|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Big Grunty Secret posted:Well they knew they were going in a plane, why didnt they bring pepper spray? Or tasers? Or a large net?  "Do you zink zose guns give you power over me?" "Net him, boys!"The image in my head has kept me giggling off and on for ten minutes now.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
Triple Shot: Total Recall, which was a shitpile for lots of rational reasons, and Star Trek Into Darkness both suffered from some kind of lovely visual design choice where LENS FLARES!!! and weird as gently caress LIGHT BARS! are constantly making GBS threads all across the screen. At some points those strange glare bars covered entire blocks of screen and literally prevented me from seeing anything which was happening in the goddamn movie. Not just at like explosion and laser parts, either, but when people were expositioning in god-drat offices. I felt like there was a highway with oncoming traffic running just behind the screen. What happened? Also, and this may have been mentioned about STiD, but the guy is Khan Noonien Singh, you could cast someone that isn't the world's most Lily White British Man in the role. Hell, they got Ricardo Montalban back in the day, and its disappointing that a series once known for pioneering racial inclusion in its first days has become so whitewashed. Second point, why did they just not use the blood of the guy from the cryotube in which they crammed Kirk? He was a genetically engineering ubermensch too you know. Finally, I get so irrationally mad about total rear end in a top hat protagonists we are supposed to relate to because they are so 'wacky' and 'charming'. Lethal Weapon, as a series, is something I could never really enjoy because of my apparently irrational dislike of Riggs. The antagonistic bullshit he does way crosses the line in every loving movie. Notable offenses include the sexual assault of Rikva in 2 and the way he treats Leo in all movies, especially the fourth. "Hey, I think you're a short dumpy rear end in a top hat, let me just steal your expensive personal property and throw it overboard. LOL!" Leo, get out you little battered wifeman.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 14:10
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I'm not going to defend the lens flares but the light bars are a direct homage to the original series and the way it was lit. Those aren't the light bars I mean - and I don't recall many of those in the movie. (Which would have been kicking rad, the movie was lit for poo poo.) I meant a 'glare bar', like a lens flare, except it extends all the way across the shot like some kind of lens flare chorus line of shot-blocking sun-poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 14:25
|
|
|
duggimon posted:Casting Ricardo Montalban as an Indian isn't any more racially sensitive than using the whitest man on the planet unless you really think the only races are white and ethnic. It was considered progressive at the time, but good job making value judgements divorced from context.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:JJ Abrams said they were to represent "the brightness of the future." Yearp. Apparently Apple designed the future. Nothing but white sterility and lens flares everywhere. Again, there were giant light bars in loving offices during exposition with nothing happening but TALKING. INSIDE A ROOM. SITTING STILL. Such bullshit. That line is true for a lot of his movies, for some reason.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
Okay, maybe this is a Rational Irritation, but I hate it when characters sacrifice themselves pointlessly for no reason. As in whatever they could have accomplished could have been done without dying, or their death negates their efforts throughout the movie. It is just so stupid that I shake with anger at it. Like Deep Blue Sea: Susan, the head scientist, is researching a cure for Alzheimer's Disorder, which involves giant super-intelligent sharks. Lots of people end up dying, but it might be worth it if she can escape with the research! She even says as much, risking life and limb to get discs with data, and when those are destroyed only she can reconstruct the research. But at the end she 'sacrifices' herself unnecessarily to stop the sharks, in effect sacrificing every paitent and their families. Why? Turns out the focus groups hated her, so they re-shot the ending.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 15:27
|
|
|
Gaunab posted:To be fair, she was a bitch. And I haven't seen the movie in a while but I think she's responsible for the massacre the sharks went on. This is the 'focus group' response in action. Sure, she was indirectly responsible for everybody getting killed. She wasn't a bitch about it though. Also, again, by sacrificing herself she left a cook and a diver as the only survivors. The cure died with her.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:There was that vampire movie a few years back where the majority of the world was vampire'd and farmed the remaining humans. Daywalkers or something like that? Daybreakers. Which was pretty amazing until the end, where they found a communicable cure for vampirism. It was one thing to cure a vampire, and thematically neato, but then to have that be contagious? It just seemed very lazy after all the neat setup and style earlier on.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2013 03:26
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:What are some recent movies with long sex scenes? I can't recall any in a while. My favorite "sex" scene was from Rocknrolla where it lasted like 3 seconds. I don't think it counts as recent, but the Matrix Sequel sex scene down in Zion just made me want to die. 10 minutes of the most awkward 1980s-esque 'romantic porn' blurry candle-lit writhing intercut with a neotribal rave.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
FLEXBONER posted:Maybe they were lead pipes. It would explain a lot about COBRA, honestly.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:But it does not need roads. The lightning strike fried the flying circuits.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:The Inventor died before the last step. It's funny, I'm pretty sure I saw a different version of the Inventor's Death as a kid, because I remember thinking that Edward accidentally destroyed his New Hands and that caused the Inventor to die of shock. Naw, as the Inventor was showing Edward how awesome those hands were, he died. Edward, attempting to hold onto his intended hands, cuts them into a million terrible pieces.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 06:38
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:I watched that animated movie "Rise of the Guardians" and while I know its a kids movie they sure made the villain's plot kind of low risk. He wasn't planning on killing or even hurting anyone, his entire plot was to just make it so that the Guardians weren't believed in and that kids would be scared. Nothing menacing about crushing the hopes and dreams of an entire generation, only to fill that empty void once occupied by positive emotional energy with nightmarish terror and unending psychological torment. Totally low-risk.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:Neil Gaiman had an excellent take on The Problem of Susan even though he's both a fan and a critic of Lewis (slightly NWS for Can someone explain to me what in the grand hells I just read?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2013 05:33
|
|
no pics.)
