@ Dave:

Sorry but you are wrong. Opening scene from “The Social Network” makes your argument invalid. That scene is essentially a 5 minute montage of bunch of guys typing into text editors, drinking and talking – and it actually accomplishes a lot:

– Sets up Zuckerberg as a character displaying a lot of his character traits and quirks right away – smart, socially awkward, stubborn, impulsive, etc
– Shows his relationship with Eduardo
– Sets the stage for the entire movie
– Shows an event that actually happened (albeit probably not exactly as depicted)

And it does it in a very realistic way. So yeah, it can be done the right way and no, it is not boring.

Damn, you guys need to lighten up. It’s Hollywood. It’s a fantasy.
Watching someone spending 11 hours typing into a text editor and guzzling Dr. Pepper doesn’t make a very interesting looking “hacking” scene. So fuck reality.

I recently watched a clip on YouTube of a scene of an episode of CSI.

They grabbed an image from a security camera (which usually isn’t the best quality), ‘enhanced’ it, located shadows’, then zoomed in on a person CORNEA!?! and they could see a basketball’s reflection. And the woman says: “The resolution isn’t very good.” WTF

Yes, it is indeed my biggest pet peeve.

This is one of my favorites:

Oh, and every single IT related sequence and conversation in 24. It pisses me off to no end. Also the people I’m watching with too, because I have to stop it and explain to them how none of this is even remotely possible.

@ Ian Clifton:

Yeah, I know. You are not a real hacker if you don’t have a 17 screens that simultaneously display scrolling text and random 3d polygon transformations. I have no clue how that stuff helps hacking, but it must since everyone in the movies does that.

@ Chris Wellons:

Yeah, I know. I especially like how their imaginary image enhancing software that can infinitely refine a grainy security cam footage makes a silly sound every time it zooms in. Imagine if Photoshop made a sound each time you do something. I think I would just disconnect my speakers. :P

Also, I always make fun of CSI when I teach students about digital image formats and how bitmap images work. Most students are surprised to learn that enchantment stuff doesn’t work in real life.

@ jambarama:

Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson is the man. :)

Speaking of law – I have zero legal experience, but I’m surprised how much lawyer shows get away with. I mean, most adult US citizens will at one point or another have jury duty. This means that a large percentage of TV viewers have actually seen how a real trial looks like from the inside. For example, I know that randomly waltzing up to the bench to have a private one-on-one with the judge without involving the opposing attorney is just something you don’t do. And yet I see it done in almost every single movie and TV show.

@ hdrev:

Well, I didn’t watch much of Smallvile so I can’t really say how close that was. Some shows do make an effort to make tit look more or less realistic. Others just don’t.

Yeah, I agree with you, but i regulary watch a tv show where hacking appers kind of realistic you know.

Smallville, from what I was able to see, the “hacker” was typing at what it seemed like a unix terminal, but well…it could be DOS

Clarity v. realism is a good way of looking at it. Accuracy also has a cost component too. My wife is a nurse and entertainment portraying the health profession drives her nuts. My uncle is a physicist and hates lots of movies with bad physics. I’m a law student, and I can’t stand to watch courtroom sequences on TV. When I was writing software, IT’s portrayal bothered me (e.g. how come monitors project their contents onto the “hacker’s” faces!?).

Entertainment writers just aren’t going to know as much about your profession as you do. That’s how it goes. Sure they could hire a consultant for every little detail, but at some point it just gets ridiculous. They won’t get everything right, and though a little more research would be appreciated by professionals in that field, no one else will care but the guy doing the budget wondering why you needed a physics PhD consultant for an animated featurette.

I was about to say “but what about the nmap scene in The Matrix?!” but you slipped it right in the end there.

Also, notice how the computer interfaces in movies/television are so noisy? They beep in response to every action. They give you a big “access granted” banner when you log into a system, like a real user would really need to see that. For a person who used these systems 40 hours a week a work, all of that would drive them nuts. But the noise usually gives important visual/audio clues to viewers so that they can follow along.

You mentioned that audiences have more experience with computers now than ever (man, think about when Tron came out!). I’m pretty sure I’ve seen YouTube in a film or show somewhere, framing some video the characters are watching. Updating their faux interfaces will turn into product placement deals!

I think it will always be the case that if we want to see a highly accurate portrayal of technology we have to stick to the small stuff that bores most people, like Primer.

The last time I hacked into the pentagon, I spent so long perfecting the 3D animations that I felt compelled to buy seven extra monitors just to enjoy my technological wizardry….

@ Dr. Azrael Tod:

Good point. That sort of thing is just inexcusable. Especially since you could easily find someone that could write a convincing techno-babble for you.

Of course some directors just don’t give a fuck,and some shows just don’t care about realism at all. CSI is notorious for just making shit up and passing it off as science and technology for example. A lot of the hospital dramas also get the medical jargon horribly wrong from what I heard.