|
Android Bicyclist posted:My irritating moment in Jurassic Park is when the group is trying to keep the velociraptors from getting into the control room and Timmy just bounces up & down behind Lex instead of grabbing the shotgun for Alan or Ellie. Isn't he supposed to be nine in the movie? He's nine, and dinosaurs trying to eat him. Most grown rear end men would break down and start crying. What the hell do you want him to do, whip out an M60 and go full Rambo?
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
Ape Has Killed Ape posted:Isn't he supposed to be nine in the movie? He's nine, and dinosaurs trying to eat him. Most grown rear end men would break down and start crying. What the hell do you want him to do, whip out an M60 and go full Rambo? While I get your point, I think he meant that Alan and Ellie are trying to reach the shotgun with their feet and Timmy just walks away to stand behind his sister. Sure, he's young but he could have just kicked the gun a feet towards them  .
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
He's had a rough day, man, cut him some slack. I don't think I'd be in my right mind after getting blasted with electricity and being chased by velociraptors and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
Effexxor posted:Okay, so this is really dorky, but it never fails to drive me nuts. I can't believe nobody has nitpicked this post in 3 years, but the search function says so: Mongol horses were rather small for what we nowadays call horses, but they weren't (and aren't) ponies. Nobody really knows what badass Celtic warriors rode, as "Celtic" is a name for a rather big, diverse group of people over centuries all over Europe, and Native Americans rode for a long time nothing (as there were neither horse nor pony before the Europeans came) and later both, mostly horses though, because they domesticated Mustangs/wild horses, which weren't - and aren't today - considered ponies despite the comparably small size and some pony DNA in their ancestry here and there. The whole disdain for horses as pretty but useless divas seems pretty puzzling, have large work horses been used on farms and for transportation of both human and goods and of course in wars for thousands of years without an issue. Ponies of course too, but generally ponies were used for different - and usually lighter - work jobs and loads than horses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 11:22
|
|
|
While we're on the topic of Jurassic Park, what's up with the ending? It's an hour of white-knuckled action, and then they hop into the helicopter and fly off into the sunset in a flourish of John Williams music. So...what about the island? You know, the one with the hundreds of creatures that are determined to escape? You don't want to do anything about that? In the book, they bomb the hell out of the place. Still doesn't prevent a sequel, but at least it gives the thing some closure. I suppose the assumption is that they tell someone once they land (the Costa Rican government?) and have them deal with it. But half the movie is about saving everyone in the outside world from the escaped raptors. And then they just sort of forget about it once the ship turns around. What happens when the ship returns to the island?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 13:20
|
|
|
hyperhazard posted:While we're on the topic of Jurassic Park, what's up with the ending? It's an hour of white-knuckled action, and then they hop into the helicopter and fly off into the sunset in a flourish of John Williams music. That's just good storytelling and leaving the movie open for sequals (of which there were several). After an hour of being white knuckled, they calm down the tempo and give a sense of relief to the audience. It doesn't really matter at that point that the dinosaurs are still there, because the story is over and they want to convey the completion of the story, lest the audience leave dissatisfied that the movie never really wrapped up. As for the dinosaurs, I don't know if this is in the book, but the movie talks about the dinosaurs requiring some nutrient to survive, and that they had been engineered to only be able to get that from unnatural sources (humans). It was presumed that they would all die within three weeks without humans specifically keeping them alive. While the sequals proved that idea false, at the end of the original they had no reason to doubt it. Therefore if they left the island alone, all problems would be solved before the dinosaurs had a chance to go anywhere. The real danger, which the movie focuses on, is the people still on the island in the immediate. If they had a safe place to stay for the three weeks, that would also have worked, but wouldn't have left the possibility for a sequal as easily.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