|
Sagebrush posted:
I know that in Star Wars at least different colors mark different types or levels of armament. The snub fighters and corvette's red 'turbolasers' are apparently faster-firing and lower powered than the capital ship-grade green 'heavy turbolasers' batteries. Blue is for ion bolts and stunners, both disruptive ionized charges. I think G.I. Joe might be the only one with team-colored lasers.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2013 05:41
|
|
?
|
Urdnot Fire posted:The best is Tank, who got shot, recovered, killed Cypher, and then "yeah he died from his injuries after the first movie Contract-related illnesses are the number one cause of movie-gap character death.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2013 20:01
|
|
"
|
muscles like this? posted:Switch and Apoc might as well not be in the movie. A shame, I thought Switch had a very interesting proposed arc for the movie which never made it on the screen. (She was supposed to switch genders, due to a RSI that varied from her physical biology.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
Spalec posted:Why didn't that make it in? I think that would have been an interesting little plot point, especially considering Lana Wachowskis gender reassignment. Probably for the same reason the 'human brains as CPUs' plot point was removed. Some executive bleated "It'll be confusing and/or audiences will think its weird and sick. Cut it."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
Celery Face posted:But then again, a lot of movies tend to treat it as more important when American/British people die, especially The Impossible. If they wanted to be seen an important, they'd be less brown.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The big problem was the same as what War of the Worlds suffered from, where you had this big earth-shaking disaster in which people are dying by the millions and somehow the single protagonist the movie picked to focus on wanders through it completely unharmed while doing pivotal things. In that scene in WWZ, the Israelis have built that giant wall, station soldiers all around it, and somehow of all the people there guarding the wall none of them notice the zombies climbing over it until Brad Motherfucking Pitt calls their attention to it. Thanks, Brad! It all just plugs into the really annoying thing many (bad) movies do - instead of trying to elevate the hero by making him good at whatever, they just make everyone else be an idiot. Its like they populate the movie with people from infomercials in a sad attempt to disguise the fact that they can't write an interesting or competent protagonist. Then again, World War Z was written by Lindelof, who couldn't put together a coherent script to save his life. Two things, about the ending really: How in the gently caress do zombies sense terminal diseases? Does the undead state give them Detect Sickness with a 50' range or something? How is that supposed to even work? Second, why does it matter? "A virus needs a healthy host to spread" is a bullshit justification when its a zombie virus that animates corpses. Some terminally ill dude is going to be just as corpse-y if a zombie rips his throat out as he would in a week from his cancer or whatever. Oh, and another thing - how do the zombies discriminate between people noises and zombie noises? In the WHO laboratory at the end they make a big deal about zombies being attracted to sound, but they only perk up and pursue sounds the humans make. How do they tell the difference? Shouldn't they be swarming every time one of their shuffling undead number crunches on some broken glass? Super annoying because in the book they were attracted to all sound, which make them more dangerous because they'd daisy chain huge swarms via their moans.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Ugly In The Morning posted:It's funny they did that, then, since one of the movies that started the whole zombie revival had the virus that turned people quickly, which is the in-movie reason as to why it stayed localized to England. Not a zombie movie, because people are still alive in it, but it still owns. World War Z felt kind of like a slap-dash sequel to it, since they had fast running things and the same weird twitchy infection situation.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:Who gives a gently caress about the Australian pilots when that adorable dog is in every scene? I kept waiting for the dog to pilot his own puppy-Jäger so he could bravely bite a kaiju on the ankle at a pivotal moment. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:Yeah, didn't you know? In mainstream America, there is no "B" in LGBT. Lately they have been cramming all sorts of extra letters into GLBT, Qs and Xs and gently caress all else. In some parts of Canada its 14 letters long which is crazy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2013 07:01
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Blade Runner is not the best example to use for defending the point, given that the narration on that movie was imposed by the studio and everyone up to and including Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford thought it was stupid and terrible. Dark City is also completely ruined by a studio enforced voiceover prologue that spoils the entire film. Its highly unpleasant.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
