Movie Logic That Makes No Sense Way After the Fact

[TheMojoPin]

OK, I wasn't sure what to title this thread so you get that mess. ANYWAY...I caught the end of Back to the Future today, and this was probably like the 30th time I've seen it, but something only just finally NOW struck me as odd.

Yes, I know, it's a movie about a time-traveling Delorean, so an obvious suspension of disbelief is required, but at the end when everything has been turned around by Marty's antics in the past and his family is now all successful, why the fuck has George given Biff a job working around the house?

Or, to put it another way, WHO THE FUCK GIVES HOUSE KEYS TO THE THUG THAT TRIED TO RAPE YOUR WIFE?!?

That seems like a poor choice by George McFly.

[booster11373]

Rape wasnt a big deal in the 1950's

[TheMojoPin]

It's even creepier since Biff looks, like, 20 times more rapetastic by 1985.

[underdog]

OK, I wasn't sure what to title this thread so you get that mess.

I would have used the word Movie instead of Move, but that's just me.

Also, your point was awesome when I heard it on the radio the other day.

[TheMojoPin]

Also, your point was awesome when I heard it on the radio the other day.

I said it better.

[lleeder]

I liked this concept better the first 5 times they discussed it on O&A.

[TheMojoPin]

Goddammit, these shitty radio shows can go screw off.

I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT HERE.

[brettmojo]

You keep your friends close and your enemies closer...

George McFly is a devious man, and all it took was punching Biff and boinking Marty's mom at the Enchantment Under The Sea Dance.

[ChrisTheCop]

I bet you wish you had a time traveling DeLorean right about now.

[EliSnow]

I bet you wish you had a time traveling DeLorean right about now.

Fuck the DeLorean. There's only one way to time travel.

http://image63.webshots.com/63/1/68/33/395716833wlmCuS_ph.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

Fuck the DeLorean. There's only one way to time travel.

http://image63.webshots.com/63/1/68/33/395716833wlmCuS_ph.jpg

As a high-pitched-voiced young lad being led around by a snooty talking dog with glasses?

[Aggie]

Fuck the DeLorean. There's only one way to time travel.



Brigth flashes of white light accompanied by a nosebleed?

PS I couldn't see the pic so that might not make sense. Sorry!

[ANC]

Fuck the DeLorean. There's only one way to time travel.



I prefer a tricked out toaster

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/jefn/homer.jpg

[EliSnow]

As a high-pitched-voiced young lad being led around by a snooty talking dog with glasses?

Brigth flashes of white light accompanied by a nosebleed?

PS I couldn't see the pic so that might not make sense. Sorry!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40953000/jpg/_40953683_tardis203.jpg

[ChrisTheCop]

Fuck the DeLorean. There's only one way to time travel.

http://image63.webshots.com/63/1/68/33/395716833wlmCuS_ph.jpg

Being a cop who's hit by a car?

[TheMojoPin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40953000/jpg/_40953683_tardis203.jpg

NOOO WAAAAAAAY!!!

http://www.virginmedia.com/microsites/movies/slideshow/stupid-characters/img_9.jpg

[EliSnow]

NOOO WAAAAAAAY!!!

http://www.virginmedia.com/microsites/movies/slideshow/stupid-characters/img_9.jpg

It's bigger on inside than the outside, dude.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/images/bank/programmes_tv/drama/300who_tardis.jpg

[EliSnow]

I've mentioned this before (and Furtherman debated me), but it took me about 5 times of watching Die Hard, it occurred to me that Hans used english to tell Karl to shoot the window, after trying to tell him in German, their native language, 2-3 times.

It should have been the other way around.

[booster11373]

from Terminator

Kyle should have let the terminator kill sarah, no sarah no john, no john no resistence, no resistence no need to go back and kill him, no need to go back and kill him no terminator parts left over to start the whole process.

[epo]

I find it highly illogical that 2 graduates from the Harvard University Class of 1870 would both end up in Johnson County, Wyoming.

[CountryBob]

OK, I wasn't sure what to title this thread so you get that mess. ANYWAY...I caught the end of Back to the Future today, and this was probably like the 30th time I've seen it, but something only just finally NOW struck me as odd.

Yes, I know, it's a movie about a time-traveling Delorean, so an obvious suspension of disbelief is required, but at the end when everything has been turned around by Marty's antics in the past and his family is now all successful, why the fuck has George given Biff a job working around the house?

Or, to put it another way, WHO THE FUCK GIVES HOUSE KEYS TO THE THUG THAT TRIED TO RAPE YOUR WIFE?!?

That seems like a poor choice by George McFly.


The only thing I can think of is revenge dominance - and that Marty's mom likes rape fantasy affairs with Biff.

[TheMojoPin]

Eli, can you do something about that giant pic you posted? It takes fucking forever to load and throws off the page layout until it does.

[EliSnow]

from Terminator

Kyle should have let the terminator kill sarah, no sarah no john, no john no resistence, no resistence no need to go back and kill him, no need to go back and kill him no terminator parts left over to start the whole process.

Kyle didn't know that the terminator parts led to Cyberdyne and Skynet.

My problem with the Terminator movies is that Terminator II time logic conflicts with Terminator I logic.