I saw Collateral for the first time last night, and God-drat, did I want to punch Jaime Foxx's character in the face. He had several opportunities to run away, or get help, or let someone know what was up, but he never did until the very end, when he handcuffs a cop to a car at gunpoint and runs off to save that lawyer. Uhhh...what was wrong with just saying, "Thank God you're here, that man who just ran away is a murderer who forced me to drive him around. Send a whole shitload of cops to the US Attorneys office right now!" And then they did the typical, "Bad guy has Super-Find-You" Sense thing. Like...when Max and the lawyer get to the ground floor of the building, they go to the subway...and magically, so does Vincent. He also magically follows them on the same train they got on. And then, somehow, Max doesn't get hit by any of Vincent's bullets when they both just turn to shoot each other, like, five feet away? Even when we see bullet holes in the train door right at Max's abdomen level? Edit: Oh, and taking his briefcase in the hospital, and then running out of the hospital, and throwing it into the street?! Christ, the movie should have ended there with Tom Cruise killing him. Why not run to where some people are and say, "Hey, that guy's trying to kill me, call the cops!"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
I felt the same way about Collateral, but I eventually assumed the whole point is that Vincent is supposed to be just a horrible assassin. Like, when he goes up in the building to kill that dude and leaves Max tied up in the car, it's just bad luck that the guys who found him were thugs and not normal people who could have helped; I mean the apartment was swank as hell right, it was probably in a nice neighborhood. There's tons of spots like that, where Vincent just does stupid, stupid, things, like for example shooting the Korean dude right in the middle of a crowded club, and then somehow, I still don't understand quite how, getting out before anyone else. So that scene where Max has to go and talk to the gangster dude and is all nervous at first but then gets all cool and confident seemed to me to be him figuring out that Vincent is the same way, generally pretty incompetent but gets people to be afraid of him by acting like a super bad-rear end guy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
Ape Has Killed Ape posted:Isn't he supposed to be nine in the movie? He's nine, and dinosaurs trying to eat him. Most grown rear end men would break down and start crying. What the hell do you want him to do, whip out an M60 and go full Rambo? In fact he should've used it himself. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Normally that'd make sense, but he wasn't really freaking the hell out or crying or anything like that in the scene; it just seemed like he didn't know what he should do. He was encouraging his sister Lex just fine when she did the bullshit superhacking, after all. If Dr. Grant had said "HEY TIMMY GET THIS SHOTGUN FOR ME" for instance, I think he could've done it just fine. You know what he should not be holding? snakes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Splicer posted:A handy diagram
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:I saw Collateral for the first time last night, and God-drat, did I want to punch Jaime Foxx's character in the face. I dunno, I thought that Max acted just like a regular cab driver would in that situation. He was loving paralyzed with fear - up until he snapped and flipped the car, and then he was just running on pure adrenaline (and desire to save the person who probably was the nicest person he ever met) Vincent totally should've shot him after briefcase thing, though, yeah - for a ~super tactical assassin~ with his Mozambique Drills and all that, he wasn't the best at it (the first guy he killed, the one that went out the window? he totally hosed it up. Then the club shootout. That was supposed to be professional? You could plainly see that while he was good with a gun, he wasn't much of a planner.) Maybe he didn't risk wanting to be seen? After all, they were on a walkway above a very busy highway. And the final shootout? My guess is that Vincent only missed because he was both tired from the chase, completely surprised that someone stood up to him, and finally, because when he saw Max with the gun, he just wildly magdumped in his general direction (had he actually aimed, he would've blown Max away with ease - but then, that wouldn't be much of an ending, would it?) Plus, don't forget that Max was really, really lucky. Man, I need to rewatch that movie, loved it the first time through. Then again, I love everything Michael Mann puts out 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
hyperhazard posted:While we're on the topic of Jurassic Park, what's up with the ending? It's an hour of white-knuckled action, and then they hop into the helicopter and fly off into the sunset in a flourish of John Williams music.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
The Duke of Ben posted:As for the dinosaurs, I don't know if this is in the book, but the movie talks about the dinosaurs requiring some nutrient to survive, and that they had been engineered to only be able to get that from unnatural sources (humans). It was presumed that they would all die within three weeks without humans specifically keeping them alive. While the sequals proved that idea false, at the end of the original they had no reason to doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:The dinosaurs were also designed to be all female and so incapable of reproduction, but they found out that that didn't quite work out. Seems like they'd have some reason to be less than 100% confident in the other genetically-programmed safeguards. I think in the books (maybe the movies too) they pointed out that they had an engineered lysine deficiency but they found something to eat with lysine in it so, welp. Michael Crichton was not really good at science, it turns out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
Not surprising given that Crichton was called a writer of "anti-science fiction".
