Petty TV pet peeves

I know I have a lot of them. Paul has to listen to me rant and rave at the TV. I'll just name the first one that comes to mind: When characters in a commercial or show are given drinks as props...soda cans, coffee cups, milk cartons, etc...and it's plainly obvious that the containers are empty. I mean...I know it's acting and not reality...but how hard is it to weight the prop (with water or whatever) so it moves and is handled realistically? Or at least give actors lessons on how to better pretend what they're holding has the weight and movement of a full thing of liquid rather than a vessel of air. It's SO petty to let it get to me but it's those little moments that snatch me out of the story.

When people on TV or the movies turn the lights out a softer light pops on. They are never really in the dark. It really bothers me when they are in a cave or something. When people are shown in caves the floor is almost always shown perfectly flat like a floor except for the occasional stalagmite.

two big ones:

1. when characters unwrap presents and the box and lid are wrapped separately. roundhouse did a great spoof of that in a christmas episode, and i've probably just dated myself there.

2. the post-coital l-shaped sheet. god, do i hate the post-coital l-shaped sheet. you know the one--it covers the guy from the waist down, but the woman from the shoulders down. because boobies are evil.

omg very good ones. Especially the wrapping one. Because that gives me aneurysms every year. NOBODY WRAPS PRESENTS LIKE THAT. Well, unless they're anal. But I mean...does it really take that much longer to show a character ripping the paper off? I suppose it does for resets and retakes, but jeez. :)

My sister and I have always joked about the TV style giftwrapping.

Yes I've always hated the post-coital sheet which leads to another peeve, not full frontal nudity!

One of my related pet peeves is when people get out of bed, obviously immediately after having sex, and have underwear on.

> One of my related pet peeves is when people get out of bed, obviously
> immediately after having sex, and have underwear on.


Even better is when they show them having sex with underwear on.

or sitting on the toilette with underwear on

You mentioned Roundhouse. I am now your slave.

Whenever my life gets me so down,
I know I can go down
To where the music and the fun never ends...

reprise the theme song and roll the credits!

I loved that show.

wow ROUNDHOUSE!

do they have DVDS? if so, want want want!!!

They don't, but I want them.

Dude, have you ever noticed how there are SOME shows which, no matter how much you pray to your respectful god, will NOT come out on DVD? Perfect example is Animaniacs. They should have had a DVD release by now, but nooooo.... That was a great show.

i think it's gonna come out soon, i'd gotten some notice from amazon, but according to amazon they dont have a release date yet :P

what REALLY needs to come out on dvd is Cartoon Planet! :D

A commercial peeve I have once in a while that irked me again yesterday....commercials for chips, or shredded cheese, or anything that comes in a plastic/mylar bag.� They show the people holding the bag and it's pristinely opened. Like...the edges have NEVER been sealed and you can tell. I don't understand why they bother. Why is it wrong to show the bag as it would be if naturally ripped open?� Do people really unconsciously reject a product if its packaging is at all straying from perfection on TV?

Weirdos.

Speaking of commercial peeves, I hate when they don't mention the name of the product when they're talking about it, because you know that they didn't have a name for it when they made the commercial, so they just say, "try this." For some cold sore medication (I think it's Abreva) they're talking about really chapped lips and the woman says "it hurts to laugh" and the other woman says, "Try this! This will help you." or something along those lines. The whole "this" thing instead of saying the name of the product drives me.

See I actually think in a weird way it's better that way. :)� Because it seems more natural in conversation to say "hey try this" and hand it to them...like...most of the time in casual conversation I can't imagine us saying the brand names to each other unless it's not something you have right there. To force the brand names to be mentioned would, to me, make it seem more fake.

Which is just indicative, as many of my peeves are, of my desire to have what's on TV reflect believable life. (I won't say "real" because I like supernatural things and genre shows and all of that so it's not that I want reality...I want believability.)

No, they don't, but somebody, a dirctor, a producer, an ad exec, or a client, WORRIED that they might. Nothing is left to chance when that much is riding on it. The result is odd, safe, and mediocre TV.

