history, I've been an infantryman for 6 years. So there's a lot of movie for me to bitch about. Parents won't watch Russel Crowe Robin Hood with me (that sallet really pissed me off) and I really have to turn my brain off 90% of the times firearms are involved in a movie.

[factotum]

If we're talking history, I find it irritating whenever anyone uses torches for long-term lighting in some historical or fantasy drama. In reality, torches only last about half an hour, if you wanted light over any length of time you'd use candles.

[Radar]

You ever see My Cousin Vinny? I suspect you would enjoy it.

This movie is a true masterpiece. Not only a very enjoyable movie with great characters, dialog, acting and seemlesly showing every impotant detail before the court battle, but accurate enough that they supposedly use it in law schools for examples.

I am not qualified to check it, but I can bet that this marvelous scene is also 100% correct on the car manufacturing and tuning.

[snowblizz]

You ever see My Cousin Vinny? I suspect you would enjoy it.

According to a Youtuber lawyer that does commentary on movies/tv with lawyers it is incredibly accurate.

Also it's a good movie.

[Tarmor]

If we're talking history, I find it irritating whenever anyone uses torches for long-term lighting in some historical or fantasy drama. In reality, torches only last about half an hour, if you wanted light over any length of time you'd use candles.

I've seen Lindybeige (fun YouTube videos on this type of thing) point out that for most of these movies/series to have lit torches in various locations you need someone to run around constantly replacing and relighting them. I also recall that they should produce a fair amount of smoke.

[Eldan]

Not just smoke, soot. The walls around those torches should be black, as should the ceilings.

Maybe that's why in those movies, unlike in real life, the castle walls are almost always bare stone, instead of being whitewashed or painted. Easier to clean.