|
Jerry quit six months ago!!
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 09:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
Whatev posted:Ah yeah, that reminds me of some dumb thing that always annoys me that was all over the Bourne Ultimatum and a bunch of other flicks. Computers making a bunch of pointless beep boops and awful screeching noises when they are performing basic tasks so it's all like, technological and poo poo. That would drive the entire staff insane, man. Boss walks in to find the office smeared with crude toner paintings of figures running wild and free with the buffalo while the employees hunt Jerry with fountain pens for undermining Bill from the Mail Room the Prophet. What takes me out of a computer scene every single time is when they do that weird thing where the image of whatever the person is doing is projected onto the actor's face. It was a lot more common when green text on black was 90% of computer interfaces. But every once in a while you'll see a perfect screenshot of a Window's desktop on Brad Pitt's face.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 09:38
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:That's what bothered you? What bothered me is that there is no free will on Gaia, wait I mean Pandora. Actually, I missed the whole carbon fiber bit when I saw it. I was hopped up on muscle relaxers and booze so all I really picked up on was that the whole movie was pretty forgettable. I had low expectations for it, anyway, so I was willing to ignore all the unexplained science fantasy. I expected a little better science fact from Star Trek, though. "OMG, a star is going super-nova! We, as an advanced, space-faring civilization, had absolutely no warning!" Yeah, perfectly normal stars don't just go super-nova over night, guys. There's a whole series of contractions and expansions and spectral changes that occur over the preceding couple hundred years that really would have tipped off any astronomers bothering to monitor the very high-risk neighborhood supergiant. The "particle accelerator" scene in Iron Man 2 makes me cry just a little bit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 13:21
|
|
|
"Funny Games US" - The entire movie bothered me as hell and the two villains just got under my skin. But when one of them dies and the other guy just grabs the remote of the coffee table and REWINDS THE UNIVERSE it just had me shouting at the screen. They cheated!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 14:46
|
|
|
Cwmagain posted:"Funny Games US" - The entire movie bothered me as hell and the two villains just got under my skin. But when one of them dies and the other guy just grabs the remote of the coffee table and REWINDS THE UNIVERSE it just had me shouting at the screen. They cheated! Yeah, I really hated that movie after that moment. It was fine right up until then, but that scene just killed it. I'm not a fan of movies that are realistic through the first 80% and then out of nowhere do something impossible or unrealistic. Midnight Meat Train was similar in that disappointment. Bonk posted:I seem to remember Bad Boys 2 and I, Robot being particularly egregious, and now I notice it in everything. Some of the Bourne movies should result in complete downtown gridlock. Speed is one of the few that actually addresses clearing the highway. Bad Boys 2 was the worst offender of this that I actively remember watching and thinking "oh, gently caress you". Every part of that last huge chase scene was ridiculous just to be ridiculous. A boat spinning across the highway and the worst part was when he was driving his hummer down a hill right through buildings. I get that these were little shacks, but there is no way you could just drive through a dozen small wooden buildings and keep the vehicle upright and not damaged to the point where it wouldn't stop you or make you crash. Beyond that, do you really think all of those buildings would have had no people in it? Realistically he had to have killed half a dozen people. rockcity has a new favorite as of 15:01 on Sep 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 14:49
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:That's what bothered you? What bothered me is that there is no free will on Gaia, wait I mean Pandora.  That's terrifying all right. I hadn't really thought about this, but now it does kinda put the whole movie under a different light. It did bother me that a civilization born so far away from earth in space would follow what are basically earth-like human customs. If any space missionaries had arrived together with the army, they'd end up having some pretty strong proof for space creationism or intelligent design or whatever. Then, they'd destroy the tree anyways, because IDOLATRY. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 15:28
