|
Unless someone can explain what I'm missing with this exchange from Jurassic Park, then it's an irrationally irritating moment: Robert Muldoon: What about the lysine contingency? We could put that into effect. Ellie Sattler: What's that? John Hammond: That is absolutely out of the question! Ray Arnold: The lysine contingency is intended to prevent the spread of the animals in case they ever get off the island. Dr. Wu inserted a gene that creates a single faulty enzyme in protein metabolism; the animals can't manufacture the amino acid, lysine. Unless they're completely supplied with lysine by us, they slip into a coma and die. ohn Hammond: PEOPLE ARE DYING! Will you please shut down the system They seem to have a direct way of solving the issue by basically killing all of the Dinosaurs, to which Hammond politely tells them to gently caress off. However, this is completely at odds with that last line of his, which suggests that he's listened to Ellie and is putting the safety of the survivors over his attractions. Shouldn't he be in favour of the lysine contingency? It's a complete 180 which I can't process logically.
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
The_Master posted:Unless someone can explain what I'm missing with this exchange from Jurassic Park, then it's an irrationally irritating moment: Wow, I just re-watched that scene because I had no memory of it at all. And you're right, in retrospect Hammond's comments make little sense at all. I imagine this is something Crichton came up with and it was better explained in the books, and they edited it down in the movie to the point where it didn't make sense. The only thing I can imagine is that the Lysine contingency would take a long time to work, you don't just drop dead because you stopped getting some chemical. The dinosaurs weren't getting it intravenously 24/7. They would take a supplement every day or whatever. So that'd mean it'd take at minimum 24 hours, maybe longer, for it to put them into a coma. So Hammond is saying "people are dying; gently caress it, we don't have time; rebooting the system is the only thing that could work now, so DO IT!" Zaphod42 has a new favorite as of 18:55 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Or maybe he was such a cheap bastard he didn't want to sign the death warrant for his entire dinosaur park without at least trying the IT crowd approach first. The whole cheap bastard bit is backed up by other parts of the movie ala: Newmann stealing the eggs to sell for fat stacks o cash. ...which may not have been viable with this whole lysine thing. I wonder if he knew about that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
The_Master posted:Unless someone can explain what I'm missing with this exchange from Jurassic Park, then it's an irrationally irritating moment: It could have been done better, but I think what they were going for was something along the lines of the group was trying to figure out how to fix the situation, somebody suggested shutting down and restarting the system would sort out the park pretty quickly as it would fix the computer issue, then the whole lysine contingency chat started and Hammond was getting really impatient with it all and was basically just wanted everybody to shut the hell up and restart the system already. Basically, "People are dieing, we don't have time for this bullshit! Just restart the system already!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Yeah almost all movie poker is horribly designed and only works on people who don't even understand the rules. That really bothered me in Casino Royale. They set it up that Bond was their best man at cards and at reading people, and then there's no use of his skills during the game. The last hand has 4 players in, all with great hands (a flush, two full houses, and Bond's straight flush). If he's just dealt the great hands, why even bother setting him up as this amazing card player?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
My irrational irritation with Jurassic Park is this: the whole movie beats you over the head with the message of "Hammond played God, and due to his hubris he cannot control what he created". However, Hammond had crazy amounts of safety and control protocols built into the park. The only reason all of the dinosaur security failed was because Nedry intentionally switched it all off and locked the computer behind him. I mean, sure, they shouldn't have been able to open the doors of the cars-on-rails, but everything else was very well thought out, safety-wise. Really, Hammond's biggest mistake was cheaping out when he contracted Nedry instead of a pricier but more reliable programmer. (Clearly he did spare at least one expense.