What bad screenwriting element(s) ticks you the most?

Joelist

What ship is this?
Staff member
With the increasing number of poorly written films out there of late, especially from big studios, I thought it might be good to see what particular bad writing element(s) tick us off the most.

In my case, I think the two worst are:

1) Plots where the only reason the antagonist achieves anything is stupidity on the part of the protagonists. I positively despise this type of lazy writing. This is stuff like the group of people with one of them being a secret baddie, and the only reason their identity is not immediately revealed is people not talking to each other and/or making obvious observations. A major example of this is the Star Wars Prequels where the only reason Palpatine succeeds is that every other character is outright stupid.

2) Heavy handed lecturing. Yes I know writers want to put "socially relevant" material in their screenplays. All well and good. But make your points without lecturing me. My tendency nowadays is to turn the movie off once I detect I am being lectured to. Commentary can be made but needs to be in the background. An example of a movie that lectures the viewer is Elysium, and it was one reason the film was unwatchable.

What do you think?
 

Illiterati

Council Member & Author
I hate lazy screenwriting that simply reuses/remakes older movies. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Why can't they create their own new characters and material? If the public would stop going to these craptacles (feces-ridden spectacles), then perhaps studios would stop greenlighting them. But that's probably entirely too much to ask.
 

shavedape

Well Known GateFan
There are tons of screenwriting gimmicks that bug me. I couldn't possibly list them all. Here are just a few:

-- Super intelligent bad guys that operate with impunity in the world and have these elaborate schemes that always go off without a hitch until the very last minute of the movie.

-- Also super intelligent computer geeks who can bypass any security protocol they meet when breaking into a server. They are then able to magically open every door in a building and un-encrypt every file on someone's hard drive and empty bank accounts and transfer money to other bank accounts -- all with a few taps on the keyboard. And they're so super genius that their cyber steps are always untraceable. :rolleye0014:
 

Illiterati

Council Member & Author
There are tons of screenwriting gimmicks that bug me. I couldn't possibly list them all. Here are just a few:

-- Super intelligent bad guys that operate with impunity in the world and have these elaborate schemes that always go off without a hitch until the very last minute of the movie.

-- Also super intelligent computer geeks who can bypass any security protocol they meet when breaking into a server. They are then able to magically open every door in a building and un-encrypt every file on someone's hard drive and empty bank accounts and transfer money to other bank accounts -- all with a few taps on the keyboard. And they're so super genius that their cyber steps are always untraceable. :rolleye0014:
Independence Day, anyone?

I don't hold it against "Real Genius", as that was satire, anyway.

Watch a "computer" person's hand when next you watch a movie or TV show. They rarely move beyond ASDFJKL; My kid likes to laugh at some of the information that pops up on these characters' computer screens. Hilarious, in some cases.
 

shavedape

Well Known GateFan
1) Plots where the only reason the antagonist achieves anything is stupidity on the part of the protagonists. I positively despise this type of lazy writing. This is stuff like the group of people with one of them being a secret baddie, and the only reason their identity is not immediately revealed is people not talking to each other and/or making obvious observations. A major example of this is the Star Wars Prequels where the only reason Palpatine succeeds is that every other character is outright stupid.

This point of yours reminds me of that recent The Big Bang Theory episode "The Raiders Minimization" where Amy points out that Indiana Jones is irrelevant to Raiders of the Lost Ark in that were he removed from the story the major events would still play out the same. There is actually some validity to this theory when you examine it. The comments in the second link seem to prove her right.

"Indiana Jones plays no role in the outcome of the story. If he weren't in the film it would turn out exactly the same."

"If he weren't in the movie the Nazis would have still found the Ark, taken it to the island, opened it up and all died... just like they did."

http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/The_Raiders_Minimization

http://movies.stackexchange.com/que...indiana-jones-being-irrelevant-to-the-outcome
 
Last edited:

Illiterati

Council Member & Author
This point of yours reminds me of that recent The Big Bang Theory episode "The Raiders Minimization" where Amy points out that Indiana Jones is irrelevant to Raiders of the Lost Ark in that were he removed from the story the major events would still play out the same. There is actually some validity to this theory when you examine it. The comments in the second link seem to prove her right.

"Indiana Jones plays no role in the outcome of the story. If he weren't in the film it would turn out exactly the same."

"If he weren't in the movie the Nazis would have still found the Ark, taken it to the island, opened it up and all died... just like they did."

http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/The_Raiders_Minimization

http://movies.stackexchange.com/que...indiana-jones-being-irrelevant-to-the-outcome
Don't say this anywhere near George Lucas. He'll remake it and make Indy integral to the entire story. Oh, and he'll add Ewoks.
 