|
|
|
Twiggy Johnson posted:I expected a little better science fact from Star Trek, though. Really? Why? We're talking about a show where species originating on different planets can interbreed, where psychics and apparently omnipotent beings exist, where computers explode whenever the ship gets hit. I like Star Trek (well, TNG and parts of DS9) but realism is not its strong suit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 15:50
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Really? Why? We're talking about a show where species originating on different planets can interbreed, where psychics and apparently omnipotent beings exist, where computers explode whenever the ship gets hit. I like Star Trek (well, TNG and parts of DS9) but realism is not its strong suit. The first of your complaints is actually addressed in an episode of TNG, as all humanoid life was seeded by the first explorers of the Alpha Quadrant. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 16:13
|
|
|
Cwmagain posted:"Funny Games US" - The entire movie bothered me as hell and the two villains just got under my skin. But when one of them dies and the other guy just grabs the remote of the coffee table and REWINDS THE UNIVERSE it just had me shouting at the screen. They cheated! I understand how that was an annoying thing, but Funny Games was not meant and never tried to be a realistic movie really. There are several moments where the characters talk to the audience or make references to the conventions of the movie genre as if they're aware of the fact that they're characters in a film. In that context, it's just another jab at the audience. And it's not just the US version either, the original does the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 16:21
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Really? Why? We're talking about a show where species originating on different planets can interbreed, where psychics and apparently omnipotent beings exist, where computers explode whenever the ship gets hit. I like Star Trek (well, TNG and parts of DS9) but realism is not its strong suit. Star Trek is usually less egregious than most "science fiction" with its physics. I'm willing to overlook psychics, gods, and exploding computers as dramatic license. TNG was the only series I got into, so maybe the later series were worse. Orci and Kurtzman wrote the movie, and I hate those guys after Transformers (even if they claim it was all Bay's fault) so there's that as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 16:34
|
|
|
NaturalLow posted:I understand how that was an annoying thing, but Funny Games was not meant and never tried to be a realistic movie really. There are several moments where the characters talk to the audience or make references to the conventions of the movie genre as if they're aware of the fact that they're characters in a film. In that context, it's just another jab at the audience. Haneke shot the movie as a commentary on the ineptitude displayed by the media in their portrayal of violence. It basically says that movie audiences have grown to expect movies to rigidly follow established tropes (i feel dirty just using the word) which has stripped on-screen violence of any drama, emotion, meaning. Violence no longer engages the viewer because it is portrayed in such a way we already know what its outcome is going to be, that there is nothing we care about at stake. Funny Games is a very over the top, fourth wall breaking exploration of how to use violence effectively, how to crush viewer's expectations, how to reconnect characters with the violent acts happening to them by restoring the tension and authenticity present in actual, real life violence, causing the audience to have strong reactions of a helpless witness to a crime. The remote control scene is just a big "gently caress you, it is me, the Director, who has control over the movie and I can and will do whatever I want". So yeah, it is specifically designed to piss you off, to make you feel frustrated. He used the same techniques, just much more subtle and actually integrated into an actual plot, in his latest film, The White Ribbon. steinrokkan has a new favorite as of 16:46 on Sep 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 16:43
|
|
|
Chard posted:It really comes down to Disney cribbing Macbeth, but still needing a way for Simba to be an unambiguous Good Guy instead of a mentally disturbed adolescent. Thus, Scar's influence has a tangible real-world effect instead of just torturing Simba. The latter wouldn't work for little kids. I always thought there was a bit of Macbeth to Lion King, too. Scar being Macbeth. The Hamlet stuff is more obvious and influential, of course.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 16:47