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Useless Rabbit posted:That really bothered me in Casino Royale. They set it up that Bond was their best man at cards and at reading people, and then there's no use of his skills during the game. The last hand has 4 players in, all with great hands (a flush, two full houses, and Bond's straight flush). If he's just dealt the great hands, why even bother setting him up as this amazing card player? Yeah, exactly. They build it all up about Bond's poker skill and then its 100% luck. The writers just fundamentally don't understand poker. And looking it up, the hand makes no sense for Le Chiffre either. They could have set it up differently and it'd make so much sense, but they hosed up. With the hand he had, Le Chiffre should have folded, let Bond win, then went all in on the first decent hand he had afterwards. If he'd won against Bond all-in even after Bond took that huge pot, they'd be about even. Instead he goes all-in with a fairly strong hand but knowing there are multiple hands that can beat him, with like 4 or 5 players still in the game betting big. Its a pretty big gamble, made infinitely stupider because again, LeChiffre CANNOT lose this game. His life literally depends upon it. The final board is A(h) - 8(s) - 6(s) - 4(s) - A(d) Bond has 5-7 of spades (straight flush), the Japanese guy has a KQ of spades (highest flush) and the black guy has 8-8 (for a full house of 888-AA), and LeChiffre has the 2nd highest possible full house at AAA-66. LeChiffre only had A-6 which isn't even the top boat. He'd lose to a A-8 full house. He should have folded in such a strong situation. If they'd given him A-8 he'd be 99.9999% guaranteed to win, and so it'd make total sense that the "math genius" would bet his life on that, and it just happens that Bond has the one impossible hand to beat him. But they hosed up and gave him a weaker hand. Patattack posted:My irrational irritation with Jurassic Park is this: the whole movie beats you over the head with the message of "Hammond played God, and due to his hubris he cannot control what he created". However, Hammond had crazy amounts of safety and control protocols built into the park. The only reason all of the dinosaur security failed was because Nedry intentionally switched it all off and locked the computer behind him. I mean, sure, they shouldn't have been able to open the doors of the cars-on-rails, but everything else was very well thought out, safety-wise. Really, Hammond's biggest mistake was cheaping out when he contracted Nedry instead of a pricier but more reliable programmer. (Clearly he did spare at least one expense.) I thought that was  , that Hammond always went on and on about how he spared no expense but in reality he actually cut a few corners, primarily by hiring Nedry.It makes sense to me that a non-programmer would consider programming to be something benign and a place to cut some costs (on an insanely ambitious and expensive project) which is in reality actually sensitive and dangerous. Especially back in the 90s when technology wasn't as ubiquitous. My favorite pet-peeve with Jurassic Park is the teen girl saying "Unix, I know this!" Oh yeah right. Even if she knows how to ls and cmd to look around the file system, there's no way she'd be able to get up to speed on Jurassic Park's proprietary software and poo poo. Zaphod42 has a new favorite as of 19:33 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Yeah, exactly. They build it all up about Bond's poker skill and then its 100% luck. The writers just fundamentally don't understand poker. Don't worry, it made even less sense in the book. The game was baccarat, which when played heads up has about as much skill and strategy as blackjack.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Don't worry, it made even less sense in the book. The game was baccarat, which when played heads up has about as much skill and strategy as blackjack. On the one hand, hold em either didn't exist or wasn't known well back in Fleming's day so I can excuse not using it. But baccarat?!  Shoulda been like five card stud.At that point just play Roulette. "Bond is the best Roulette player I know, he reads people so well..." 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Yeah almost all movie poker is horribly designed and only works on people who don't even understand the rules. Worst part was that the person who was sent to watch the money and make sure Bond was staying responsible with it knew *literally nothing* about poker. She couldn't know anything about poker, because they needed a character to explain things to so that the stupid audience knew what was going on. So they have Mathis explaining poo poo to her like "Bond spotted his "tell"! You know, his "tell," a physiological twitch of body language that gives away his position!" Even though knowing the basic rules of the game the money's being risked in is kind of a pretty damned fundamental piece of required knowledge for the person who's being sent for no other purpose than to make sure the money's being handled responsibly. There's no other goddamned Bond movie where they bother to explain the rules of the card game Bond is playing. Because they don't matter, they're not supposed to matter, what matters is that Bond wins or doesn't win, because the card game is not the focus of the loving movie, it's just background. And so the poker scenes are the worst part of the film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:On the one hand, hold em either didn't exist or wasn't known well back in Fleming's day so I can excuse not using it. Weirdly enough I can't find it but there's a great Mitchell and Webb sketch about exactly this where Bond and a Bond Villain do the Casino Royale scene, but with guessing the weight of fruitcake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:I thought that was I mean, I definitely agree with you about , but my main point is that Jurassic Park failed because of intentional human sabotage, not because Hammond didn't understand/respect the risks he was dealing with. So...maybe the movie should be less harsh on the guy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