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Not surprising given that Crichton was called a writer of "anti-science fiction". Do not bad mouth him or in his next book he will write you as a pedophile with a tiny penis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
I don't think he has to worry about that, actually. He died in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
RyokoTK posted:I don't think he has to worry about that, actually. I know but when he was living he did do that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
He was also a climate science denier and just not really up on things. The Great Train Robbery, The 13th Warrior, JP and ER were pretty great but Mr. Crichton was regressive as all gently caress for no apparent reason. I really liked his early work but he went off the rails.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:He was also a climate science denier and just not really up on things. The Great Train Robbery is one of my favorite books of all time and easily my favorite of his work. 13th Warrior was better before the movie when it was called 'Eaters of the Dead' (also a great book). Sphere was also much, much better in book form with very cool and interesting ideas about alien life. He did fantastic work. Like all brilliant people he was eventually consumed by the voices in his head.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:The Great Train Robbery, The 13th Warrior, JP and ER were pretty great but Mr. Crichton was regressive as all gently caress for no apparent reason. You have a problem with Westworld? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
I think Westworld falls under the JP banner
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:I saw Collateral for the first time last night, and God-drat, did I want to punch Jaime Foxx's character in the face. I completely forgot for a while, but this is probably my most hated movie cliche. It's one thing when the danger is somewhere not in public, or when circumstances are too incredible to actually get meaningful help from anyone(the Terminator movies come to mind), but all too often I see scenarios like that where the movie either has to bend over backwards or just flat-out ignore things like crowds of people or policemen, because apparently brazen daylight public murders/kidnappings are just easy as peach pie to get away with obviously so the characters just don't even bother doing anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
Midnight Raider posted:I completely forgot for a while, but this is probably my most hated movie cliche. It's one thing when the danger is somewhere not in public, or when circumstances are too incredible to actually get meaningful help from anyone(the Terminator movies come to mind), but all too often I see scenarios like that where the movie either has to bend over backwards or just flat-out ignore things like crowds of people or policemen, because apparently brazen daylight public murders/kidnappings are just easy as peach pie to get away with obviously so the characters just don't even bother doing anything about it. I was watching They Live last night and about the same thing happens in that. Two cops get shot 30 feet from a busy sidewalk but no one notices until someone steps back out on the sidewalk with shotgun and pistol in hand, the 2 or 3 shots from service revolvers having fallen on deaf ears. Also, one of the two cops does nothing but  at the camera the whole time he is in frame.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
hyperhazard posted:But half the movie is about saving everyone in the outside world from the escaped raptors. You might be mixing that up with the book. In the movie, there's no mention at all about trying to stop the dinosaurs from getting off the island.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 06:53
|
|
|
This is just a general gripe that I have about a lot of films that take place in or around a lot of industrial or security environments. Or almost all of them, really. In the situation where the power gets cut, or a system fails - suddenly everything is gonna explode and none of the doors are locked oh no the zombies/dinosaurs/killer is gonna get us, before or after everything floods/explodes/whatever. Why does everything in these movies fail dangerous when it is supposed to failsafe? Dramatic Convention, I know. I work in industrial safety and engineering, so it just twists my guts to see not just stupid, but literally anti-engineering. As if everything has built for the express purpose of breaking. Skyfall example: Why is an important prisoner kept in a tiny cell (with no toilet) locked only by an electronic lock? A computer controlled lock, by the way, holding in a world-class hacker. Furthermore, he is surrounded by unlocked hatches that lead to a variety of escape tunnels! Not that Q had any business doing terrible 'computer security' stuff like plugging in said hacker's computer directly to their network, but seriously. With a bit of currency and a trip to the hardware store security would have improved a hundredfold. Jurassic Park example:The loving doors cannot be locked without a computer system. Why is there a computer system solely responsible for locks? Door locks are not new technology! You can marry together electronic and physical controls so in the absence of power freakin' keys and deadbolts are still available. "Oh gosh, we're running a park with a shitton of predatory animals in it, lets actively work to make it less safe." Don't get me started on Star Trek, that piece of poo poo is so poorly designed that when the coffee maker and toaster are both turned on the warp core actively attempts to skullfuck the ship to death. LeJackal has a new favorite as of 00:50 on Dec 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 15:04