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Haneke shot the movie as a commentary on the ineptitude displayed by the media in their portrayal of violence. It basically says that movie audiences have grown to expect movies to rigidly follow established tropes (i feel dirty just using the word) which has stripped on-screen violence of any drama, emotion, meaning. Violence no longer engages the viewer because it is portrayed in such a way we already know what its outcome is going to be, that there is nothing we care about at stake. ... Ohhhhhhh. See, my reading of the remote scene was a reveal, where it turns out it's a sci-fi movie and the baddies have superpowers. My thought was they'd either died or let the family escape or forgot to kill the dog or whatever innumerable times, but we never saw it happen, because they kept cheating, and all we saw was the final result. It explained the idiotic car scene where these two indomitable kidnappy guys could have easily been bested if she'd merely stepped in front of a different car. I was pretty weirded out when the movie kept going after that, still playing to the helplessness theme. I was waiting for wifey to catch on and kill both of them at the same time so they couldn't come back. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 16:56
|
|
|
jackofarcades posted:I always thought there was a bit of Macbeth to Lion King, too. Scar being Macbeth. Scar is pretty obviously a straight up Claudius minus the ambiguity (not that I blame Disney for wanting an unquestionably evil villian). Scar isn't driven by any prophecy or deception to take over as King, just greed and wanting some of that lioness action.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 17:11
|
|
|
I remember The Island being full of poo poo like this, from characters supposed to be living in a post apocalyptic hermetically sealed city wearing Nike trainers to a car chase inexplicably featuring a truck loaded with train axles in a future where all the trains hover. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 18:35
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:The problem with Star Trek was that it was an action movie. To explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilisations ...and teach their hot purple women about this earth-emotion we call "love". Oh Kirk, you randy dog!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 18:45
|
|
|
Holistic Detective posted:I remember The Island being full of poo poo like this, from characters supposed to be living in a post apocalyptic hermetically sealed city wearing Nike trainers to a car chase inexplicably featuring a truck loaded with train axles in a future where all the trains hover. Well obviously they were taking those train axles to the dump, duh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 18:53
|
|
|
Holistic Detective posted:I remember The Island being full of poo poo like this, from characters supposed to be living in a post apocalyptic hermetically sealed city wearing Nike trainers to a car chase inexplicably featuring a truck loaded with train axles in a future where all the trains hover. Well, they gotta do something with the axles once they take them off!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 18:56
|
|
|
Twiggy Johnson posted:Star Trek is usually less egregious than most "science fiction" with its physics. I'm willing to overlook psychics, gods, and exploding computers as dramatic license. TNG was the only series I got into, so maybe the later series were worse. Actually TOS was probably the worst about it because it wasn't like any of the showrunners knew that not only would the franchise be alive and expanding 10, 20, 50 years later, but that its fans were going to spend massive amounts of time and effort figuring out how "the planet of NYC gangsters" fit in the same universe as "dilithium crystals." For the most part TOS was whatever the writers wanted it to be week in and week out, and it wasn't until around TMP in 79 that both creators and fans alike got truly serious about making all the science behind the shows and movies as factually based as the narrative would allow. And even TNG wasn't faultless. It had that episode where Troi had a kid who grew up in a few days, and more than few hyper-omnipotent beings like Q mucking about. Believe me, I was ticked that Trek09 didn't even bother to try for the usual Star Trek morality play and instead was just big fast action, but I was ticked knowing full well that Pre-09 Star Trek was by and large soft sci-fi with a really dedicated and knowledgeable fanbase to fill in the gaps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 19:45
|
|
|
Kerbtree already pointed out that Star Trek physics/technobabble was just made up to fit the stories. "The tech is overteching".
