What are some common Hollywood medical faux pas?

[DaveC426913]

I have no problems with invented fiction, however, invented fiction has to be consistent with itself.

What jj said.

BTW, do they actually say it's a black hole that's created? I know we're assuming it is, but is it as simple as that? Red matter catalyzes a BH but does not participate in it?

 

[JaredJames]

BTW, do they actually say it's a black hole that's created? I know we're assuming it is, but is it as simple as that? Red matter catalyzes a BH but does not participate in it?

I can't remember what phrase they used exactly, it was either black hole or singularity. I was under the impression it simply created it, it wasn't the singularity itself. I shall have a look what they say about it and edit this post later.

EDIT: OK, the only thing they say is "using red matter I will create a black hole" and they are worried about "igniting the red matter". The sources of ignition in the film are the planets core (Vulcan), the sun (which destroys Romulus) and the ships colliding at the end. Now I have no intention of arguing the physics here, after all it's all fictional, but so far as the film goes, they don't explain red matter any further than I have indicated above and so there is no problem with the concept they use. The only problem that could occur is if a source of ignition wasn't present for one of the black holes created. Job done.

 

[JaredJames]

One of my other pet hates:

Space ships always 'meet' each other in the same orientation. They are both traveling around the solar system / galaxy / universe (usually at the speed of light), slow down on approach to each other and amazingly are orientated like a pair of cars on a collision course.

 

[nismaratwork]

One of my other pet hates:

Space ships always 'meet' each other in the same orientation. They are both traveling around the solar system / galaxy / universe (usually at the speed of light), slow down on approach to each other and amazingly are orientated like a pair of cars on a collision course.

Even more than that, ships are rarely in a shape you'd expect to maximize efficiency, shielding, weapons deployment and more... really the Borg are the only ones that fit that bill. With a few ships that need to make planet-fall, it makes sense, but for ships build IN space, FOR space, the aerodynamic "wings" and such seem extraneous. It also kills me that somehow "intertial dameners" are these basic systems even though they keep a ship together near lightspeed, but shields go down after a couple of shots! Still, at least that is self-consistent.

Oh, and am I the only one who notes that nanoweapons, biological weapons, and the like are so rarely used, even when you'd expect them to be like something out of 'The Diamond Age' by Neal Stephenson?

 

[JaredJames]

Even more than that, ships are rarely in a shape you'd expect to maximize efficiency, shielding, weapons deployment and more... really the Borg are the only ones that fit that bill. With a few ships that need to make planet-fall, it makes sense, but for ships build IN space, FOR space, the aerodynamic "wings" and such seem extraneous. It also kills me that somehow "intertial dameners" are these basic systems even though they keep a ship together near lightspeed, but shields go down after a couple of shots! Still, at least that is self-consistent.

Oh yeah, the shield thing annoys me. I never see the point in shields if they disappear after two or three shots. Also, why can't the "inertial dampeners" by applied to the shields? A ship can go from zero to light speed in seconds without so much as a shudder, but one missile and the crew are thrown around like rag dolls.

 

[nismaratwork]

Oh yeah, the shield thing annoys me. I never see the point in shields if they disappear after two or three shots. Also, why can't the "inertial dampeners" by applied to the shields? A ship can go from zero to light speed in seconds without so much as a shudder, but one missile and the crew are thrown around like rag dolls.

Yeah, it really gets to me... ah well.

 

[Borek]

For the record: speaking of consistency I was not referring to the red matter & black hole, it was much more general.

 

[Danger]

-people outrunning explosions
-cars jumping up into the air and flipping over when they hit something
-someone getting bonked on the head with a bottle and it breaks without damaging him
-someone shaking off an arm or shoulder gunshot wound as insignificant
-more to come

 

[Borek]

-cars jumping up into the air and flipping over when they hit something

Actually... in most cases I agree, but I have witnessed car that 'jumped' from the straight road up and landed on the road barrier. Something startled the driver and she did some panic move with the driving wheel, moment later car was on the barrier (say two feet over the road level), facing the opposite direction. It didn't flip and as far as I can tell (I didn't stop, I was about 100 meters behind and two of three other cars already stopped, so there was no reason to add to the crowd) driver was OK, just in shock - she was looking around not understanding what have happened.

 

[nismaratwork]

-people outrunning explosions
-cars jumping up into the air and flipping over when they hit something
-someone getting bonked on the head with a bottle and it breaks without damaging him
-someone shaking off an arm or shoulder gunshot wound as insignificant
-more to come

-Using absurdly inadequate cover which magically stops bullets of any caliber fired even from an assault rifle.
-No ruptured eardrums or organ damage when they've outrun the fireball, but not the blast front of an explosion.
-SHRAPNEL: unless it's a plot device, this is essentially ignored.
-Knives... I can't list it all here, but the fighting styles are absurd.
-Unless it's a plot device, guns do NOT JAM... ever.
-Ammo... 'nuff said.
-Shot in the leg = limp, rather than bleeding out.

