?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Suspension of disbelief - Danny Danger Oz — LiveJournal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Suspension of disbelief [Apr. 30th, 2009|01:14 pm]
dalekboy
[Tags|, , , ]
[mood |curiouscurious]

Films and tv shows usually rely on suspension of disbelief.

To me, if one is going to maintain the suspension of disbelief, you have to obey all the ordinary everyday rules that people know and understand. One can believe an massive alien invasion with giant biomechanoid floating death cannons, so long as the world rules beyond that are consistent. But if a human character, in avoiding one of these cannons, jumps off a ten storey building without any sort of aid, or interruptions to their fall, and land unharmed and run off - that's the deal breaker. One knows that's not possible, and suddenly one is left questioning that moment, and by default, the rest of the film.

I mentioned in a post yesterday that I hate it in films and tv when medics use the defibrillator paddles on a woman to try and restart her heart, and they are using them through material - bras, tank tops, etc. - rather than on bare skin. It pulls me right out of the moment, because I know it's not right.

I also mentioned hating when people can just break passwords when they have no information on the person, which has become really common in shows. Any computer whizz can break any password, within a relatively short time.

Another one I hate is when someone who is driving spends time looking at the their passenger rather than paying attention to the road. Quick glances are fine, but when they're maintaining eye contact for whole big chunks of conversation it annoys me. If you regularly did it in real life there's no way you wouldn't crash.

king_espresso mentioned that he hates when people don't wear ear protection on board military helicopters, which is a great one. Well, except now I'll be looking for it and getting annoyed by it.

kaths brought up the way people type madly on computer keyboards to do things that the rest of us would do with a mouse. We're in the internet age, everyone uses computers, we know they don't work this way.

kaths also mentioned the way they can zoom in on a small section of a photo, blow up that section, sharpen/clean it up, and suddenly have a incredibly clear and detailed picture. It's the equivalent of being able to blow up my icon for this post to read all the book titles.

So what about you? What regularly used, unrealistic film and tv conceits pull you out of the moment?
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: girliejones
2009-04-30 04:53 am (UTC)
People falling out of planes to chase after someone and catching up when the first person is diving and not impeded in any way.

Complete misunderstanding of use of evidence - someone already said DNA coming back to quick from the lab (Perth has about an 18month backup). The other is using DNA to place you at the scene of a crime and thus incriminating you - DNA can only be used to exclude you. Other stuff too - like fingerprints - police using a cloth to touch something, that's surely to not leave your own prints? I'd assume you are wiping off the ones already there and no longer preserving the crime scene.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: strangedave
2009-04-30 07:38 am (UTC)
I thought DNA could give you a very high likelihood of identifying who was there, high enough that its substantial circumstantial evidence? Ie one in thousands/millions chance. But yeah, TV shows often tend to assume the government has everyones DNA on file, so from a DNA sample you can find the actual person (rather than just work out which one of several suspects that you already have DNA samples of it is most likely to be).

And yeah, the bit about using a cloth only makes sense if you are trying not to leave evidence yourself - ie you are doing something dubious you don't want confirmed. It is routine in a crime scene investigation to take fingerprints etc of all the people who should be there legitimately, and those of the police etc are generally already on file for this reason, so there is no good reason for police etc to avoid leaving prints if they are supposed to be there.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ariaflame
2009-04-30 07:42 am (UTC)
Well, it would be good to not smudge/overlay any existing prints. Hence the pencil/pen trick with guns.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: girliejones
2009-04-30 07:45 am (UTC)
It can place you at the scene, at some point in time. But that's not incriminating, damning evidence in itself. Often its used as conclusive, case shut kind of evidence. So more useful is if they don't find evidence of you there at all. That's pretty much the only way DNA can be used as the only piece of evidence to change a case.

It is routine in a crime scene investigation to take fingerprints etc of all the people who should be there legitimately, and those of the police etc are generally already on file for this reason, so there is no good reason for police etc to avoid leaving prints if they are supposed to be there.

Totally watched a policeman open a door with a hanky the other night. Was like - what the hell for?! Could have even been on Dexter, can't quite remember which.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)