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 21:02
|
|
|
This isn't a movie, but I get really frustrated on The Office every time you can see the Conference Room set up in the background with the table, and then cut to a scene in the conference room that's supposed to be not that long after and there's no table, only chairs set up. Obviously I don't expect them to waste screen time showing them setting up/breaking down or moving the table, but at the same time, that table just seems to disappear. And that conference room clearly isn't that big, so I feel like for some poor schmuck (Dwight, Andy, Ryan) they're spending twenty minutes a day just sliding that table in and out again and again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 21:29
|
|
|
The movie Signs really annoyed me. Ok, so the aliens die if they touch water. Great. Well I guess all the water vapor in the air didn't really count? And it was hinted that the aliens had been visiting earth since the 1970's, I guess it never rained once during their previous explorations. This one is more generalized than pertaining to a specific movie, and I know it is something that will never be taken out of movies because "how would we stage cool fight scenes, or let the main character live?!" But, basically, When it's like 10 bad guys beating up/ shooting at the good guy. All the bad guys take turns to single handedly get their asses kicked, rather than all of them just out-mobbing the 1 good guy together. This is considerably more annoying when they all have guns but take turns to shoot. And seconding with that person who said; "I hate when 2 characters fall in love over the course of 2 hours" Usually it doesn't make any sense, and it is pretty annoying. Or just funny because "whyyyy?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
Cubone posted:... Ohhhhhhh. Nope. The point of that film is to feel as helpless and as horrible as the family. Haneke's criticism is that audiences get too much pleasure from slasher films and tried to make one in which there is no joy or pleasure gained at all. Unfortunately this flew over the heads of the target audiences, who simply get frustrated at the film for not "following the rules". Essentially the film was supposed to torture morons and I wish it had succeeded because I completely understand where Haneke is coming from.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 23:51
|
|
|
People have already mentioned The Matrix several times, but there is one scene that just drives me up the wall. In the lobby shootout, Neo is stuck behind a pillar as the security starts to shoot massive chunks out of it. Neo proceeds to pull out two Skorpions which fire a .32 ACP round; a small pistol round. As Neo runs forward shooting, it clearly shows the casings falling from the guns and they are obviously 5.56x45mm shells. The worst part is that you don't even need to know anything about guns for this to not make sense, It shows the Skorpion magazines and then the casings that are over twice as long.  Guns in movies usually annoy me more than anything. A good example is the classic, The Longest Day. I have a problem seeing German soldiers using British Bren Guns and American quad M2s. I just see stuff like that and it annoys the poo poo out of me. Kind of off topic a bit, but do movie studios hire the dumbest possible people to make their movie trailers? I just saw the trailer for the new movie The Double. Basically the plot of the movie is that Richard Gere is a grizzled old FBI agent who comes out of retirement when someone is killed in the same fashion that a group of Russian assassins were killing people before he hunted them down and killed off years ago. The only problem is that even though he claims to have shot and killed the leader, no body was ever found. He's teamed up with Topher Grace, the young hot shot who has read everything about the group and claims that he knows more than anyone else. They have to find out who is behind the killings before it is too late. So really it should end there, right? Wrong. Half way through the trailer we find out that Richard Gere is the assassin leader and has been the whole time. What could have been a nice twist during the movie is spoiled before it is even in the theaters. It is loving Cast Away all over again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 00:02
|
|
|
Most audiences don't like surprises or being held in suspense. Most people go to the movies as a social activity. Most audiences live petty, brainless lives and if they want to spend fifteen dollars to stare dully at a screen full of reflected light with full knowledge of the patterns that will emerge then I don't really see why they shouldn't get all that they desire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 00:08
|
|
|
CombatBonta-kun posted:People have already mentioned The Matrix several times, but there is one scene that just drives me up the wall. In the lobby shootout, Neo is stuck behind a pillar as the security starts to shoot massive chunks out of it. Neo proceeds to pull out two Skorpions which fire a .32 ACP round; a small pistol round. As Neo runs forward shooting, it clearly shows the casings falling from the guns and they are obviously 5.56x45mm shells. The worst part is that you don't even need to know anything about guns for this to not make sense, It shows the Skorpion magazines and then the casings that are over twice as long. On a similar note, some movies don't remember that once you've fired a bullet, the casing is no longer attached. UHF even did that, but I'll assume it was intentional parody.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 00:19
