From: selinawoman	Date: May 2nd, 2008 05:20 pm (UTC)		(Link)

when I feel like there is an obvious effort to emotionally manipulate me.

Edited at 2008-05-02 05:21 pm (UTC)

	From: danjite	Date: May 2nd, 2008 08:08 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Ah, The Spielberg Effect.

Or should that be affect in this particular case?

	From: frankwu	Date: May 2nd, 2008 08:13 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Is the constant reaction shots he (over) uses? They seem to tell us exactly what we should be feeling at any given moment.

	From: frankwu	Date: May 2nd, 2008 08:14 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I mean, it seemed like the entire last sequence of Close Encounters was reaction shots of Richard Dreyfuss going omg, wow, omg wow wowzer golly gee willickers.

	From: danjite	Date: May 2nd, 2008 08:20 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Watch The Color Purple for a lesson in emotional manipulation and bludgeonry.

Edited at 2008-05-02 08:20 pm (UTC)

	From: djrock3k	Date: May 2nd, 2008 08:23 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Howdy

and Minority Report for the Glowy, Amber-hued Feel Good pullback shot at the end. Purest Treacle.

(edit: at the end, not at the net. Too much typing today...)

Edited at 2008-05-02 08:24 pm (UTC)

	From: lisamantchev	Date: May 2nd, 2008 05:25 pm (UTC)		(Link)

When the sound effects (especially motorcycles, cars or guns) DO NOT SOUND RIGHT.

	From: stu_segal	Date: May 2nd, 2008 10:21 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Like "squealing" tires when the vehicle is on dirt or gravel? Makes me nuts.

	From: frankwu	Date: May 2nd, 2008 11:12 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Wow. Having never squealed my tires on dirt or gravel, I wouldn't have thought of that. But, of course, with your motorcycle experience... yeah, good point!

	From: stu_segal	Date: May 3rd, 2008 12:51 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Actually - you make an interesting point. I always assumed that directors chose to ignore the reality that tires don't squeal on dirt or gravel, in favor of the unrealistic-but-more-spectacular squealing sound effects. After reading your reply it dawns on me that perhaps people (including directors and ??sound effects guys??) don't know the reality, and are making an honest, but obvious, mistake.

	From: yourbob	Date: May 2nd, 2008 05:25 pm (UTC)		(Link)

there are anachronisms (e.g. tumbleweeds in a western set before 1860, when they were introduced to North America)

there are geographical dislocations (e.g. California birds singing in the background of a supposed Russian steppe)

[yes, both of those are biological, but they're just the examples that came to mind]

	From: sisterbean	Date: May 2nd, 2008 05:37 pm (UTC)		(Link)

...the director cues up the second or third or fourth MONTAGE. I can handle one. I understand that they are sometimes necessary plot devices. But after one, I have just checked out.

	From: cmdrsuzdal	Date: May 2nd, 2008 05:49 pm (UTC)		(Link)

When someone says "This isn't a movie!"

	From: theresamather	Date: May 2nd, 2008 05:55 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Gross historical inaccuracies, especially when the real history was more interesting. Same with bad Hollywood rewrites of classic literature that almost totally ignore the source material yet for some reason still keep the title.

	From: amoken	Date: May 2nd, 2008 06:03 pm (UTC)		(Link)

...the music is WRONG.

...a sex scene lasts longer than a minute and doesn't further the plot any more than the <10 second version would have.

...everything is completely normal and typical for more than 30 minutes. Why go to a movie? I could just recollect my own life. It takes less time, too.

	From: frankwu	Date: May 2nd, 2008 06:31 pm (UTC)		(Link)

These are great, everybody! Keep 'em rollin'!

	From: realthog	Date: May 2nd, 2008 06:35 pm (UTC)		(Link)

. . . when I fall asleep in the middle of it.