Completely agree. If anything one would think that with the vast resources of the future they would be able to make more beautiful things. But I suppose it's a matter of style and straight lines are in right now, sadly.
Roger Ebert once said (and I'll paraphrase): if it makes no sense after you've seen the movie, it doesn't matter. But if it makes no sense during the movie, it's a problem.
Perfectly articulated skeletons just lying on the ground, exposed, not buried, most especially when the skeletal find is supposed to have been there for a long, long time. Even worse when the skeleton is somehow propped up, sitting, generally defying gravity as regards the fact that at this point, there is exactly nothing holding those bones together in such perfect anatomical alignment. Should just be a pile of scattered bones.
The dark or super close ups. So many sci fi films are now shot in the dark. I guess its to help hide dogdy cgi effects but im sick and tired of not being able to see whats going. And if its not in the dark, its super close up and always moving so you cant take in the whole scene or give your eyes time to focus properly. Not just limited to sci fi, but, fight scenes where the hero is outnumbered but is only attacked by one person at a time, or worse, they bad guys are all armed, but prefer to try and beat the hero up, one at a time, using their weapons as clubs. Examples, Rei and Darth Tantrum vs the Emperors Guards and the dream sequence fight from Batman vs Superman.
Hate seeing alien invasion movies with no standing fights. Its Always some parasitic alien or alien swarm or mind control. Or if there are standing fights it devolves into parasites and mind control.
Course if they have the technology level to fly across the galaxy and we haven't a standing fight is going to be very one sided and short
Anybody mention sound in space yet? Or WWII style dogfights with laser/bullet equivalents? Especially considering regular Earth bound jets don't even do that now. I get that it would make for a boring, silent piece of cinematics to have soundless targets launching space missiles from tens of thousands of kilometers away, but sheesh!
That was one thing I didn't like about 'The Last Jedi'. I have no problem with a dogfight between space fighters, but having some space bomber with a bomb bay and no apparent airlock seemed a stretch (Star Wars has established that there is something like an invisible force field air lock but the way that scene unfolded made no sense to me). I didn't say this to anyone though. Then you become the person that's not invited to parties anymore. I already do a good job of that as it is.
Not to mention what force was propelling those bombs. I don't like the people at those parties anyway.
Well, it wasn't gravity, so maybe it was the sound pulling them down? Or the medium that allowed the sound to travel? (Worst movie ever)
Those see-through screens that float in the air. They're everywhere now. I blame Tony Stark. Imagine if you could see through your monitor right now. How irritating would that be? I feel like it's tropey. It dates the movie as being in the 2010s. That and the Inception "Brrraaammm!" are not so clever. Please quit doing them. They're the cinematic equivalent of a mullet.
According to the visual dictionary and the cross-sections book, the bombers use electromagnetic plates to accelerate their bombs “down” in microgravity environments. It makes sense from a physics standpoint, though choosing to design them like that seems…questionable. Why use a bomber that requires you to fly “over” enemy ships to drop bombs when you could use missiles/torpedoes instead and minimize your exposure to enemy fire? Of course, lots of things about warship or starfighter design in Star Wars don’t make much sense if you think about them. Exposed bridges, mounting heavy turrets on top of Star Destroyers but not on the underside, engagement ranges shorter than most 20th Century naval battles, etc. That touches on one thing I’m tired of seeing in sci-fi movies: space battles that don’t make sense given the tech or physics of the setting. But I get why filmmakers opt for point-blank visual spectacles. More rigorous military sci-fi like The Lost Fleet or Honor Harrington just wouldn’t translate to the big screen very well.
Not quite Sci-fi, but I guess also in all movies: The first woman the main character meets is the love interest. THEY HAVE TO BE TOGETHER!! Also, the world is ending, we have to kiss one last time. (Even though I need to get rid of this atomic bomb and has one minute left. (Looking at you, Batman.))
Not specifically sci-fi, but I'm walking out of the next movie that has: "Wait for my signal." "What's is it?" "Oh, don't worry, you'll know." Just tell her that you're going to detonate the damn transfigulator with a xenon bomb or whatever. What if someone shoots up a red star cluster or pops purple smoke before you're in position?
And on that - war films (and war sci fi for that matter) where they announce the colour of the smoke they are about to pop "look for my purple Stormy" No , just no You announce that you're popping smoke and let the air call sign call out the colour... if you say "look for my purple" every insurgent and ass hat in a ten k radius will also pop purple smoke
Completely unrelated, but there's a scene in one of the Narcos episodes when the drug boss turns to the guy with the bazooka and orders him to "Do the thing with the shit." The guy then blows a truck up with the bazooka. I'm going to steal that line every time an authority figure needs to order an underling to do something destructive. Particularly in sci-fi to avoid all the techo-jargon. Instead of "Fire torpedoes" we'll write "Do the thing with the shit." Instead of "High orbit above the proximal asteroid," "Do the thing with the shit."