|
|
|
This is assuming that the average person knows or gives a poo poo what the difference between a .32 ACP round and a 5.56x45mm shell is.  Most people don't, most people won't, we just go to watch poo poo get shot up and things blow up.The 'bullet still attached to the casing' bit is pretty unforgivable, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 01:10
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Most audiences don't like surprises or being held in suspense. Most people go to the movies as a social activity. Most audiences live petty, brainless lives and if they want to spend fifteen dollars to stare dully at a screen full of reflected light with full knowledge of the patterns that will emerge then I don't really see why they shouldn't get all that they desire. Unless a plot twist is the absolute focus of the movie, like a whodunit or something, I don't really care if I know what's going to happen ahead of time. It's the journey, not the destination. I watch a film to appreciate the directing, acting, storytelling and cinematography and rarely (there are exceptions) is knowing what's going to happen detrimental to a film's enjoyment. Also if it's a piece of poo poo movie starring Richard Gere nobody really cares. Hell they'll probably put more asses in the seats if people know. Without the twist in the trailer the movie just looks boring and dumb. Actually it looks boring and dumb anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 01:20
|
|
|
Domus posted:You do realize they made a nightmare fuel movie out of a lot of that, right? It's called Return to Oz. Dorthy gets back to OZ, I kid you not, because she is forced to undergo electroshock therapy because she won't shut up about her adventures in the first movie. The wheelers from that film haunted me as a kid. Now they just make me think they should do more practical effects in movies these days. And the lunch pail trees are just so awesome. I did indeed, when I was really little, and I never loving watched it again, because it scared the living poo poo out of me. I do remember I found Fairuza Balk really really pretty (one of the earlier moments I remember that makes me smack my head and go "HOW DID YOU NOT KNOW YOU LIKED GIRLS EARLIER, STUPID?", my god those blue eyes  ). I need to look it up again and watch it. I wonder if it's on Netflix Instant...Another thing that just irritates the poo poo out of me are times in movies where characters get other people in severe danger out of their own willful stupidity. Take, for example, "A Series of Unfortunate Events". Now, I know that the entire series is supposed to be Klaus, Violet, and Sunny getting orphaned and getting poo poo on every minute of every day, and I know that the movie makes a point of it, because Count Olaf flat-out tells EVERYONE "I've been here the whole loving time, trying to gently caress over these kids and take their money and kill them and poo poo, and they KNEW and you wouldn't listen because they're just kids and adults NEVER listen to kids because you all think being older means you automatically know everything". But, holy loving poo poo, how do some of these people exist and work jobs in their everyday lives if they couldn't figure out that all these random dudes who show up out of nowhere AREN'T Count Olaf in makeup? The Cop doesn't loving notice... he's a loving cop! Even in the era the movie is set in, he'd have to have learned SOMETHING about basic background searches! Glenn Close's character was in the same super-secret agency that the kids' parents were in, and not even SHE could figure it out? How did these people keep their loving jobs after not being able to figure out "hey this dude who looks exactly like Count Olaf in a sailor costume who just bought a brand-new ship and a brand-new house, who's claiming to have been a sailor for a really long time but we can't find any paperwork supporting that... he's probably Count Olaf, guys, we should arrest him." I saw the movie all of once, and would have left in disgust if my parents hadn't bought my ticket and it was family movie night. I refuse to watch it again, it just pissed me off that much. Lolitas Alright! has a new favorite as of 01:45 on Sep 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 01:34
|
|
|
Speaking of Avatar, what is the loving point of Avatar. It's obviously trying to shove a moral down your throat, but the battleplan of the space apaches fails - so third worlder's can't save themselves? The battleplan of the sympathetic humans also fails - so sympathetic first worlder's can't save third worlders? The ending is an archetypical deus-ex machina ending - the planet itself aka god saves the day. So is it saying that exploited people just need to pray the exploitation away? The Navajo just weren't faithful enough? That's the most insulting poo poo ever.