Jedit posted:That one's even worse, because you can't even fast forward past it - there's a visual shot that gives away the Act 2 twist. When I showed it to friends I had to ask them to leave the room while I set it up. Again, though, the Directors Cut fixes it. I'll have to pick up the director's cut then, because I love to show that film to friends. It has some goofy poo poo at the climax, but overall its a very satisfying film.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
kizudarake posted:Basically, the entire runtime of Drive, as long as Ryan Gosling is on the screen. First: Apparently Ryan Gosling's character is autistic/creepy, and the blonde girl still wants to bang him. There was something about his look and acting that made the Silent Type schtick come off as really loving awkward instead of badass. Hrmm, is it possible that he isn't supposed to be a generic sneering one-liner 80's badass character? That maybe the movie was showing us something more nuanced and multidimensional than a stock badass stereotype? Nice ableist slur. kizudarake posted:Second: How the gently caress does he know how to drive where and when? They never go into how he does what he does, which really makes him seem really flat and one note. Is he some sort of genius who improvises everything on the spot? Does he drive the streets of LA constantly? Does he plan his routes extensively? Who knows? We don't. They don't even give a hint. He just showed up to work with Bryan Cranston one day, and bam. Same for his fighting skills in the hotel room. There was no foreshadowing that he could do those things, until he HAS to do them. First; Did we need a long, involved scene where his credentials and work history were laid out for you? Answer: gently caress no. Second; He literally works his day job in the movie. He's a Hollywood stunt car driver/mechanic by day, getaway driver by night. His association with and relationship with Cranston are explained verbally. Was the lack of pithy one-liners and comedic brutality tripping up your expectations so badly that you could not listen to the movie playing right in front of you? kizudarake posted:Third: The ending. RG is a driver. He drives for a living. The poster shows him driving. Hell, they've shown action sequences throughout. The entire movie feels like it's building to something at least semi-elaborate, and probably involving he drainage ditches that he takes Love Interest and Love Interest's Son through. Instead, he gets stabbed and stabs Older Mobster, and that's it. No trying to get healthcare, or anything, he just leaves, without another word. I guess you're also pissed that the ending of Reservoir Dogs involved neither dogs nor reservoirs. Really, the entirety of your complaint seems to be that you were expecting a brainless action movie with lots of "Shoot mans drive car EXPLOSIONS!" and when you didn't get what you thought was coming, you got pissed off. As if you take for granted that every movie is going to cater to your tastes and anything that doesn't is objectively garbage. Then you came on the internet to validate your lovely, ill-founded opinions and celebrate your ignorance to soothe your bruised manbaby ego, hideously wounded by the existence of poo poo You Don't Like.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:I could never get over the super powerful microwave emitter that boils all water in pipes under the ground but somehow leaves pedestrians standing. Maybe the emitter is directional?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
BioMe posted:Smart people are literally robots: Pretty far to fall, then, because it is absolutely poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
As an extension to my hatred for rear end in a top hat protagonists, I get a special kind of rage for when the protagonist breaks every rule and does horrendous actions but faces no consequence because the majority of the harm falls on the so-called bad guy, sometimes through dumb luck. Double so when the protagonist is a cop and knows better. Examples: Die Hard With a Vengeance - In the aqueduct tunnel, McClane empties a magazine into the stopped truck before he knows who is in it! Luckily bad guys were in the cab, but he only has a suspicion that it could possibly be them! Bad Boys 2 - The entire movie. Smith and Lawrence's cop characters constantly, repeatedly break the law in the terms of many warrant-less illegal searches and wiretaps, on which they attempt to get legitimate warrants; not to mention all the wanton violence and intimidation they engage in! The bad guy is notorious for having good lawyers and getting out from under charges, and these guys are sabotaging their own case! Yet despite their repeated willful violations and bungling of their case, and interference with the DEA's case, they still keep their jobs! In fact, at the end of the movie they stage a miniature scale invasion of Cuba, sneaking into the country, murdering many of its citizens and also killing many of their soldiers. At then end of the movie they are back in the States, still with their jobs and doing fine - which is loving insane!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