Overmind One

GateFans Gatemaster
Staff member
With the increasing number of poorly written films out there of late, especially from big studios, I thought it might be good to see what particular bad writing element(s) tick us off the most.

In my case, I think the two worst are:

1) Plots where the only reason the antagonist achieves anything is stupidity on the part of the protagonists. I positively despise this type of lazy writing. This is stuff like the group of people with one of them being a secret baddie, and the only reason their identity is not immediately revealed is people not talking to each other and/or making obvious observations. A major example of this is the Star Wars Prequels where the only reason Palpatine succeeds is that every other character is outright stupid.

2) Heavy handed lecturing. Yes I know writers want to put "socially relevant" material in their screenplays. All well and good. But make your points without lecturing me. My tendency nowadays is to turn the movie off once I detect I am being lectured to. Commentary can be made but needs to be in the background. An example of a movie that lectures the viewer is Elysium, and it was one reason the film was unwatchable.

What do you think?

  1. Overly dramatic "showcase" moments in films which are meant to have an emotional impact but dont. Examples: Dakota Fanning's teary rant in War of the Worlds when she is whining to her brother for leaving to fight the aliens. Others I see in films and shows like The Walking Dead where they think it is a big deal to "see grown men cry". But if they are crying about a broken nail it just is a big fat eyeroll (with smirk).
  2. Filler scenes which are meant to be "edge of your seat" moments, but are done before you give a shit about the character in peril. Examples would be Lieutenant Scott (BJS) hanging from the ice precipice in SGU. This can also mean scenes which are created to "save" a character you dont care about.
  3. "Journey" scenes which take 15 minutes of the movie/show, and all it does is provide an opportunity to stretch out the movie. Examples: The scene in I Robot where Will Smith's character flashes back to his wife and child being killed in the helicopter. "Pursuit" scenes which are overly drawn out, etc.
There are more, Ill add them as they come to me. :)
 

Illiterati

Council Member & Author
  1. Overly dramatic "showcase" moments in films which are meant to have an emotional impact but dont. Examples: Dakota Fanning's teary rant in War of the Worlds when she is whining to her brother for leaving to fight the aliens. Others I see in films and shows like The Walking Dead where they think it is a big deal to "see grown men cry". But if they are crying about a broken nail it just is a big fat eyeroll (with smirk).
  2. Filler scenes which are meant to be "edge of your seat" moments, but are done before you give a shit about the character in peril. Examples would be Lieutenant Scott (BJS) hanging from the ice precipice in SGU. This can also mean scenes which are created to "save" a character you dont care about.
  3. "Journey" scenes which take 15 minutes of the movie/show, and all it does is provide an opportunity to stretch out the movie. Examples: The scene in I Robot where Will Smith's character flashes back to his wife and child being killed in the helicopter. "Pursuit" scenes which are overly drawn out, etc.
There are more, Ill add them as they come to me. :)
As for filling scenes out, it reminds me that Alexandre Dumas was paid by the word. That's why the man would spend six pages describing a dress or the makeup of a meal. LOL
 

Joelist

What ship is this?
Staff member
  1. Overly dramatic "showcase" moments in films which are meant to have an emotional impact but dont. Examples: Dakota Fanning's teary rant in War of the Worlds when she is whining to her brother for leaving to fight the aliens. Others I see in films and shows like The Walking Dead where they think it is a big deal to "see grown men cry". But if they are crying about a broken nail it just is a big fat eyeroll (with smirk).
  2. Filler scenes which are meant to be "edge of your seat" moments, but are done before you give a shit about the character in peril. Examples would be Lieutenant Scott (BJS) hanging from the ice precipice in SGU. This can also mean scenes which are created to "save" a character you dont care about.
  3. "Journey" scenes which take 15 minutes of the movie/show, and all it does is provide an opportunity to stretch out the movie. Examples: The scene in I Robot where Will Smith's character flashes back to his wife and child being killed in the helicopter. "Pursuit" scenes which are overly drawn out, etc.
There are more, Ill add them as they come to me. :)

I think I mostly agree except that in #3 sometimes such scenes (if they are kept brief) are needed in order to explain the plot. In the helicopter example (which by the way is from I Am Legend) you need the scenes to explain how Will Smith wound up alone in the city from the plague. I do hate overly long pursuit scenes but really is that screenwriting or directing?