My roomie and I were watching Project Runway the other day and I realized something (you laugh, but it is a damn good show).� Heidi was talking to each of the designers on the runway and the camera would focus in on the designer while she was�talking about what she did and did not like about their outfit.� I realized that I DESPISE how they�try to dub over what the person is trying to say but you can clearly tell that it's not the original.� I'm not making any sense.� Can anyone back me up on this?��

yeah, I completely agree. Wednesday's episode was full of the Heidi's overdubs. They just focus the camera tightly on the designer and you can just hear how her voiceover is just totally different and off from her tone when you see her on camera and talking. They do this on TAR too on the finish line. It can get quite irritating.

Oh I hate hate HATE when people on tv talk to the "audience" as in facing the camera and trying to include the viewers at home.�� rawr... and bernie mac is the biggest crime of all... "so america its like this"� man if I wanted someone to talk directly to me I wouldn't be watching tv!

This one is from old movies but I hate the cheek thing.� Anyone know what I'm talking about?� Back then they couldn't kiss for longer than 3.5 seconds if not married in reality so they'd give a quick peck and then press cheeks both facing the camera.� For crying out loud what kind of couple would EVER do that?!

lol awesome topic by the way��� :)

why can't cartoons change their clothes once in a while?

That one I can actually explain. For each cartoon the artists have to draw thousands of paintings of each character, all identical. It is far easier to have the character always look the same so the artists can practice that one look and do it very quickly.

Oh I hate hate HATE when people on tv talk to the "audience" as in facing the camera and trying to include the viewers at home.

I'm the other way. I always love it when the fourth wall is broken a bit Malcom in the Middle and Arrested Development (RIP) do this a lot.
What I like even better is when the fourth wall is shattered completly (does anyone remember that Growing Pains episode? I always thought that would have made a neat idea for a Buffy/Angel plot)

What about Beuler? Gotta love that.

But talking to the audience is a device that goes way back to restoration comedy in the case of characters, and back to the greeks in the case of a designated chorus or narrator. It is a device that can be overused, but it is very effective when used correctly.

> But talking to the audience is a device that goes way back to restoration
> comedy in the case of characters, and back to the greeks in the case of
> a designated chorus or narrator. It is a device that can be overused, but
> it is very effective when used correctly.

That's the key point though, when used correctly.�� I do understand the method and to be honest it doesn't always annoy me, I did like Beuler.� But when I'm reading a book, listening to music or watching tv/movies, I'm trying to escape from reality.� When they directly reference the listening/watching audience it slams reality back down with a THUD and I lose whatever connection I had with the story.

The only exception is a narrator,� that can be an exceptionly effective method as you said, but I just dont view Bernie Mac or PR or Survivor to be in the same ..... class as a Shakespeare play for example.

And don't forget Survivor. Although, that I didn't pick up at first. It's still annoying. PR is VERY obvious.

*roots for Daniel*

I watched this so called "Project Runway" you spoke of.� It was very interesting, kinda cool to see what they could come up with.� I think though that its�the case of the window washer's house having the dirtiest windows.�� The designers�dress like mentally ill hobos.� Weird as their models end up looking.. at least they don't look as though they were dressed from the salvation army's rubbish bin.�

Oh and I think my biggest pet peeve about the show was that I honestly couldn't remember what the show was called!� I mean would it kill them to flash the show's name every 5 sec or something?!

Or was that the other way around? hmm.. lol

Laugh tracks!!! Especially big hyper laugh tracks!! If you have to tell me it's funny, it ain't.

*Many thanks to SCRUBS*

Laugh-Tracks only bother me if I notice them. If they're subtle, natural, and well-timed, (and the laughter is deserved) it doesn't always cross my mind that there's laughter (most of the NBC sitcoms of the 90s are good examples). On the other hand, a lot of shows seem to be going back to loud, canned, laughter, which just feels insulting. If I had a choice, I'd rather not have the laughter, but if it's well done, I can deal with it.

No one in TVland ever checks for a pulse before doing chest compressions. Ever.

Drives me up the friggin' wall.

And they always assume that doing chest compressions is automatically what you need to do if someone's not breathing.

