There are any number of clichéd plot points that we’ve seen
over and over in movies and TV episodes.
Maybe it’s the person who gets shot, sits up, and always rips open their
shirt to show the viewer that they have a bullet-proof vest on – who does that
in real life? Maybe it’s the criminal
who takes One Last Job or the cop who is One Week from Retirement – either way
we know it’s not going to turn out well.
Maybe it’s the random object or person that shows up early on for no
reason and then plays a critical role during the climax.
While all of these have been done to death, they are not
wrong. (Note: by “wrong” I mean
factually, not morally or ethically.)
Bulletproof vests do stop some kinds of bullets. Sometimes big cases do come up just as a cop
is going to retire. No, what I mean are
plot points that have appeared tons of times, but every time they do they are
flat out wrong, and it requires them to be wrong for the plot point to work.
I will count these down to the most common, most incorrect
plot point. Here they are:
3. The prosecution is stuck because the only
person who has the knowledge to get a criminal sent to prison is his wife and
she can’t testify against him.
Many a gangster movie has the bad guy marrying the woman who
knew he was bad because that then meant that the good guys could never get her
testimony of what she knew. Or sometimes
the wife doesn’t know her husband is a criminal until after the marriage, but
even though she is horrified by what she learns, she can’t do anything to stop
him because as his wife she can’t testify against him. Right?
Wrong.
What the law actually says is that a wife cannot be forced to testify against her husband
(or a husband against his wife.) If she wants to testify, though, she is
perfectly able to do so. There is
nothing stopping her from going to the cops and being a witness against her
husband at a trial.
This is only number three because it is not used as commonly
now as it once was. This is probably
because divorce is much easier to get, so writers figure if the wife was
horrified by what her husband was doing she would just divorce him and then she
could testify.
2. When you time travel, you arrive in the past
(or future) at the exact same spot you were in the present.
Let’s just stipulate for the sake of this point that time
travel and all its paradoxes are not problems and then let’s go forward from
there. When a person time travels they
are only moving through the dimension of Time, not any of the three dimensions
they would normally move in. This means
that they would end up exactly in the same house, on the same hillside, etc. as
they were when they left the present.
Right?
Wrong.
The concept that you would not move in any of the three
dimensions is correct, but the concept that you would then end up in the same
house, etc. is wrong. The problem is
that the Earth is not stationary. It is
both spinning on its axis and orbiting around the sun. And if you want to get geeky, the sun is in
an arm of the Milky Way galaxy that is rotating, and the Milky Way galaxy is
itself receding from the center of the universe.
What that means is that as you are reading this sentence you
are simultaneously moving very swiftly in four different directions – five if
you are reading this is a moving vehicle.
(And if you are reading this in a moving vehicle I hope the hell you are
not the one driving. If you are driving,
pull over. The life you save may be
mine.)
So if I were to travel back in time one month I would end up
exactly where that point in the universe was one month ago. I would have a real big problem, though,
because the Earth wouldn’t be there when I arrived. I’d be in the middle of space and I would die
in a matter of seconds from explosive decompression.
So, if anyone wants to build a working time machine it’s
also going to have to simultaneously be able to transport the traveler through
the standard three dimensions to any point in the universe, otherwise, well, bye-bye.
1. When someone needs a life-saving blood
transfusion they always have the rarest blood type there is.
I’ve seen this one so often it has to have been a cliché
almost from the time blood transfusions were first shown in moving pictures. You know the drill: Important Person gets
injured. They are losing blood. They need a transfusion almost immediately or
they will die. The person who will do
the transfusion cries out, “Oh no!
Important Person has the blood type [say it all together folks] AB
Negative! That’s the rarest blood type
there is! Whatever will we do?” Then Random Person who has been in the movie
or TV episode will raise their hand and say, “I have AB negative blood.” Cue rising score as we know Important Person
will live to see another day.
Here’s the problem: if a person needing a transfusion has AB
negative blood that is almost the best
possible news. That means they can get a
transfusion from most anyone. The
reaction should be “Yes! They have AB negative blood!”
The four blood types – A, B, AB, and O – have different
properties in regards to who can donate to whom and who can receive from
whom. Type O is the most common and it
is known as the “universal donor” type because anyone can receive Type O blood
regardless of their own blood type. Type
O can only receive Type O blood, however.
Types A and B can accept both Type O as well as their own blood
type. Type AB is the least common blood type, but it
is known as the “universal recipient” since they can receive O, A, B, and AB blood. (Technically, AB positive is the universal recipient, but AB negative can receive
blood from any other blood type as long as the Rh factor is also negative. O negative
is the universal donor because anyone with a positive Rh factor can receive
blood regardless of whether the Rh of the donor is positive or negative, while
anyone with a negative can only receive negative.)
So those are the plot points I felt had been done to death
and pretty much every time they appeared they perpetuated the wrongness that
started who knows when. Do you have some
others I didn’t mention?
Excellent examples Chip, I especially like the one about blodtype. That is outright dumb.
ReplyDeleteI have another one that is down your lane.
Have you noticed that whenever some smartass hacker or computer geek is going into some fancy super secure computer system it is always presented as some graphic interface. Ýou practically never see the character go through tons of technical code, which is reality. A classic example is Jurassic Park where the girl hack the system, saying: I know this, this is UNIX and what we see looks mostly like a computer game.
Oh yes, there could be an entire post just for the way computers are presented in films, whether it's being able to be destroyed just by being given an illogical statement, being hacked and/or infested with a virus no matter how foreign or alien it is, or a computer being presented as omnipotent when all it can "know" is only what has been entered into it.
Delete