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:This is just a general gripe that I have about a lot of films that take place in or around a lot of industrial or security environments. Or almost all of them, really. In the situation where the power gets cut, or a system fails - suddenly everything is gonna explode and none of the doors are locked oh no the zombies/dinosaurs/killer is gonna get us, before or after everything floods/explodes/whatever. Why does everything in these movies fail dangerous when it is supposed to [b]failsafe?]/b] The JP thing can be written of as a victim of Hammond's entire mentality. He repeats "I spared no expense" in the film on numerous occasions, the ice cream being the most poignant. He has the world's finest ice cream, and spared no expense getting it. However, because he overlooked a relatively simple problem and didn't spare expenses with finer background details like door locks or backup systems, his ice cream is literally melting down as the park does. Don't blame the writers, but rather Hammond's hubris.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Skyfall example: Why is an important prisoner kept in a tiny cell (with no toilet) locked only by an electronic lock? A computer controlled lock, by the way, holding in a world-class hacker. Furthermore, he is surrounded by unlocked hatches that lead to a variety of escape tunnels! Not that Q had any business doing terrible 'computer security' stuff like plugging in said hacker's computer directly to their network, but seriously. With a bit of currency and a trip to the hardware store security would have improved a hundredfold. I think part of the problem is that the movie can't really decide if the facility is a crude jury-rigged makeshift (where poor security would be expected) or a sophisticated well-planned backup operation. Doesn't excuse Q's idiocy either way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:
My antifavorite part about that was in the awful Nemesis movie. It's been established through years of Trek that the ship is always one minor computer failure away from blowing itself the gently caress up, the warp core is an angry ravening beast imprisoned in the engine room and it wants out, constantly, and it is always in imminent danger of getting out and eating all that tasty matter. And then in Nemesis, at the end, when they want to blow up the ship on purpose, "Self-destruct system is offline." The system to blow up the ship breaks. Just walk down to the loving engine room with a sledgehammer and break something. Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:I think part of the problem is that the movie can't really decide if the facility is a crude jury-rigged makeshift (where poor security would be expected) or a sophisticated well-planned backup operation. Doesn't excuse Q's idiocy either way. It was really jarring to see a fancy future prison in a WWII bomb shelter quickly improvised to be anything else. I mean, who had that thing just laying around in case it might be needed? One other thing about that movie that bothered me was the trail they left for the bad guy to send him to Scotland. They are clearly entering in dozens of [something] along the route, when in reality two people driving a car might stop for gas (paying cash most likely) and nothing else. Were they editing in footage of them on cameras? No need to do that, because if the guy is that good, he's going to catch the footage of them anyway. Are they editing in transactions of some kind? That really blows the idea that they are trying to be subtle about it. This guy is supposed to be finding the smallest clues, not a clear trail of credit card receipts. What could they possibly be adding at all to aid this process? Even worse, why would they ever have to add literally dozens of data points along the roadways? Even if they had some nifty things to add, wouldn't dozens of them be overkill? Finally, Bond's plan was stupid, and incredibly likely to get someone killed, which was the very thing they sought to avoid. He was hoping 2-3 people of various training could take on a much larger group with at least one person trained as well as Bond himself. They intentionally removed the possibility of betrayal, but they also removed backup and even good equipment options. There's no way that the best plan there was to go to someplace remote with no equipment and just hope for the best. It's no surprise whatsoever that it went as badly as it did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:I think part of the problem is that the movie can't really decide if the facility is a crude jury-rigged makeshift (where poor security would be expected) or a sophisticated well-planned backup operation. Doesn't excuse Q's idiocy either way. I'm pretty sure they mention its a leftover bunker from the Second World War, in which case you'd think they'd have a few concrete rooms with steel doors and nonelectronic means of locking them. Also, why did they put pneumatic computer controlled rams on every maintenance hatch in the floor?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:I think part of the problem is that the movie can't really decide if the facility is a crude jury-rigged makeshift (where poor security would be expected) or a sophisticated well-planned backup operation. Doesn't excuse Q's idiocy either way. The worst part is 'lets hook up this world-class hackers personal computer to our network. What could possibly go wrong?' 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:There is a cut scene from the Lost World Jurassic Park where Hammond's douchey nephew is telling the board of directors about all the money it costed them to tear down the facility and paying for the families of those who died. I hope he uses the phrase "spared no expense".