OH! And when chest compressions "wake someone up." Um, impossible. Once a heart stops, it's stops, and you have to shock it (aka use an IED) to get it back working.

Ugh, you're right, that one is SUPER annoying.

Bingo.

I mean, chest compressions are also a good way to *stop* the heart if there is a pulse. Way to go, TV heroperson.

I think there's actually between a 1% and 3% chance of chest compressions restarting the heart. I remember my lifeguarding instructor telling us that.

Still annoying the way it happens on TV though, where someone does 2 compressions and the unconscious person suddenly sits up gasping or whatever.

according to this article from JAMA and a few similar articles it's closer to just under 5%.

and yes it is annoying, but i'd hate for them to spend 5 minutes on chest compressions alone. BORING.

this is true, but really, once a person stops breathing, it's only a matter of time (even if you are providing assisted breathing) before the heart stops as well.

and a heart in fibrillation does require a shock, but proper chest compressions before and inbetween greatly affect the efficacy. especially chest compression before, priming the pump--so to speak, has been shown to improve the overall long term success and recovery of the patient.

My mother's life was saved by a defibulator administered by a security guard. The doctor at the hospitals' reaction was amazement. he said she was very lucky; that they hardly ever save the person outside of a hospital.

He took out her fibula? Wow, that is a skilled security guard ;)

those ANNOYING flash-animationy previews they do in the middle of a show!!! i'll be watching gilmore girls or whatever and they try to destract me with this rolling gimmicky banner saying FRESH EPISODE OF SUPERNATURAL TONIGHT!!!

I've come to sort of accept the graphic ones because I can tune them out all right. But the newer ones that sometimes contain sound?? GRRRR.

Those only really annoy me if I'm recording the show.� I know it's dated anyways, as in you know it's old, but for some reason I despise those tacky little banners.� They pop up and you think... oh yeah that was october the 12th cause that sunday they played that banner advertisement.�� lol.

so, i kinda got into football this year, and before they'd be talking about a player and a picture of him would come up with his name and some stats, and now the pictures are little videos of the person staring at the camera, so they blink and smile and move around a bit.

i feel like i'm looking at their chocolate frog wizard card. it's creepy!

Along those lines, I can't watch the Olympics much because I hate the little public-interest bits that they run all the time. I'd much rather watch some obscure event (or, sometimes, just the non-americans compeeting) than hear about life in that little Ohio college-town Scott Hamilton's from ;-)

I totally agree with you on that. I hate that. The last summer olympics there seemed to be a bit less of that. I'm guessing that I'll be watching more of the olympics on the cable stations so I can see things like short course speed skating which is exciting rather than hearing about the personal lives of athletes and all about Turin.

Depending on how it's done, I actually prefer slight product placement over obvious generic products. If you're going to have the characters drink some pop, go ahead and make it coke (instead of red and white "cola").
What bothers me is when the placement is obvious and/or referenced. Like all of the cans of coke being turned so the label faces the camera, or bits of dialoge like "I'm going to have a refreshing coke".

Yeah I get bugged when a product (Either in a show or even in a commercial) is held in a completely unnatural way just to show the label best. (this does not apply when it's a spokesperson or something who's MEANT to hold the label right up to the camera. I'm speaking of situations where it's supposed to look casual and natural and....doesn't.)

> Depending on how it's done, I actually prefer slight product placement
> over obvious generic products. If you're going to have the characters drink
> some pop, go ahead and make it coke (instead of red and white "cola").
> What bothers me is when the placement is obvious and/or referenced. Like
> all of the cans of coke being turned so the label faces the camera, or bits
> of dialoge like "I'm going to have a refreshing coke".

I can't stand Dinner and a Movie for that reason. I was watching the other night and the blond woman was making a deliberate product placement. If you're gonna make a product placement, make it sound natural! Say something like, "ooh, you got those Glad bags I like."

