Film cliches you want to fuck off

[famethrowa]

. I have found female comedians making jokes/reference to "unattractive" things about themselves a cliche from the last ten years.

I think Tina Fey in 30 Rock is extremely guilty of this, the show is basically written around her being a gross weirdo, it's a bit grating sometimes. Same goes for Zooey Deschanel in New Girl.

they're not films I know

[Jerzy Bondov]

I'd like to defend New Girl[nb]because I honestly fucking love it[/nb] - most of the jokes about Zooey's character are about how she's annoying or weird or unhinged, and attractive people can be all of those things. She frequently attracts good looking men, but they're ultimately put off by her bizarre behaviour. That's why she has to end up with weirdo Nick Miller.

Also I think in TV land you have to assume that the baseline of being good looking is higher than in real life. Every person who lives in the New Girl flat is hot as fuck.

I agree about 30 Rock.

[magval]

The alternative to this is someone like George Costanza stepping out with gorgeous women in every episode of Seinfeld DESPITE the show itself making it apparent we're supposed to think he's gross, too.

Ultimately, I guess it's supposed to serve the story/the joke. Perhaps this would work in a novel where appearance is impossible to definitively portray, but in a visual medium that dog won't hunt, Monsignor

[Clownbaby]

Tina Fey in 30 Rock also annoys me more than others because she's not even good at acting like she's awkward and a bit gross. There's a lot of actors who are obviously good or decent looking who can still convince you they're weird and minging. I think Tina Fey's just a weak actress. I honestly kind of wish someone else had played Liz Lemon, because Tina Fey is neither loveable or cringey enough to be entertaining. I don't think I've ever particularly enjoyed her in anything

[olliebean]

"We're not so different, you and I."

[neveragain]

"Is this a joke?"
"Do you see me laughing?"

Well, normally you wouldn't laugh while telling jokes unless you were really shit at it (or Frank Carson).

[dissolute ocelot]

In writing I dislike "former and latter" because they're inevitably used as ways to avoid repeating the names of whatever you're actually talking about. This makes it harder to read because you have to go back and check which one is which. It also fails to fix the real cause of repetition, which usually comes from poor sentence structure, not repeated words.

Another reason to hate everyone is that "former" and "latter" are only for referring to one of two alternatives; if distinguishing between three or more things you should use "first" or "last", but people still say "latter" for 3 or more things to try and sound sophisticated. Ban them.

[Clownbaby]

In writing I dislike "former and latter" because they're inevitably used as ways to avoid repeating the names of whatever you're actually talking about. This makes it harder to read because you have to go back and check which one is which. It also fails to fix the real cause of repetition, which usually comes from poor sentence structure, not repeated words.

I know generally people aren't trying to be awkward when they use former and latter but I can't help but read it as slightly difficult, because it feels a bit article-y rather than conversational. Always feels like ''I hereby refer you to what I just said mate'' That's probably me just being a fanny who can't remember the difference between former and latter though

[Sebastian Cobb]

Would like former and latter to fuck off because I don't know which one means first and which one means second.

Just think of Sisters of Mercy, (first and last always) and all will be revealed.

[popcorn]

I know generally people aren't trying to be awkward when they use former and latter but I can't help but read it as slightly difficult, because it feels a bit article-y rather than conversational.

Yep.

Of course writing is different from conversation, and people write differently from how they talk. But the point of writing - proper writing I mean, not just typing bollocks on forums - is that it's an opportunity to be better than speech. That doesn't mean using more useless words, it means being using fewer - being more precise, more clear, more useful. It's an opportunity to get all your words exactly right, in a way you can't in conversation.

But the temptation is to go the other way, to fill up your writing with weird pointless things no human being would ever say out loud, like "latter" or "former".

You can see the worst inclinations of this kind of shitty journalese all over YouTube on countless of nerdy essay videos, or on Wikipedia in articles about popular nerd subjects like video games and superhero movies.

They say "title" instead of "game" or "film" or "magazine", even though no one says "I bought a new title the other day" - it's pure journalese that does nothing but remove precision to absolutely no benefit except making you sound more like a YouTube essay guy.

They say "utilise" instead of "use", even though no one actually goes about utilising things in real life, ever.

They say "ultimately" at any given opportunity, as in "He ultimately decided to direct the movie", as if the director could have decided to direct the movie at some other less ultimate point of the decisionmaking process.

The most pointless word ever is "titular". As in, "In Batman Returns, the titular character fights Catwoman and the Penguin." As if you wouldn't have noticed that Batman was in the title of the movie if they hadn't said it. It just sort of feels like an exciting essayish sort of word.

[Clownbaby]

Oh do not get me started on ''titular''

[magval]

Yep.

Of course writing is different from conversation, and people write differently from how they talk. But the point of writing - proper writing I mean, not just typing bollocks on forums - is that it's an opportunity to be better than speech. That doesn't mean using more useless words, it means being using fewer - being more precise, more clear, more useful. It's an opportunity to get all your words exactly right, in a way you can't in conversation.