Oh yeah... fires: large fires are incredibly HOT... yet people are only burned by them when they are actually engulfed in flames.

 

[DaveC426913]

-Unless it's a plot device, guns do NOT JAM... ever.

Really? Even assault rifles like Uzis and AK-47s?

I always thought that was sort of their Achilles heel. Especially if they are not kept well.

But I know nothing.

 

[nismaratwork]

Really? Even assault rifles like Uzis and AK-47s?

I always thought that was sort of their Achilles heel. Especially if they are not kept well.

But I know nothing.

No No... unless it's USED as a plot device guns never jam IN MOVIES or TV. Hmmm... my grammar was not all it could be there. I would say that of all the guns to jam or otherwise foul, one of the 'selling points' of the AK-47 is that you can pretty much store it in a barrel of donkey crap and it'll still fire. Full-on machine guns, and M-16 derivatives tend to jam more in rough weather... otherwise it's usually a matter of wear and care, just as you say (not kept well).

Uzis also happen to be another class (mini on up), which have a breathtaking rate of fire, with a pretty low jam rate compared to similar weapons like MAC-10's. I would say the Achilles heel of a mini-uzi is accuracy with that short barrel, and the AK-47 is not the most accurate at 300 yards and it's also quite heavy compared to M-16 variants.

Just to clarify my previous post: the shot in the leg comment, meaning that it's absurd that so rarely is it a serious wound in Hollywood, when really you're tearing large amounts of muscle, and there are critical blood vessels. My examples are all in the form of, "as happens in movies"; I should have been clear

 

[DaveC426913]

No No... unless it's USED as a plot device guns never jam IN MOVIES or TV.

Hrm. Well, nothing that happpens in movies happens unless it's a plot device.

I mean, if it doesn't advance the plot, then it's a distraction.


Actually, I'll refute my own claim with an example.

In Jurassic Park, near the climax, they were using the rifle to fend off the Raptors from the Control Room. The rifle was only a temproary measure to keep them at bay a little longer. Cut to another scene, and cut back again, and they are continuing to retreat sans rifle. Camera zooms in on rifle with round jammed in chamber.

The jamming of the rifle was not an essential turning point of the plot, but it happened anyway, so they tossed it aside.

 

[nismaratwork]

Hrm. Well, nothing that happpens in movies happens unless it's a plot device.

I mean, if it doesn't advance the plot, then it's a distraction.


Actually, I'll refute my own claim with an example.

In Jurassic Park, near the climax, they were using the rifle to fend off the Raptors from the Control Room. The rifle was only a temproary measure to keep them at bay a little longer. Cut to another scene, and cut back again, and they are continuing to retreat sans rifle. Camera zooms in on rifle with round jammed in chamber.

The jamming of the rifle was not an essential turning point of the plot, but it happened anyway, so they tossed it aside.

No argument... yet it peeves me. I stand here peeved! ...

 

[JaredJames]

No argument... yet it peeves me. I stand here peeved! ...

I take your rifle jamming and raise you one 'cctv image enhancement".

No matter what the state of the image taken from a camera, they can run a program which can make it virtually crystal clear.

 

[DaveC426913]

I take your rifle jamming and raise you one 'cctv image enhancement".

No matter what the state of the image taken from a camera, they can run a program which can make it virtually crystal clear.

Yeah. That one always bugs me on CSI.

I have come to terms with it, thus: The likeness that we the audience are seeing in the photo is not meant to represent what the characters actually see, it is meant to show the audience what the characters are interpolating / recognizing - which cannot be conveyed by camera. (It is impossible to show what the characters are thinking without resorting to some sort of filming enhancement).

Think of what they do when they show a written/typed letter on a piece of paper. The audience cannot possibly know the one or two significant words on the page that are significant to the plot, so a special effect is used that spotlights the relevant words. We don't believe that a spotlight actually shines on the page; we acknowledge that this is a enhancement for our benefit alone.

And the blood is way enhanced too. Not because it is for real, but because we the audience need to see that that's what we are supposed to be looking at.

When I watch the show with an eye toward realizing that they have to use these enhancements, I find it easier to see it as a somewhat more interpretive story than a literal reality story.

 

[Office_Shredder]

When I watch the show with an eye toward realizing that they have to use these enhancements, I find it easier to see it as a somewhat more interpretive story than a literal reality story.

No. They'll have an intentionally fuzzy picture, and someone will say "can we enhance the image?" and the image will be enhanced. This is not a drawing attention to the right area kind of thing, this is just straight up not understanding how pixels work

 

[DaveC426913]

No. They'll have an intentionally fuzzy picture, and someone will say "can we enhance the image?" and the image will be enhanced.

