CURRENT MOVIE CLICHES

Tools    





To the contrary, that's the whole point: the writer wants the villain to die, so the audience gets that relief and catharsis, but they want it to happen because the hero had to, rather than chose to in cold blood. If they kill them in the initial confrontation, it wasn't in cold blood, but they also haven't demonstrated that they would resist that impulse. By arresting them first, they get to show the hero's restraint and commitment to doing things the "right way" if possible.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Oh yeah, I understand they want the hero to kill the villain in self defense, I just thought if you want that to happen, why put the villain in a position of being arrested then in the first place?



You seem not to have read the whole post:

If they kill them in the initial confrontation, it wasn't in cold blood, but they also haven't demonstrated that they would resist that impulse.
This is the kind of stuff I mean when I say it sounds like you don't actually want answers, by the way. My reply is just a few sentences long and specifically anticipates exactly what you just asked, and you still asked it anyway.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Oh sorry, yes I should have read it more. I apologize.

I guess I was looking at it as the writers wanting to have their cake and eat it too. They want to show the hero would rather arrest than murder, but they also want the villain get killed. Is that having your cake and eat it too, from a writing standpoint?

One movie I thought that did it better was The Untouchables,
WARNING: "SPOILER" spoilers below
where Elliot Ness tells the guy to drop his gun but the guy raises and tries to shoot Ness, and Ness shoots him and then he comes upset and angry after, that he had to do that.
. Not sure why, but it just felt better written there, like it wasn't the writer introducing something, but then suddenly taking it back. Unless I am wrong?



Oh sorry, yes I should have read it more. I apologize.
Not to make a big thing of it, but this happens a lot. You reply with more questions almost immediately (in this case it was within minutes). And that's probably why so many of the questions ask things that have been answered already, or (more frequently) ask questions that have obvious answers you could probably come up with on your own if you wanted to.

I strongly suggest you make a special point going forward to read, consider, and absorb people's answers before firing more questions at them.

I guess I was looking at it as the writers wanting to have their cake and eat it too. They want to show the hero would rather arrest than murder, but they also want the villain get killed. Is that having your cake and eat it too, from a writing standpoint?
No, because "having your cake and eating it too" is an expression that means wanting mutually exclusive things, or to do a thing without the consequences of doing it (it should be "eat your cake and have it too"). There's nothing wrong with writing that accomplishes two things, like in this example, if those two things are not actually at odds. The only criticism here is that it's become cliche.



Account terminated on request
Is there a difference between so overused that its predictable, and "cliche" (with regards to movies)?
__________________
Rules:
When women have a poet, they want a cowboy.
When they have a cowboy, they want a poet.
They'll say "I don't care if he's a poet or cowboy, so long as he's a nice guy. But oh, I'm so attracted to that bad guy over there."
Understand this last part, and you'll get them all.



Is there a difference between so overused that its predictable, and "cliche" (with regards to movies)?
Yup...and it's determined by how frequently one watches movies. Someone who watches movies every night, like me, ends up seeing the same thing over and over. It's inevitable. But that doesn't mean that any one movie is predictable or cliche, as someone who watches movies infrequently wouldn't have the same volume of movie references to draw from.



Account terminated on request
Yup...and it's determined by how frequently one watches movies. Someone who watches movies every night, like me, ends up seeing the same thing over and over. It's inevitable. But that doesn't mean that any one movie is predictable or cliche, as someone who watches movies infrequently wouldn't have the same volume of movie references to draw from.
I think that just says that people might choose one or the other category to put it in depending on viewing volume, no? I'm questioning more of /is/ there an intrinsic difference.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Not to make a big thing of it, but this happens a lot. You reply with more questions almost immediately (in this case it was within minutes). And that's probably why so many of the questions ask things that have been answered already, or (more frequently) ask questions that have obvious answers you could probably come up with on your own if you wanted to.

I strongly suggest you make a special point going forward to read, consider, and absorb people's answers before firing more questions at them.


No, because "having your cake and eating it too" is an expression that means wanting mutually exclusive things, or to do a thing without the consequences of doing it (it should be "eat your cake and have it too"). There's nothing wrong with writing that accomplishes two things, like in this example, if those two things are not actually at odds. The only criticism here is that it's become cliche.
Oh okay, thanks, I will try to watch out for that.



Account terminated on request
Was this covered?

One annoying thing (cliche or not) in movies is this weird ability to knock people out easily.

You can't knock out someone easily.

