On camera, behind the camera.

[rogueslayer452]

As someone who has watched a lot of television and movies, I have been fascinated by the technical aspects of film-making. It's why I love behind-the-scenes and making-of segments, just getting a glimpse of the magic and the insight of how it all comes together. Granted, it's inevitable that not everything is going to be 100% perfect or flawless, and that there will be hurdles and obstacles to get through given the difficulties of the industry and especially if there are limitations and deadlines. It's not an easy job, and I commend anyone who works in the industry trying their best to make a good finished product. With that being said though, there are certain things that do fall through those cracks that, as a viewer, you will notice far too often. I'm going to be listing several pet peeves that I've observed when it comes to the technical side of both television and movies.


** Noticeable ADR. It's unavoidable that ADR is often used, especially in television, because sometimes audio doesn't always capture well during certain scenes and actors have to match the cadence used in a specific scene which can be difficult to achieve. Sometimes you can notice it, but you can easily ignore it. However, it's the very noticeable ones that are often the most distracting. It's in these moments where the re-recorded audio can be louder than the rest of the dialogue in the scene, which can take you out of the moment. Although unnecessary ADR is even more distracting. It's when they have the actors say a line that wasn't originally in the script/scene, but added in to further explain what is happening in a particular moment. It wouldn't irk me so much if it wasn't often used as a tool to explain to the audience what they can already figure out. Instead of having the camera focus on an object and have the character walk over to it and pick it up, the unnecessary ADR has them saying, "hmmm, look at this thing" playing over that moment. It doesn't always happen, but it's very, very noticeable when it does and it bothers me.

** Actors with empty cups. We've all noticed the fact that sometimes when actors is holding a cup that's supposedly filled with a drink, often a coffee cup, that it's very noticeable that there's nothing in it based on how they're carrying said cup. It would be nice if they actually had something in the cups. Not necessarily liquid, but just something to add weight to it so the actors aren't just carelessly flinging the cups around with their body language without taking into account that hey, yeah, you're supposed to sell the fact that you're holding a scolding hot cup of coffee.

** Reverse editing. This doesn't happen too often, but the things I've watched it's enough that I've noticed this far too much that it bugs me. This is where you have a scene that was filmed, and in post-production the editor decides to reverse a moment in filming. So, say, if an actor is facing the camera and is turning their head to the right, the editor will have the scene go from having them turned to the right and then looking towards the camera. These moments are often very split second and happen very quickly, usually in the middle of a conversation with another character or a transition of scenes, but it's hard to really ignore it when you can clearly tell that it's reversed. I can understand that they need to convey something with the narrative by having certain scenes constructed in a certain way, but it just looks so unnatural and unnerving.

** The Wilhelm Scream. I think it's just overused at this point. Yes, it's an insight joke and we're expected to hear it in some franchises (i.e. Star Wars). However, wen I'm watching a film and am totally engaged with it, and then they interject the Wilhelm scream in the middle of something totally serious, it takes me right out and it automatically makes me hate whoever approved of it.

** Replacing televised music with something else, or nothing at all. Although this one is more understandable given the whole royalty rights issues concerning music in television shows, it does bug me somewhat whenever I get a DVD of a show I liked only to find out that much of the music that I remembered being in the show has been replaced, or that there's no music featured in a particular scene at all. As someone who used to record a lot of shows back in the day onto VHS tapes and rewatched them on the regular, it can be quite jarring and disappointing when you get the official DVDs and none of the music you liked that was featured in many moments in the show are missing. This is something mild in comparison because, again, it's a rights issue and not all shows can secure those rights for one reason or another, but it still bums me out that some iconic moments made memorable through the music used in a show can be lost because of it.


What are some of your pet peeves when it comes to the technical parts of film/television?

Comments

[tabaqui]

HA! Omg, yes. I hate hate hate hate hate the empty cup thing! Just put some water in it! They hold them wrong, move them wrong, and they *sound* wrong. ARGH.

I have notices the ADR thing - i particularly hate it when the actor either can't match their voice to what was going on before (no idea why, but it's happened) or they use some *other* actor to overdub cuss words or something. Good gods, off-putting and so distracting.

At this point, i mostly just don't notice 'the scream'. I think because 'action' scenes in movies are *so fucking loud* that I usually don't hear it/don't notice it.

Which is my peeve - fucking explosions and guns and crashing cars or whatever and they're *so* loud that you can't hear any dialogue. And then they switch to a non-action scene and you're reaching for the volume, and then then go back and you're covering your ears.....!!!

I really dislike that a LOT.

And - i don't *always* notice, but i hate continuity glitches that actually matter. Like - character A has a wallet or backpack or whatever, and they never show them picking it up or grabbing it or anything, and even show them leaving their house/dorm/car/whatever *without it*.... And then the next scene, there it is. Stop that!