Lap-Lem posted:Isn't that also the one where one of the Bad guys realizes he was double crossed by the other bad guys. Encounters McClane, puts his hands up, and says don't shoot. After which McClane pops him one in the noodle killing him. Not only was it bad and wrong, but that guy theoretically would have actively helped McClane since he know he was double crossed. I realize it was when he was escaping from a ship about to explode, but just braining a dude with no weapon... ugh. He wasn't even escaping a ship about to explode - he was just exploring the hold of the cargo ship way before the bomb thing became an issue. So essentially McClane executed someone that was surrendering, and in so doing committing cold-blooded murder.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:I think you're getting parts mixed up. The other "Head Guy" doesn't realize he's been double-crossed until after McClane is captured. That was just some ordinary mook that felt his share wasn't worth possibly dying for after seeing McClane mow through about 100 of his friends. Wrongo. The entire reason that really tall explosive expert guy (Largo?) is down in the hold is because his guy (who McClane murders in cold blood) found the scrap metal and brought it to Largo's attention.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Pilchenstein posted:As someone already pointed it out, it's partly a call back to the whole "next time you get a chance to kill someone" bit in the first Die Hard, but it's also partly a cautionary tale about the dangers of annoying John McClane - he's in a bit of a violent mood by that point, as the random mook he caught walking through a door a few minutes earlier would attest, if he hadn't just had a bulkhead slammed on his head a half dozen times. Its mostly the irritating movie thing - its perfectly okay to have an alcoholic law-breaking cold-blood murdering guy running around if he's a cop on your side.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
Supreme Allah posted:Possibly. But he stayed up there and died of thirst, so he was afraid/knew they were waiting, and they would only wait if they knew where he was. Plus, the telephone pole is a perfect tuning fork into the ground so any movement would be amplified. It wasn't just a telephone pole, it was one of those really huge high-voltage power line towers.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
GOTTA STAY FAI posted:Some TFR nut will be in shortly to correct us, but I think someone makes a lever-action double-barrel shotgun.... You rang?  Really though, lever action shotguns do exist. Designed by John Browning (very famous and prolific gun designer) lever action shotguns were only around for a decade or so at the start of the 20th century before pump-action shotguns (which he also invented) became so popular that the lever-action designs were crushed and consigned to obscurity. Now, do they come in double-barrel models? No, they don't. That would be silly. This clumsy attempt at making a double-barrel pump shotgun (by merging two together) should help you figure out why. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMVSr_uXhmA TL:DR Version - poo poo gets real heavy and cumbersome really fast, plus trying to operate two separate receivers(the part where shells are moved around and fired) off the same lever is tough. Maybe you're thinking of the Team Fortress 2 weapon for the Scout? 
LeJackal has a new favorite as of 15:42 on Nov 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
JT Smiley posted:The X-men movies aren't even team movies, they're just movies about Wolverine and those other guys that get in the way some time. The most notable thing their leader does in three movies was die off screen. That has been the issue with Wolverine and Marvel for decades - its nothing but the Wolverine show.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2013 07:36
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:One of the many things I love about The Wire is the massive spoilers I post in other threads so I can ruin the experiences of others. Suck it, nerds. Use spoiler tags next time.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2013 08:04
|
|
|
So today I saw Getaway. It gives me a good excuse to talk about the most annoying loving thing: fast cuts. There was a rather nice shot in the movie from a car's eye view of a chase. It lasted about 45 seconds and was the longest take in the film. In the rest of the movie no more than 7 seconds lapsed between cuts. I went through 6 minutes of 3-second cuts, which is not so bad when compared with the 5 and 6 second cuts that dominated the film. The overall effect was jarring. The real tragedy is that Getaway is a car chase movie - in all but maybe 8 minutes of runtime the lead characters are inside a car. However, the non-stop jump cuts to bizarre GoPro angles and facial close-ups disconnect the action so badly that every moment of the film is boring. The various cars and motorcycles may well be in another state, they seem so distant. At one point Selena Gomez screams "Oh no are you crazy don't do that!" immediately prior to Hawke driving off a ramp?/crazy obstacle - but the moment is more confusing than dramatic because we were never shown where in the gently caress he is driving. Towards a cliff? A zany collection of swinging axes? We don't know because the jumping cuts never flitted in that direction, and honestly the multiple cuts during the stunt made it impossible to tell what happened anyway. The basic conceit of the movie was to provide entertaining car chases, and it failed to deliver even the most basic and simple of action staples.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2013 08:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
Slim Killington posted:I don't like quick cutting either, but it's come out of a change in audience attention span. Go back and watch a movie from the fifties, the cuts are so long it almost becomes uncomfortable because of what we're conditioned to today. I suppose my love of old films from that period ruined me from childhood, because I like long cuts.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2013 14:43
|
|