And even in TV you'd get impossibly hokey things like Captain Kirk knocking out a woman harmlessly with a quick strike; Like he's giving her a tranquilizer dart or something.

Oh brother. Those were the days.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Another possible cliche is when a woman is sent to an all female prison, the experience of no men around, turns her into a lesbian.



One annoying thing (cliche or not) in movies is this weird ability to knock people out easily
A newish cliche is women being able to knock out a man or at least seriously hurt him. Seems improbable to me. Olivia Wilde has a good revenge movie where she trains very hard & is able to defend herself “in battle” with a man. Seemed realistic on camera, but unlikely in real life.

Another possible cliche is when a woman is sent to an all female prison, the experience of no men around, turns her into a lesbian.
I’ve never been to prison or desired a woman, but I could see how this could happen. Often thought if I were in prison I would keep a huge distance from the other females in case they were attracted to me.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
6' prison distancing or whatever the metric equivalent is. What, like 32 gopher kilostones? I can never remember.















Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Another cliche, if this counts, is a lot of times in a movie, the main character does not believe in the supernatural, or does not believe in fantastic elemtents, so there is a character who tries to tell him/her, what is going on, but the character doesn't speak in the best complete sentences, so it just comes out sounding crazy and nonsensical to the main character.

The Omen (1976), and Hook (1991), have characters like this. In The Omen, a guy keeps trying to tell the Dad what is really going on with his son, but he says it incomplete sentences sort of, and the Dad thinks he's crazy. In Hook, a character tried telling Peter Pan, that he was Peter Pan, but he barely explained any of it, thereby making Peter Pan think he was being strange.



In Hook, a character tried telling Peter Pan, that he was Peter Pan, but he barely explained any of it, thereby making Peter Pan think he was being strange.
Jesus had this problem in the Bible after his resurrection. He kept telling his disciples he had come back, but they either failed to recognize him or did not believe him.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Yeah I guess that's true.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Another cliche I see in court movies and TV shows, the lawyers often say "this offer expires when I leave the room", even though there seems to be no reason why a lawyer put such a tight time limit on their offers.



Was this covered?

One annoying thing (cliche or not) in movies is this weird ability to knock people out easily.

You can't knock out someone easily.

And even in TV you'd get impossibly hokey things like Captain Kirk knocking out a woman harmlessly with a quick strike; Like he's giving her a tranquilizer dart or something.

Oh brother. Those were the days.

This reminded me of how the karate chop to the neck was a cliche of the 60's and 70's - pretty much centered around the James Bond movies and all their various knock-offs. The karate chop became like Mr. Spock's Vulcan neck pinch!

In reality a karate chop to anyone's neck is going to hurt them... and probably really piss them off... after which you better have some pretty astounding martial arts skill because you're going to have a really mad opponent.



This isn't a cliche (per se), but on threads like this I always have to mention how windows in people's houses in movies & TV rarely seem to have screens in them. I don't know of anyone who doesn't have screens on their home windows (to keep bugs out).

But in movies & TV they serve as an impediment to access that would take too much screen time, I guess. To enter through a window with a screen you'd have to cut it or kick it in (and then try to crawl through the mess) or try to use a screwdriver fom the outside to raise it up and that would all take screen time for a relatively boring action.

Even in a lot of otherwise realistic movies, they often forget window screens (hoping no one will notice).
The closest I've seen in a movie is a front screen door.



This reminded me of how the karate chop to the neck was a cliche of the 60's and 70's - pretty much centered around the James Bond movies and all their various knock-offs. The karate chop became like Mr. Spock's Vulcan neck pinch!

In reality a karate chop to anyone's neck is going to hurt them... and probably really piss them off... after which you better have some pretty astounding martial arts skill because you're going to have a really mad opponent.
Yeah, wasn't that a riot? And the "chops" were usually bouncy type blows that couldn't have done any damage to anyone.. Peter Sellers pretty much lampooned that move in his fights with Cato in the "Pink Panther" series.

And along with the "no screen doors", something else that always bugs me. Why do they still insist on only filling up the coffee cups halfway??? I can see that they're afraid of spillage, but oftentimes the cups aren't really moved around that much. Let's start a petition!!

Same thing with ice cubes. They won't use them because they'd be over-emphasized in the sound pickup. That's why everyone drinks booze in a glass straight-- no ice no mixer. Also the amount that some characters are shown drinking, especially right from the bottle. Not possible. They'd be dead. No one can drink down a whole quart of booze right out of the bottle..