My roomie and I were watching Project Runway the other day and I realized something (you laugh, but it is a damn good show).� Heidi was talking to each of the designers on the runway and the camera would focus in on the designer while she was�talking about what she did and did not like about their outfit.�I realized that I DESPISE how they�try to dub over what the person is trying to say but you can clearly tell that it's not the original. I'm not making any sense. Can anyone back me up on this?

I was reading an article in Radar magazine which exposed the dirty tricks of Reality shows. Quite an amazing article.

There are three issues here:

1. Product placement. The creators of the work of art want product placements to be a source of income to them. Cast Away got paid by FedEx for having Tom Hanks work there, Wilson paid to have their volleyball used, and so on. If you use a Coke can without getting paid by Coke, it sets a bad precedent.

2. Implied consent: partly because of #1, a trademark holder could argue that every time a real logo is onscreen, it's because the company's okay with that (because they paid for it). If your crazed gunman is wearing a Mello Yello shirt, then someone out there could hypothetically decide Mello Yello's okay with going postal, is down with school shooting. And That's For The Courts To Decide(tm).

3. Chasing down permissions: so if you're not gonna pay for it (#1) and it could be a liability (#2) you have to go find every trademark that you're using for free and get permission for it. This is a big pain. Stay Free Magazine had an article about copyright chasing -- the movie Mad Hot Ballroom almost didn't get made because they had to get permission for all the songs, and they had to cut one scene where someone inadvertently quoted a song by C&C Music Factory. Inadvertently.

So 1+2+3, or you could put a white and red label on a pop can, and everyone will know what you're talking about. It's probably as close to settled as you can get, considering every No Frills and Loblaws in the land is chock full of pop cans and bottles with red and white labels on them, and if Coke were able to shut down something, they'd probably kill the store-label pop industry before the Urkel-drinks-Coke industry.

it seems that the mad hot ballroom story is a different issue. b/c that's not product placement, but copyright laws. it seems that a company would be more likely to be happy for getting free advertising on "Friends" than a record label would be for not getting paid to have their song played in a movie. One is a matter of the companies not having to pay, and the other is an issue of the companies not *getting* paid.

However, the show Friends wouldn't want to *give* free advertising. That's the reason that logos are blurred out of rap videos -- MTV wants people to pay for their advertising space.

As for trademark vs. copyright... read the paragraph again.

Nothing to do with this but I loved Mad Hot Ballroom.

True but the weird thing about product placement is how well it works because they always use generic references.� If a movie actually has a clear cut shot of someone drinking a coke I think 'wow, I guess coke paid to be here'�.� I think if they didn't always use the generics I honestly wouldnt notice as much.� Maybe that's their evil plan....... hmmmmm.

i'm rewatching all the Buffys. and I hate how vampires have no breath yet ANGEL ALWAYS SEEMS LIKE HE'S OUT OF BREATH.

:D and dont say it's a residual habit, after 250+ years you think he'd break it.

I think it's ridiculous that vampires would have no breath anyway. How do you talk without using air? I think it would make the most sense if their bodies worked normally in terms of intake of air and release, just that it wouldn't be processed in between in the normal ways. So what was exhaled would be the same as what was inhaled....but they should still be able to go through the motions.� Otherwise it makes everything else even more ridiculous! :)

or it wouldnt kill them to NOT have it, like underwater or in an airtight container. :P

It can't, in Angel he spent one entire offseason locked in trunk at the bottom of the ocean.

but they should still be able to go through the motions.

Did you say that in a buffy-topic just to earworm us? ;-)

Yeah, the whole talking without breath thing always bugged me. Of course they don't need it to live, but they should be able to work like an organic air-pump at least.

Although, it could be that vampire speach is mystical in nature. Their voices come not from air flowing past a voice box, but as a direct extention of their soul demon.

also, in the season 2 ender, SPIKE CHOKES DRU UNTIL SHE FAINTS. i dont even know where to start with that. what was he doing? strangling her? SHE DOESNT BREATHE! cutting off the circulation to her head? HER BLOOD DOES NOT FLOW.

wtf, and bbq.

In the Christmas episode you see the Angel's Breath mists yet he can't give her mouth to mouth in the last episode of season one.

And he's panting as he says he has no breath.� I always giggle.