Humboldt Squid has a new favorite as of 01:52 on Sep 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 01:50
|
|
|
Lolitas Alright! posted:Another thing that just irritates the poo poo out of me are times in movies where characters get other people in severe danger out of their own willful stupidity. Take, for example, "A Series of Unfortunate Events". Now, I know that the entire series is supposed to be Klaus, Violet, and Sunny getting orphaned and getting poo poo on every minute of every day, and I know that the movie makes a point of it, because Count Olaf flat-out tells EVERYONE "I've been here the whole loving time, trying to gently caress over these kids and take their money and kill them and poo poo, and they KNEW and you wouldn't listen because they're just kids and adults NEVER listen to kids because you all think being older means you automatically know everything". To be fair, that was in the books, too. If adults could see through Count Olaf's disguises there would have been maybe two "A Series of Unfortunate Events" books, tops.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 01:57
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Nope. The point of that film is to feel as helpless and as horrible as the family. Haneke's criticism is that audiences get too much pleasure from slasher films and tried to make one in which there is no joy or pleasure gained at all. Unfortunately this flew over the heads of the target audiences, who simply get frustrated at the film for not "following the rules". Essentially the film was supposed to torture morons and I wish it had succeeded because I completely understand where Haneke is coming from. Right. It's satire. It examines how people think it's all "fun and games" watching families get tortured (hence why Peter and Paul refer to each other as "Tom & Jerry" or "Beavis & Butthead" throughout). Until the rewind, all of the bloody violence happens offscreen. Then after the rewind, they nonchalantly toss the supposed protagonist off their boat, mid-conversation about non-reality in movies. There's no way for the good guys to win because [plot device], just like the majority of horror. I say "supposed protagonist" because the bad guys are really the protagonists, as they're the ones you want to see in every scene and, much as you'd like to not admit it, are rooting for by virtue of simply watching a horror flick. It's not great as a cinematic narrative I'll admit, but as a statement, I quite like what it has to say.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 01:59
|
|
|
Humboldt squid posted:Speaking of Avatar, what is the loving point of Avatar. It's obviously trying to shove a moral down your throat, but the battleplan of the space apaches fails - so third worlder's can't save themselves? The battleplan of the sympathetic humans also fails - so sympathetic first worlder's can't save third worlders? The ending is an archetypical deus-ex machina ending - the planet itself aka god saves the day. So is it saying that exploited people just need to pray the exploitation away? The Navajo just weren't faithful enough? That's the most insulting poo poo ever. it is literally Dances With Wolves without Kevin Costner tl;dr: it's a better Dances With Wolves
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 02:11
|
|
|
This is so much a given that I've actually spoken to writing people (as in people paid to write stuff) that can't imagine their plots going forward without this particular conceit - the bad guys have the good guy in their hands, and do anything besides kill him on the spot (or even take him somewhere where they would kill him, giving him a chance to escape), even though it's 100% in their interest to do so. It annoys me precisely because it's so drat ubiquitous. Either come up with a reason for the bad guys to leave the good guy alive, or never let the good guys get captured, or loving have the good guys get killed and start over with new protagonists, because this is just stupid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 02:34
|
|
|
Humboldt squid posted:Speaking of Avatar, what is the loving point of Avatar. It's obviously trying to shove a moral down your throat, but the battleplan of the space apaches fails - so third worlder's can't save themselves? The battleplan of the sympathetic humans also fails - so sympathetic first worlder's can't save third worlders? The ending is an archetypical deus-ex machina ending - the planet itself aka god saves the day. So is it saying that exploited people just need to pray the exploitation away? The Navajo just weren't faithful enough? That's the most insulting poo poo ever. The moral of the story is that Michelle Rodriguez always dies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 02:41