I haven't read the book but isn't the whole point about Chaos Theory as the book presents it a variant on Murphy's Law? Basically that no matter how much you do something will inevitably cock it all up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Patattack posted:I mean, I definitely agree with you about Also in the books the lysine thing doesn't work at all, so there's that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 21:03
|
|
God I fucking love Diablo 3 gold, it even paid for this shitty title
|
Patattack posted:I mean, I definitely agree with you about The fact that a human could get greedy and gently caress up your park is kind of a risk factor though? Yeah its not "Dinosaurs got smart and broke the fence" but it's still a potential issue he didn't account for. The main problem is the book makes Hammond a lot less likeable. He's a sleezeball and cuts corners to make a buck, and while movie Hammond does this to a point, they make him a likeable grandfather character who seems to genuinely love what he's created, because Spielberg loves a showman so he wanted to make Hammond a "good guy". It sort of dilutes the message a bit to do it though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
misguided rage posted:Sure but human sabotage is still a risk. One dude with a grudge could blow up the whole thing, that's not a great system. Also, the animals they made to be incapable of breeding were breeding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:The fact that a human could get greedy and gently caress up your park is kind of a risk factor though? Yeah its not "Dinosaurs got smart and broke the fence" but it's still a potential issue he didn't account for. Hammonds brother is a naturalist and you have to trust anything that comes out of his or his brothers mouth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Murphys Law posted:Also, the animals they made to be incapable of breeding were breeding. I mean we take for granted the fact that dinosaurs were reconstituted from blood in a mosquito somehow but the fact that they gently caress up all the safety precautions is just glorious. 65 million year old monsters just kicking it and whoops the lysine thing is broke and some of our female dinos are now male thanks to frog DNA. It's great that they're bringing back Henry Wu's character/actor.  I'd prefer to watch that dude do science stuff to the velociraptor gang
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:
It's just lucky Nedry made it into basically an easy to navigate computer game with visuals and boxes! I don't know what unix is, or if it's even a real thing, but I recently inherited an old computer with Linux and if it's anything like that the kid would have ripped her own intestines out in frustration before the raptor got anywhere near her.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Don't worry, it made even less sense in the book. The game was baccarat, which when played heads up has about as much skill and strategy as blackjack. They changed it to poker because the movie came out back in the poker craze of the mid 00's.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
The_Master posted:It's just lucky Nedry made it into basically an easy to navigate computer game with visuals and boxes! I don't know what unix is, or if it's even a real thing, but I recently inherited an old computer with Linux and if it's anything like that the kid would have ripped her own intestines out in frustration before the raptor got anywhere near her. Linux is free Unix and incredibly enough that doofy 3d world thing was actually a Unix graphical front end available at the time. It wasn't cheesy movie magic at all, it is just so bizarre looking in retrospect that it seems that way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Worst part was that the person who was sent to watch the money and make sure Bond was staying responsible with it knew *literally nothing* about poker. She couldn't know anything about poker, because they needed a character to explain things to so that the stupid audience knew what was going on. So they have Mathis explaining poo poo to her like "Bond spotted his "tell"! You know, his "tell," a physiological twitch of body language that gives away his position!" Even though knowing the basic rules of the game the money's being risked in is kind of a pretty damned fundamental piece of required knowledge for the person who's being sent for no other purpose than to make sure the money's being handled responsibly. Remember that weird laser global domination game that Bond played? They didn't explain the that at all But yeah. I hate the "talk to character when really you're explaining to the audience" trope so much. Part of why I loved Mad Max so goddamned much. They didn't stop to explain