But the temptation is to go the other way, to fill up your writing with weird pointless things no human being would ever say out loud, like "latter" or "former".

You can see the worst inclinations of this kind of shitty journalese all over YouTube on countless of nerdy essay videos, or on Wikipedia in articles about popular nerd subjects like video games and superhero movies.

They say "title" instead of "game" or "film" or "magazine", even though no one says "I bought a new title the other day" - it's pure journalese that does nothing but remove precision to absolutely no benefit except making you sound more like a YouTube essay guy.

They say "utilise" instead of "use", even though no one actually goes about utilising things in real life, ever.

They say "ultimately" at any given opportunity, as in "He ultimately decided to direct the movie", as if the director could have decided to direct the movie at some other less ultimate point of the decisionmaking process.

The most pointless word ever is "titular". As in, "In Batman Returns, the titular character fights Catwoman and the Penguin." As if you wouldn't have noticed that Batman was in the title of the movie if they hadn't said it. It just sort of feels like an exciting essayish sort of word.

I agree with all of this and formally withdraw my use of the word 'former' earlier on the forum. I know it's hard to read sincerity on the internet, but this is what it looks like.

This type of exaggerated one-up speak does my fucking head in. If you've ever been unlucky enough to see any of the particular strain of reality TV that Bravo makes, you'll see everyone talking like this, out loud.

[ProvanFan]

I quite like utilising former and latter.

[machotrouts]

Who the fuck doesn't say "former" and "latter" out loud. Illiterate DOLTS. Deport

[olliebean]

The difference between the latter and the former is that the former is the latter and the latter is the former. All clear now?

[Sebastian Cobb]

The difference between the latter and the former is that the former is the latter and the latter is the former. All clear now?

Fucking, check out Schooly D over here.

[purlieu]

"We're not so different, you and I."

It's almost a cliche to criticise this itself, but fucking hell I'm still seeing it all the time with just about every TV series I watch and so many films. How in God's name are people comfortable using it?

I use 'former' and 'latter' a lot because they work very well.

[popcorn]

Yeah the "not so different, you and I" or "you and me, we're the same" has been infuriating me for decades now, it feels like.

I use 'former' and 'latter' a lot because they work very well.

Example?

[Andy147]

The most pointless word ever is "titular". As in, "In Batman Returns, the titular character fights Catwoman and the Penguin." As if you wouldn't have noticed that Batman was in the title of the movie if they hadn't said it. It just sort of feels like an exciting essayish sort of word.

That one's elegant variation.

[popcorn]

That one's elegant variation.

Yes indeed. Former and latter are also examples of elegant variation.

Though I still see examples of "titular" that isn't even elegant variation. "In Yoshi's Island, the titular Yoshi must carry baby Mario" etc.

[thecuriousorange]

"We're not so different, you and I."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GH0YPXb49q0

[olliebean]

The most pointless word ever is "titular". As in, "In Batman Returns, the titular character fights Catwoman and the Penguin." As if you wouldn't have noticed that Batman was in the title of the movie if they hadn't said it. It just sort of feels like an exciting essayish sort of word.

I can't decide if it's marginally better or marginally worse than "eponymous."

[BlodwynPig]

Its fine, better than In Batman the Movie, Batman fights Catwoman.

[Blumf]

I can't decide if it's marginally better or marginally worse than "eponymous."

The latter.

[Hand Solo]

I can't decide if it's marginally better or marginally worse than "eponymous."

The anonymous Epstein abuse counselling service?

[Brundle-Fly]

I can't decide if it's marginally better or marginally worse than "eponymous."

The use of 'sophomore' in any album review used to grind my gears.

Sorry, back to film cliches.

[dissolute ocelot]

I can't decide if it's marginally better or marginally worse than "eponymous."

"Breakfast at Tiffany's with Audrey Hepburn eating the eponymous rolls." Unsure who said that.

Eponymous and titular suggest lack of imagination, or at least a desire to be serious and important and have no fun whatever. "Batman with Val Kilmer in the eponymous role" vs "...playing the caped crusader", "...taking over as the man-bat", "donning the most famous ears this side of Disneyland" etc etc etc. If you really don't want to say stuff like "caped crusader" you probably shouldn't be reviewing Batman. Also, in most cases you could say "lead" or "leading" with no ambiguity - in a Batman film it's not going to be anyone else.

[Hand Solo]

They've pretty much re-done Short Circuit but made it all dark and put that fucking Alien 1979 trailer alarm sound that Prometheus and a load of other things started to use about 10 years ago in the trailer.

Monsters Of Man

[Sebastian Cobb]

They've pretty much re-done Short Circuit but made it all dark and put that fucking Alien 1979 trailer alarm sound that Prometheus and a load of other things started to use about 10 years ago in the trailer.

Monsters Of Man

Sci-Fi Robots Action Movie HD

[JesusAndYourBush]

Grenades will either work as intended, or when it suits the plot they'll not go off for a really long time allowing them to be thrown away just in time.