For example, in Revenge of the Sith there is a scene where Obi Wan Kenobi challenges General Grievous to a lightsaber duel. Kenobi then stands there looking like he is staring at a blank wall while Grievous lights up four lightsabers and twirls them at him and everything. Bad screenwriting or bad directing? To me this is bad directing because Grievous is a CGI character and the actor was staring at a blank wall but the director failed to make sure he was in sync with the CGI action.

This to me goes to overlong pursuit scenes because the director is responsible for pacing. A too long chase scene ruins pacing.
 

Overmind One

GateFans Gatemaster
Staff member
I think I mostly agree except that in #3 sometimes such scenes (if they are kept brief) are needed in order to explain the plot. In the helicopter example (which by the way is from I Am Legend) you need the scenes to explain how Will Smith wound up alone in the city from the plague. I do hate overly long pursuit scenes but really is that screenwriting or directing?

Okay, it was I Am Legend (typo!). Still, the scene was not necessary, nor was his wife or his child. The original managed without it, explaining the virus in an entirely different fashion. Much of the footage in the city was filler. I saw the same sort of filler in the most recent War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise. Pursuit scenes need to be integrated into the story like in Fast and Furious, The Matrix Reloaded and Terminator 1, 2 and 3.

For example, in Revenge of the Sith there is a scene where Obi Wan Kenobi challenges General Grievous to a lightsaber duel. Kenobi then stands there looking like he is staring at a blank wall while Grievous lights up four lightsabers and twirls them at him and everything. Bad screenwriting or bad directing? To me this is bad directing because Grievous is a CGI character and the actor was staring at a blank wall but the director failed to make sure he was in sync with the CGI action.

Bad directing. But the scene was not integral, and there were many other more obvious gaffes in that film. But yeah, that was bad directing.

This to me goes to overlong pursuit scenes because the director is responsible for pacing. A too long chase scene ruins pacing.

It isnt just pacing, much is just plain old filler footage. It is cheaper to piece together a bunch of "journey" or pursuit footage into filler thrown in at certain intervals. When these filler scenes are going on, is that bad directing or bad screenwriting?
 
Last edited:

Joelist

What ship is this?
Staff member
What original are you thinking of? The Omega Man has those exact type of background scenes as does The Last Man on Earth. Those are the other two movies versions of Matheson's novel - which also spent time on the background.
 

Overmind One

GateFans Gatemaster
Staff member
What original are you thinking of? The Omega Man has those exact type of background scenes as does The Last Man on Earth. Those are the other two movies versions of Matheson's novel - which also spent time on the background.

The book (1954). And no, the Omega Man was Charleston Heston, and they did not show his family. The Last Man On Earth with Vincent Price did not show his family either. In The Omega Man, the virus was a weapon used to fight with China, not a cure for cancer gone awry like in I Am Legend. In The Last Man on Earth, the story line with the dog and Ruth became central to the story, and the zombies managed to be cured by somebody other than Morgan (Robert Morgan, not Neville). That movie was significantly different than Omega Man. Read the book and you will see what I am talking about. :).

But my comments are specific to I Am Legend. I felt that a lot of that movie was unnecessary filler. Oh, and let's not forget about the movie ending vs the "special" ending (which made far more sense).
 
Last edited:

Jim of WVa

Well Known GateFan
As for filling scenes out, it reminds me that Alexandre Dumas was paid by the word. That's why the man would spend six pages describing a dress or the makeup of a meal. LOL

I am fairly certain that Dumas was initially paid by the word because in the 19th century, novels were commonly first published in serial publications.
 

Joelist

What ship is this?
Staff member
The book (1954). And no, the Omega Man was Charleston Heston, and they did not show his family. The Last Man On Earth with Vincent Price did not show his family either. In The Omega Man, the virus was a weapon used to fight with China, not a cure for cancer gone awry like in I Am Legend. In The Last Man on Earth, the story line with the dog and Ruth became central to the story, and the zombies managed to be cured by somebody other than Morgan (Robert Morgan, not Neville). That movie was significantly different than Omega Man. Read the book and you will see what I am talking about. :).

But my comments are specific to I Am Legend. I felt that a lot of that movie was unnecessary filler. Oh, and let's not forget about the movie ending vs the "special" ending (which made far more sense).

I have the book. And yes it delves into his wife and daughter. As does The Last Man on Earth. On Omega Man they may not have shown his family but they did show exactly how he got to be where he was. As to curing, in the book it was an ironic moment because while they thought they had figured out a temporary fix (not a cure as they had to take it daily) the real reason some of the living were starting to recover was the vampiris bacillus had mutated and no longer behaved as it had. The Last Man on Earth continued this idea with Ruth having an injection she would regularly take to prevent being overwhelmed by the plague - Morgan fully cured her via blood transfusion.