DICK. You either paid attention or you didn't. mind the walrus posted:I haven't read the book but isn't the whole point about Chaos Theory as the book presents it a variant on Murphy's Law? Basically that no matter how much you do something will inevitably cock it all up? Life will..... a haha.... find a way... The_Master posted:It's just lucky Nedry made it into basically an easy to navigate computer game with visuals and boxes! I don't know what unix is, or if it's even a real thing, but I recently inherited an old computer with Linux and if it's anything like that the kid would have ripped her own intestines out in frustration before the raptor got anywhere near her. Unix is real (its the granddaddy of Linux and OSX too for that matter) but it strains belief to think a teenager would know how to use it in '93. Like you said, its not user friendly at all. Even hard core programmers have a learning period. But assuming that due to some twist of fate her uncle was a Unix programmer and showed her a very expensive computer at the time and let her play around with it (again, straining belief), that STILL doesn't mean she'd be familiar with the Jurrassic Park's specific setup enough to do anything at all. There are people who could just hop onto a Unix system they've never seen, work around, figure some things out, and maaaybe hack the computer (with no internet mind you), but those would be adult neckbeards working for the CIA or AT&T or IBM or something (in that day especially), not a teenager. Even Matthew Broderick's character from Wargames wouldn't have a hope in hell of doing anything, and he was like a huge computer nerd. Zaphod42 has a new favorite as of 22:11 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Re-Watching the Hangover I found the film to be mostly really funny, but the depiction of Stu's girlfriend really rubs me the wrong way. I know the film goes to great pains to say that she did cheat on him and she is overbearing, but it does move into "drat, a woman who has her own thoughts, opinions and ideas? What a total loving bitch." territory. Also, Stu's "triumphant" put down of her comes across as more lame and eye-rolling than "Hell yeah!". Hangover 2 and 3 are both terrible movies though: 2 is almost exactly the same film as 1 and 3 turns Alan from funny idiot to an unbearable rear end in a top hat for it's entire running time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
OldTennisCourt posted:Re-Watching the Hangover I found the film to be mostly really funny, but the depiction of Stu's girlfriend really rubs me the wrong way. I know the film goes to great pains to say that she did cheat on him and she is overbearing, but it does move into "drat, a woman who has her own thoughts, opinions and ideas? What a total loving bitch." territory. Also, Stu's "triumphant" put down of her comes across as more lame and eye-rolling than "Hell yeah!". All of the Hangover movies are watered down versions of Very Bad Things. They just take the consequences out of the equation and make it "wacky"
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:In Time was an awful movie, but out of all the impossibly stupid things about it, for some reason the one that bugs me the most is that at a certain point in the movie they make a big deal about the fact that running is a sign of being poor because the poor people need to run everywhere since their time is so precious whereas rich people can stroll around because they'll live forever. The idea itself is kind of cool, but if you watch the people around the main characters whenever they're in a poor area, they're never running. Never. They're just strolling around like average real-life 21st century people do. I think it bugs me because it could have been a cool cultural difference but actually it's just something that's convenient to the plot that no one involved in the movie actually thought about carrying through. I haven't seen this movie, but having stereotypes and ideas about The Other that have no bearing on reality, and that don't change even when counter-examples are observed directly, is p typical human behavior.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:All of the Hangover movies are watered down versions of Very Bad Things. If only The Hangover movies ended with most of the cast lacking limbs and in wheelchairs
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
Mr. Belpit posted:I haven't seen this movie, but having stereotypes and ideas about The Other that have no bearing on reality, and that don't change even when counter-examples are observed directly, is p typical human behavior. That's true and it would make sense if the main characters were from a richer area, but the main characters are from the poorer area and are just pretending to be from the rich area and having to remind themselves not to run or something like that. Or maybe I'm remembering the details wrong and that does actually make sense in the context, like hell I'm watching that movie again to find out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
Does anyone know where the movie thing of *sad thing happens* then a female chorus sings out in a foreign language started? I feel like it comes from the late 90's/early 2000's.