I know.

The point is, in reality, an image can be enhanced just enough that an identity could be surmised. But the audience can't hear the character's thought process of "you know, that could be the boyfriend, Biff."

The image needs to be obvious enough that the audience says "hey, that looks like Biff".

And you can't just have the character saying so.

Golden rule of good storytelling: Don't tell the audience, show them.

 

[NobodySpecial]

No matter what the state of the image taken from a camera, they can run a program which can make it virtually crystal clear.

In the family guy star wars parody they zoom in on the image of the death star and it's just large blocky pixels.
Q: "Why can't we see more detail"
A: 'Because size isn't the same as resolution"
Q: "It is on CSI..."

 

[nismaratwork]

I know.

The point is, in reality, an image can be enhanced just enough that an identity could be surmised. But the audience can't hear the character's thought process of "you know, that could be the boyfriend, Biff."

The image needs to be obvious enough that the audience says "hey, that looks like Biff".

And you can't just have the character saying so.

Golden rule of good storytelling: Don't tell the audience, show them.

You know, there hasn't been a decent Biff since Back To The Future... I'm adding that to list!

 

[NobodySpecial]

http://www.makemymood.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/csizoom.jpg

 

[nismaratwork]

http://www.makemymood.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/csizoom.jpg

 

[DaveC426913]

That is freakin' awesome.

 

[nismaratwork]

That picture really captures what a goofy bastard Caruso really is. He should have stuck it out on NYPD BLue damn it!

 

[JaredJames]

That strip is one of the best things I've seen on here this month. It reminded me of the Red Dwarf Back to Earth scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUFkb0d1kbU

For those of you who don't know what Red Dwarf is, this scene is a p*** take of shows such as CSI that do image enhancement.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I remember a part of the movie The Negotiator with Samual jackson. Sammy was looking at a list of sound files on the computer and the other guy was controlling the keyboard. Sammy told him to go down, so you hear him clicking the down key on the keyboard while the camera is on Sammy's face, and Sammy is like "WAIT WAIT WAIT. Go back up one" and then when you see the screen, he's only 2 files down from where he started.

 

[mugaliens]

...at some point you just let go if you enjoy the story, and either way it's not worth dwelling on.

True for many things. After all, who's going to have access to a cardio needle loaded with some chemical?

My primary concern is when they get the basics incorrect, the stuff we should all know how to do (ABC checks, CPR, direct pressure for bleeding, arterial pressure points, splinting, recognizing and treating shock, heat stroke/exhaustion).

You know - the things that if you get it wrong because your only training was lifted from your favorite TV show that you're likely to further injure, maim, or kill the person.

I created this thread not so much to point out all the blunders, but to raise awareness of the social responsibility writers have of getting their information correct before putting it on the silver screen where there will undoubtedly be some dimwits around who'll copycat it during a crisis.

Congrats, writers - you've just helped someone kill another human being.

I'm hoping some Hollywood writers read this and take the time to yank the sensationalism from their medical scenes and replace it with fact, which, interestingly enough, is fairly sensational when it's presented properly!

 

[JaredJames]

What they show on screen shouldn't make a difference. It is the public who need to realize that what happens in films and on TV doesn't always reflect real life. People assume what they show is accurate which as you point out can be lethal.

Common sense should tell you not to copy a film or the TV. Unfortunately, it isn't something the world has an abundance of.

Besides, too much realism can distract people. You need people to focus on the story.

 

[Danger]

Congrats, writers - you've just helped someone kill another human being.

To be fair, it usually isn't the writer's fault. The producers, and ultimately the studio suits, determine what finally makes it to the screen. Most "procedural" shows have qualified technical advisors, but even they are powerless to enforce realism in the face of beaurocracy.

 

[nismaratwork]

To be fair, it usually isn't the writer's fault. The producers, and ultimately the studio suits, determine what finally makes it to the screen. Most "procedural" shows have qualified technical advisors, but even they are powerless to enforce realism in the face of beaurocracy.

Yeah, there are usually a lot of "suggestions" made by producers during the "notes" process. It baffles me when a director has true experts weigh in, but then they disregard literally EVERYTHING offered by that expert.

Mugalians: Fortunately, if you're not qualified to administer CPR and you do so, you're on the hook for the harm you do to the poor sap you're "helping". I grant you that doesn't bring them back to life, but I'm not sure that people who watch ER and think they're ready to establish an airway, staunch bleeding and insert a chest tube are completely in touch with reality. It would be NICE if they could have an accurate depiction of those basics you mentioned, but as JarednJames said, realism can do damage to the story. I would add that people often find even the small elements of reality shocking and disturbing, from the noises that people make when injured, to the the look of a seriously disarticulated limb.