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:This is so much a given that I've actually spoken to writing people (as in people paid to write stuff) that can't imagine their plots going forward without this particular conceit - the bad guys have the good guy in their hands, and do anything besides kill him on the spot (or even take him somewhere where they would kill him, giving him a chance to escape), even though it's 100% in their interest to do so. I really don't understand why this is still a thing. Surely even the people writing it must be thinking "God, this is so stupid, why doesn't he just shoot him?" Similarly, having non-lethal means of taking people down and not using them. Can't think of a film example off the top of my head, but in Primeval they got some stun guns that they knew were safe to use on humans and which weren't one-shot guns or anything, you could just keep firing, but when trying to shoot rogue dinosaurs or whatever they were constantly not firing because some human might get hit. It doesn't matter. It's a stun gun. It won't do them any harm, they just wake up with a headache. If you hit the wrong target the first time, keep firing. Poop Delicatessen posted:The first of your complaints is actually addressed in an episode of TNG, as all humanoid life was seeded by the first explorers of the Alpha Quadrant. I know someone was going to mention that, but it still doesn't work. Sure, humans and klingons may be genetically similar, but so are humans and chimps, doesn't mean we can interbreed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 02:57
|
|
|
Professor Bling posted:it is literally Dances With Wolves without Kevin Costner I'm getting so loving tired of the "It's just Dances with Wolves with Smurfs, mmmmkay?" attitude. The story is just another example of the "noble savages" fiction. Which, while it might sound racist, is a centuries old and rather popular archetype which didn't reach its peak with some stupid Kevin Costner movie. And as such, Avatar is a perfectly acceptable peace of narrative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 03:00
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Scar is pretty obviously a straight up Claudius minus the ambiguity (not that I blame Disney for wanting an unquestionably evil villian). Scar isn't driven by any prophecy or deception to take over as King, just greed and wanting some of that lioness action. He was just tired of himself and his hyena friends being considered second-class citizens 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 03:23
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:I know someone was going to mention that, but it still doesn't work. Sure, humans and klingons may be genetically similar, but so are humans and chimps, doesn't mean we can interbreed. *shrug* I'm no evolutionary biologist. Maybe the similarities between species seeded from the exact same DNA would be much closer than humans and chimps. More like humans and Neanderthals, and scientists still don't have a consensus on whether or not they could interbreed, although there are certainly some species that are more distinct than humans and Neanderthals that CAN mate, so I guess  I don't know, that never really bothered me about Star Trek, I guess, and the hand-wave explanation was good enough for me.However, what does really bother me about Star Trek is the Voyager episode where they break the Warp Barrier and Paris and Janeway hyper-evolve or some poo poo. It's so far removed from anything even resembling actual evolutionary theory that it makes me want to punch a baby.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 03:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
CombatBonta-kun posted:People have already mentioned The Matrix several times, but there is one scene that just drives me up the wall. In the lobby shootout, Neo is stuck behind a pillar as the security starts to shoot massive chunks out of it. Neo proceeds to pull out two Skorpions which fire a .32 ACP round; a small pistol round. As Neo runs forward shooting, it clearly shows the casings falling from the guns and they are obviously 5.56x45mm shells. The worst part is that you don't even need to know anything about guns for this to not make sense, It shows the Skorpion magazines and then the casings that are over twice as long. When Itchy plays Scratchy's ribcage like a xylophone he hits the same rib twice and yet it makes two distinct sounds. Are we meant to believe this is some magic Magic Hate Ball posted:Most audiences don't like surprises or being held in suspense. Most people go to the movies as a social activity. Most audiences live petty, brainless lives and if they want to spend fifteen dollars to stare dully at a screen full of reflected light with full knowledge of the patterns that will emerge then I don't really see why they shouldn't get all that they desire. It's really hard to see why a tonal shift might bother people? People hate deus ex machina for a reason, if a story is grounded in reality and then turns supernatural in the last 10 minutes it's not what you signed up for and takes you out of the film. Working in reverse it'd be like if the last harry potter movie ended with a mundane method like Harry decking himself out with AKs and just plugging 2 rounds in Voldemort's head. Funny yes but not what the people watching the film (or reading the books, but this isn't about books) signed up for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 04:25
|
|