[rogueslayer452.livejournal.com]

It's very telling when an actor puts a cup down, not just with how they do it but also the sound it makes, with how empty it is. Just add something to make it have weight, ffs.

God, the dubbing over profanity is so bad. I can understand why it's done, but that doesn't make it any less cringey. It's probably better than them bleeping out words, but it's still distracting. I just hate censorship like that in general, really, and that's more of an issue when it comes to the FCC and their bizarre restrictions.

The Wilhem Scream is so recognizable that I could probably notice it even when it was being drowned out by loud noises, lol.

When it comes to the small continuity errors, normally I can bypass it since I can rationalize mentally that I know that they do multiple takes on a scene and not everything is going to be synced up perfectly with what a character has or doesn't have. It can be mildly annoying, but I'm not that bothered by it as long as there's an attempt in the editing to kind of make it as seamless as possible even if there's limited amount of footage to work with to make it a cohesive scene. With that being said, the biggest thing I notice when it comes to continuity errors, big or small, are when they do reshoots. Both in television and movies. Reshoots happen, but when there's no effort placed into it you can really tell. Something always feels off, whether it's the actors, or the writing, just something, and it's very distracting to figure out exactly what feels off about it.

[tabaqui]

Yes! Lighting or mood or something...it just doesn't mesh.

I think my biggest issue with continuity - or maybe it's writing - is when someone has pets but suddenly they can go tearing off across the country or stay four days in a row at a hospital or something, or work a 20 hour day and come home and the dog is all sitting on the couch, like.....no.

Animals don't work like that. Stop giving people random pets you don't actually need/use, and stop treating them like toys because you forgot dogs need walked and litter boxes need scooped and nobody's been home for a week.

(And stop doing this with kids, too, omg.)

But that's more writing than anything, so....not *quite* the same irritation, heh.

[rogueslayer452.livejournal.com]

That's definitely more of a writing issue than a technical issue, but I do agree with the sentiment.

There was a show I watched where a dog was introduced to be part of a character's family and then just, disappeared after one episode. Never mentioned again. The fact that writers will often do this, bring in animals (or kids) like props that is only convenient for an episode or storyline and then just discard them without a second thought is just really bad. I just kept thinking, "well, what happened to the dog?"

[tabaqui]

Exactly! It's just weird.

Also - how utterly, totally clean so many tv houses are. Not *sterile* - they pack them full of stuff - but everything is *clean*. Even the 'poor' houses, it always looks like someone just vacuumed and dusted.

Unless they're going for totally grotty, but otherwise, there's never anything out of place, no fingerprints on the doorjamb by the front door, no chipped place on the wall where the kid hit it with a box or something, just...nothing. So weird.

(Not advocating for filth, but you can't tell me you have four kids living in this house for ten years and the walls are *perfect*. Shit happens.)

[rogueslayer452.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting observation. There are definitely some shows, like Shameless for example, where they clearly do show the messiness of a house as a visual storytelling that yeah, these characters are living in poverty and are struggling but it's their way of life. But it's true that not many shows, drama or otherwise, actually demonstrate that these homes are lived in. They have stuff to fill in the space, but it doesn't feel like people actual occupy those spaces. There can be some differences with filming in an actual house/location where it's already lived-in instead of a built set, but it ultimately shouldn't matter for the end result.

This is part of the deceptiveness of media, though. Bedrooms aren't messy, but always organized and clean. People wake up with makeup on, always have pristine hair, always have fashionable brand clothing, etc. When it comes to television, they don't go for real world realism, but the Hollywood version of realism. Or, when it comes to US shows, to show the "American dream" vision of a home rather than what actual homes truly look like. It's supposed to be attractive rather than realistic. Granted, not everything has to be absolutely realistic, but there is definitely this unnatural element to it that's kind of noticeable the more you become aware of it.

And this goes beyond just the realistic nature of a home. This goes for all aspects of how they present things. For example, not all American high schools look or operate Like That, and yet that's the template many shows and movies often go for because it's been used for such a long time and it's recognizable to the casual viewer. Someone from outside of the US can watch a movie and go, "ah yes, this is an American High School" despite it not being remotely like any high school that's grounded in reality.

This is a pretty interesting topic all on its own, though, and it's why I'm fascinated by it tbh. For me, it's less of an annoyance and more of a curiosity, of understanding why these things are a template in film-making and whether we can break that mold (and oftentimes, things that do break that mold often are very memorable and refreshing).

[tabaqui]

Oh, yes, exactly. I'm not *angry*, per se, i'm just.... It gets *old*. I don't like being told a story where nothing actually adds *up* to that story. I mean - my daughter isn't the A-typical 'every kid is like this' kid, but she put pictures on her bedroom wall.

She put up magazine photos of her favorite band, she put up pictures of her and her friends, of weird little drawings, of tickets from a trip she'd been on, Color Guard tokens and prizes, even an old CG flag.