Teriyaki Hairpiece has a new favorite as of 05:27 on Jun 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
All the posts about Movie Poker ignore the fact that the general run of people honestly believe that poker is a game of skill, not a game of luck. That makes it perfect for a challenge of personalities or whatever the plot demands. One of the favorite movies of my childhood, Maverick, was all about poker. It's important to note that It doesn't matter how good you are at poker, you need good cards to win. My source is that I've been in the casino business (though never poker) for 5 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
The_Master posted:They seem to have a direct way of solving the issue by basically killing all of the Dinosaurs, to which Hammond politely tells them to gently caress off. It takes a long-rear end time to die of lacking a single nutrient like lysine. Even if they sped it up during the genetic modification, they wouldn't have sped it up so fast to risk the dinosaurs dying because they need an hourly pill or whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Does anyone know where the movie thing of *sad thing happens* then a female chorus sings out in a foreign language started? I feel like it comes from the late 90'a/early 2000's. About 52 minutes into Baraka would be my guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:All the posts about Movie Poker ignore the fact that the general run of people honestly believe that poker is a game of skill, not a game of luck. That makes it perfect for a challenge of personalities or whatever the plot demands. One of the favorite movies of my childhood, Maverick, was all about poker. It's important to note that It doesn't matter how good you are at poker, you need good cards to win. My source is that I've been in the casino business (though never poker) for 5 years. Yes, but in most situations it's presented in during movies, the goal isn't specifically only to win, but to either win or make everybody else forfeit through bluffing so that, technically, you win anyway. Although I think in the Bond example he needed to win for some pretty specific reason I don't remember.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
If you keep on bluffing with nothing to back it up, eventually that will catch up with you. You have to at some point have good cards to win. The cards you have are randomly determined.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
I guess you gotta know when to hold them and know when to fold them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Unix is real (its the granddaddy of Linux and OSX too for that matter) but it strains belief to think a teenager would know how to use it in '93. Like you said, its not user friendly at all. Even hard core programmers have a learning period. But assuming that due to some twist of fate her uncle was a Unix programmer and showed her a very expensive computer at the time and let her play around with it (again, straining belief), that STILL doesn't mean she'd be familiar with the Jurrassic Park's specific setup enough to do anything at all. Anyhow, computer wizardry beats the poo poo out of a little girl using her gymnastic bar routine to kick a velociraptor out of a window: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3wT6dw4hZY
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
Wasn't that the single fatality in the movies that was a human killing a dino?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
Nedry probably killed that Dilophosaur that ate him, from diabetes or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Unix is real (its the granddaddy of Linux and OSX too for that matter) but it strains belief to think a teenager would know how to use it in '93. Like you said, its not user friendly at all. Even hard core programmers have a learning period. But assuming that due to some twist of fate her uncle was a Unix programmer and showed her a very expensive computer at the time and let her play around with it (again, straining belief), that STILL doesn't mean she'd be familiar with the Jurrassic Park's specific setup enough to do anything at all. My IIMM with this scene is the brother who decided that his time would be better spent just watching her on the computer rather than, I dunno, HELPING THE ADULTS KEEP A VELOCIRAPTOR FROM ENTERING THE ROOM AND EATING THEM. Like, Sam Niell even tells Laura Dern to give him the shotgun that's just of reach, but somehow this little shithead can't run over and kick it closer to them. EDIT: I mean, look at this loving twerp: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1VE6C0H2bU Like OK Laura Dern says she can't reach it unless she moves, which is fair, but why aren't the next words out of Sam Niell's mouth "TIMMY STOP PLAYING SLAPDICK AND GIVE ME THE GODDAMN GUN YOU USELESS poo poo"? EDIT 2: Also, she's pressing on the wrong side of the door and barely helping as it is because she has zero mechanical advantage. She ought to be standing right behind Sam Niell and pressing on the door around him or even pressing directly on him, but my point is that she could have just gotten up and grabbed the gun and it wouldn't have made much of a difference. EDIT 3: 
ninjahedgehog has a new favorite as of 07:40 on Jun 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
I had to watch Stealing Heaven, an OK movie about a now obscure philosopher from the Middle Ages and his forbidden love affair with a hot redhead. What is irritating about that movie is that it has the single most annoying synthesizer soundtrack. The movie looked nice and had some great shots in places that helped me get over the run-of-the-mill love story, but there is something very jarring about watching Middle Age stuff but hearing music out of some really really really really cheap 80's softcore porn. Though it can't just be the synthesizer, I remember Rutger Hauer doing Middle Age things in movies accompanied by awesome synthesizer soundtracks. Here is a trailer, which really just manages to capture a fraction of the soundtrack's awfulness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:I had to watch Stealing Heaven, an OK movie about a now obscure philosopher from the Middle Ages and his forbidden love affair with a hot redhead. What is irritating about that movie is that it has the single most annoying synthesizer soundtrack. The movie looked nice and had some great shots in places that helped me get over the run-of-the-mill love story, but there is something very jarring about watching Middle Age stuff but hearing music out of some really really really really cheap 80's softcore porn. Though it can't just be the synthesizer, I remember Rutger Hauer doing Middle Age things in movies accompanied by awesome synthesizer soundtracks. Are you thinking of Ladyhawke? That has Rutger Hauer, synthesizers and Middle Age things. I want to love it but goddamn the soundtrack drives me crazy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 12:31
|
|