Back to I Am Legend, I fully agree that the alternate ending is the best one (it was actually the originally filmed one but the studio inserted the theatrical one). There is a little filler but then again the movie is more a psychological film that an outright scifi. You need some scenes like they had in order to establish his growing psychological issues stemming from isolation.
 

Overmind One

GateFans Gatemaster
Staff member
I have the book. And yes it delves into his wife and daughter. As does The Last Man on Earth. On Omega Man they may not have shown his family but they did show exactly how he got to be where he was. As to curing, in the book it was an ironic moment because while they thought they had figured out a temporary fix (not a cure as they had to take it daily) the real reason some of the living were starting to recover was the vampiris bacillus had mutated and no longer behaved as it had. The Last Man on Earth continued this idea with Ruth having an injection she would regularly take to prevent being overwhelmed by the plague - Morgan fully cured her via blood transfusion.

All of which brings us back to I Am Legend and the tons of filler in that movie. :) The story in that film would not have changed one iota if the entire family being killed in the helicopter had not been part of the film. Same with the record store and the mannequins. You made the title of this thread:
What bad screenwriting element(s) ticks you the most?

I have posted my comment. I have so many other examples, but to me this is a good example. Bad screenplay, bad writing.

Back to I Am Legend, I fully agree that the alternate ending is the best one (it was actually the originally filmed one but the studio inserted the theatrical one). There is a little filler but then again the movie is more a psychological film that an outright scifi. You need some scenes like they had in order to establish his growing psychological issues stemming from isolation.

They could have done that much differently IMO. The book story was better.
 

Joelist

What ship is this?
Staff member
Cool and good point. Didn't mean to rabbit trail.

Other screenwriting things that get your goat? I really liked Shaved's earlier one about super villains, and would add to it the "invulnerable killer" trope. Usually we see it in slasher films and the killer being killed then coming back is dumb.
 

ParagonPie

Well Known GateFan
I think this one is just me, but.

Killing of Red shirts and the lack of respect for humanity because of it. Seriously it always annoys the living hell out of me when a nameless character gets bumped off and no one says anything, no regret, just a shrug, but when a main character is in peril oh lordy bring out the 7th Armored Division. They do this to simulate in danger moments but to me its just so standard that it might as well not be there, you have all of this medical technology, use it! Throw in some body armor while you are there!

Main characters can do anything. I get it that you have your cast and you want them to do stuff, but for the living lord don't have your pilots be better at infantry combat than the marines around you, being able to defend themselves, yes, having a guy who is a pilot and yet can perform combat better than a Navy Seal, bugger off.
 

shavedape

Well Known GateFan
Cool and good point. Didn't mean to rabbit trail.

Other screenwriting things that get your goat? I really liked Shaved's earlier one about super villains, and would add to it the "invulnerable killer" trope. Usually we see it in slasher films and the killer being killed then coming back is dumb.

To piggy back on this some more, I really can't stand the spate of horror movies out now where the protagonists all get killed off at the end. We see it time and time again with these movies where everyone dies and you have to ask what was the point of the movie? They're basically saying that evil is omnipotent and struggling against it is futile. It's horribly nihilistic on the part of the writers.
 

Overmind One

GateFans Gatemaster
Staff member
To piggy back on this some more, I really can't stand the spate of horror movies out now where the protagonists all get killed off at the end. We see it time and time again with these movies where everyone dies and you have to ask what was the point of the movie? They're basically saying that evil is omnipotent and struggling against it is futile. It's horribly nihilistic on the part of the writers.

I know...I hate movies like that. Do you know, I have a lifelong resentment to the movie Colossus because of it's ending? :facepalm:. ALL THAT WORK, and Colossus still wins in the end. I still love that movie, except the end. I was a child when that movie came out. I have even crafted my own personal version of it where I spliced in a scene from another movie to represent Colossus being nuked, and put "THE END" on it. (I seriously did that) :) My version of I Am Legend has the "alternate" (real) ending spliced in seamlessly with the movie and no sign of the other ending.

Writers who make evil triumph over good frustrate me. But also this ties in with my dislike for shows which make the protagonists psychopaths, criminals or otherwise evil people.
 

Joelist

What ship is this?
Staff member
Good point. I'm pretty sure the issue with Colossus is partly the movie is based on the first book of a series and that the sequel (where Colossus is beaten) never was made.
 
Top