And i did the same. I had art and tickets and cards, i had snippets from books or poetry i liked, i had photographs. And it wasn't all relegated to one little 'kitschy' corkboard or whatever.

The only reason i make my bed *now* is to keep the cats off my pillow. I never made my bed as a kid.

It's just so weird. They do catalogue cut-out rooms and homes, and just watching the characters move through them, you can see how they don't actually *work* as a home you live in.

Shameless, yes, is a good example of a house were lots of people come and go, it's old, there's no money to fix it. So it's not falling apart with rats running around, but the walls have marks, windows are dirty, the cabinet doors don't all hang right, just...normal stuff that happens to a hard-wearing house.

I won't comment on 'rich' houses other to say that ages ago - like 30 years or more - i worked briefly for a Mini Maid business, and yes - we would vacuum a room that still had the marks on the carpet from the *last* time we'd been there. Whole houses were basically two rooms were in use. Insanity.

I think it is interesting, yes, the weird and not quite right picture that Hollywood tries to sell us about - us.

I don't sit and watch movies and seethe, but if i start picking stuff apart, i can get pretty intense. *snerk*

[rogueslayer452.livejournal.com]

It's funny how sometimes shows will try to do that, add some personality and individuality to a characters' bedroom, but it's not always the best depiction. Having one or two posters or magazine clippings on a wall isn't really the best representation of a typical teenager who has other interests besides what is often shown in the actual show/story. Visual storytelling can be important to understand a character more in depth, and sometimes nothing is more telling than someone's bedroom.

Even if someone is a minimalist, that is very telling of who they are as a person by even just the smallest things here and there.

So yeah, it can be tiring seeing every single bedroom in movies and television being the exact same layout. Allow there to be variations, look at actual bedrooms in the people in your real life and apply it to the characters in the story, what would their bedroom look like to reflect their interests, etc. There are different levels of how someone keeps their room as well, as in it's not always clean and organized versus unkempt and dirty.

I think it is interesting, yes, the weird and not quite right picture that Hollywood tries to sell us about - us.

Exactly. It's like, "here's you...just a more glamorized version of you....that's not really you at all, but it's one that you should want to be!"

[tabaqui]

Yup, yup, all of this.

And weirdly, I never feel like i 'should' be like those. They are just so charmless and weird, i'm like....'no'. I like my house with my rocks and skulls and seashells and ratty books. :D

[rogueslayer452.livejournal.com]

Sometimes it's nice to find inspiration through other means, like interior decorating and such, but we all have our individual styles and preferences, our personal quirks and interests. Not everything needs to look exactly like something you see on Pinterest, that would be boring.

[valeria-sg-1.livejournal.com]

People wake up with makeup on, always have pristine hair, always have fashionable brand clothing, etc.

This is not necessarily a pet peeve because I know that's how it works, but some shows do it better than others at making the actors look more 'natural'. Sometimes, especially with women, it's painfully obvious they've been in a chair with a hairdresser and a make-up artist for hours.

I personally would not like to be in the shoes of the poor souls who had to tame Mary's hair for four years on BSG :P

I thought Desperate Housewives did it fairly well, especially with Lynette. She was a mother of four, always on the brink of exhaustion, and she looked the part.

SG1 did it well with Sam Carter, too. They got sloppier in SGA though, by season 3 Weir's hair was a little too pretty for someone who's constantly running on coffee and fear.

[rogueslayer452.livejournal.com]

but some shows do it better than others at making the actors look more 'natural'. Sometimes, especially with women, it's painfully obvious they've been in a chair with a hairdresser and a make-up artist for hours.

Yeah, there are certainly some shows that attempt to make the characters look like they're grounded in reality. It's completely different, though, when you have them looking Instagram-esque perfection while still trying to sell us on the fact that this is what a normal person (whether it's a teenager in high school or a businesswoman) looks like in real life. And of course we're not stupid, we know that this isn't what real life people look like and it's done simply for the entertainment, but it can be tiring seeing the same depictions especially in comparison to other characters or even background characters who actually do look "normal".

Of course, this also depends on the type of show as well. There is a difference where you have a show that is purposefully meant to be viewed through a hyperstylized lens versus a show that's supposed to be grounded in reality.

It's just an interesting topic because ever since the beginning of film-making there's always this emphasis of the glamorized person, and it's definitely changed and evolved throughout the years with each generation to varying degrees. The current wave is the "Instagram/influencer age" of "on fleek" perfection, which is definitely more noticeable when you compare those depictions to other pieces of media where people still look fashionable but reasonably so.

[valeria-sg-1.livejournal.com]

Can you give me an example of a show where you get that Instagram vibe?

I guess I watch too much military sci-fi :P

[rogueslayer452.livejournal.com]

Any CW show, basically.

[valeria-sg-1.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid that the last CW show I watched with any consistency was the original Charmed :P