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
"Spared no expense." (hires 1 fat dude to design entire computer system for huge park of dinosaurs/rides who can shut down entire park and safety systems from his computer) e: in Jurassic Park 4 I hope it shows he hired 1 guy to built the entire park. First he's mowing grass and cutting trees, then doing the plumbing, laying down concrete etc etc
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
I think Nedry is just the main on-site guy. They reference his team when they say 'Call Nedry's people in Cambridge'. They went with a low bid apparently but that would be pretty typical for a project with investors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
Supreme Allah posted:I think Nedry is just the main on-site guy. They reference his team when they say 'Call Nedry's people in Cambridge'. They went with a low bid apparently but that would be pretty typical for a project with investors. Yeah, I always looked at the seen with Nedry and Hammond bickering as proof that "spared no expense" was bullshit. Hammond walks around claiming that he didn't cut corners, but in reality, he obviously did. He cut corners on security, on Nedry, on failsafes, etc. The seen where Hammond and Nedry are arguing about Nedry's pay show that Hammond might be a lot cheaper than he lets on. Obviously him and Nedry have bickered before about finances, and rather than renegotiate, Hammond basically tells him to quit bitchin' and go back to work. Hell, Nedry says it himself: "Don't get cheap on me. That was Hammond's mistake." So yeah... "Spared no expense" only applied when it was pretty and convenient.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
Reading through this thread paints a pretty disturbing picture of Goons considering that roughly half the posts are apparently made by people with an encyclopedic knowledge of and experience with weaponry who consider an unwillingness to kill people to be a crippling weakness and who are so unhinged that they regularly yell at their TVs and throw things whenever the tiniest offense to how their vision of how things ought to be pops up My irritating movie moment involves the central conceit of Seven Psychopaths, so spoilers ahoy: The whole movie is basically a meta commentary on screenwriting, and the characters reference and comment on things in the script that Colin Farrell is writing that also apply to the film itself. One of these instances is when Sam Rockwell's character is reading over the script and criticizes Farrell's inability to write female characters...which is supposed to be funny because in the actual movie all the female characters are really poorly written. It would have been funnier if the women in the film actually wound up being good characters in spite of how they first came off, but apparently that was too much effort compared to hanging a lampshade on it and calling it a day. That and the movie in general just came off as sort of toothless because the Tarantino-esque movies it was supposed to be taking down a peg haven't really been popular for a decade and everything it tried to do was done better by Adaptation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
Supreme Allah posted:I think Nedry is just the main on-site guy. They reference his team when they say 'Call Nedry's people in Cambridge'. They went with a low bid apparently but that would be pretty typical for a project with investors. More to the point, almost all of the staff was leaving on that boat due to the storm rolling in, so the whole thing wasn't being run by just him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
I don't think "Spared no expense!" was an intention lie. Hammond spent on things he deemed "mission critical" and Nedry didn't fit that vision. After all, I'm sure IT and software guys get the "spare time" line at least as much as graphic designers and handymen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 00:17
|
|