[EliSnow]

Eli, can you do something about that giant pic you posted? It takes fucking forever to load and throws off the page layout until it does.

Will do.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

I've mentioned this before (and Furtherman debated me), but it took me about 5 times of watching Die Hard, it occurred to me that Hans used english to tell Karl to shoot the window, after trying to tell him in German, their native language, 2-3 times.

It should have been the other way around.

Shist den fenster
Shoot- The Glass!

[GreatAmericanZero]

I liked this concept better the first 5 times they discussed it on O&A.

so you didn't like it the other 25 times they talked about it?

[TheMojoPin]

Fuck O&A. They are shitty and they suck. My thread is good.

[brettmojo]

Marty should have diddled his mom, everything else is forgivable.

[epo]

My thread is good.

You've lost your goddamned mind.

[TheMojoPin]

How about all you Doubting Dickheads come up with some more bits of movie logic that make no goddamned sense? Should be easy, apparently.

[brettmojo]

How about all you Doubting Dickheads come up with some more bits of movie logic that make no goddamned sense? Should be easy, apparently.
No one would ever really dive out a skyscraper to save Maggie Gyllenhaal.

[Gmann]

TRANSFORMERS

Why go into a major city to hide the All-Spark KNOWING the Decepticons are on your trail looking for you....knowing they can turn into any vehicle....not even knowing how many they are....and endangering the citizens of that city???

[brettmojo]

No way Mary chooses Ben Stiller over Brett Favre.

[Devo37]

How about all you Doubting Dickheads come up with some more bits of movie logic that make no goddamned sense? Should be easy, apparently.

not a specific one, but i hate when one of the good-guys makes a heel turn at the end of a movie, even after he's spent the first 3/4 of the movie helping the other good-guys find the treasure, or whatever they're trying to do.

[TheMojoPin]

I was more talking about things in films that it took you many viewings or a while to realize was somthing really fucking creepy or weird or nonsensical yet was intentionally presented as a good thing or a happy ending or normal or whatever.

[John Galt]

I always found it odd that in Godfather Part I, Don Corleone just walks around the market before getting shot. Almost no security, nobody's walking with him, etc. Way too out in the open.

[fezident]

There a millions of these illogical loopholes.

Sometimes the blame falls on the director though.

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.
This movie is needlessly confusing and illogical.
Technically... the movie is told from Ryan's (Matt Damon's) POV. If that's the case, WHY THE FUCK would Speilberg begin the movie by showing a 70 year old Damon... and then zoom in on that characters eyes, but zoom out on Tom Hanks eyes just before the beach attack??
It's misleading.
It looks as if the old guy in the cemetary is Tom Hanks. It isn't. It's Damon. (as revealed at the end).
And if it's Damon... then he would have no possible way recounting ANY of the story BEFORE the Hanks' platoon finally found him. Private Ryan would have ZERO knowledge of any of the events that preceeded Capt. Miller finding him. Which would make it logically impossible for him to "narrate" the first hour of the film.
TERRIBLE MOVIE MAKING!



But.. more to Mojo's point:
I don't understand why Bilbo Baggins can put the ring on all the time... goof around with it... have fun turning invisible etc etc. But... when Frodo puts it on, he's in pain, agony, hell on (middle) earth, and that gigantic eyeball (Sauron? Sauramon?) is IMMEDIATELY aware the ring has been activated.


ALSO
Star Wars is full o' this shit.
"How did my father die?"
"Darth Vader, who was young pupil of mine, until he turned to evil, killed your father".
NO!
Anakin was a pupil until he turned to evil.
Very misleading.

"Here's a lightsaber. Your father wanted you to have this when you were old enough but your uncle wouldn't allow it."
NOPE. That is not at all what happened AND... Ben's character had no motivation to lie. None. "Here Luke, this used to belong to your dad and now I think you should have it." Boom. Done.
What's with all the subterfuge?


Did I spell "subterfuge" correctly? I've never said it or typed it. Screw you, George Lucas.

[TooLowBrow]

But.. more to Mojo's point:
I don't understand why Bilbo Baggins can put the ring on all the time... goof around with it... have fun turning invisible etc etc. But... when Frodo puts it on, he's in pain, agony, hell on (middle) earth, and that gigantic eyeball (Sauron? Sauramon?) is IMMEDIATELY aware the ring has been activated.




i think that only happened after one of the ring wraiths stabbed him

[pennington]

At the end of Animal House they've been expelled from Faber College by Dean Wormer. They then openly destroyed the parade and committed multiple acts of assault and property destruction.

So how were they able to graduate? (IIRC, Otter, Hoover & D-Day were Class of '63 and Pinto and Flounder were Class of '66)

[brettmojo]

There a millions of these illogical loopholes.

Sometimes the blame falls on the director though.

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.
This movie is needlessly confusing and illogical.
Technically... the movie is told from Ryan's (Matt Damon's) POV. If that's the case, WHY THE FUCK would Speilberg begin the movie by showing a 70 year old Damon... and then zoom in on that characters eyes, but zoom out on Tom Hanks eyes just before the beach attack??
It's misleading.
It looks as if the old guy in the cemetary is Tom Hanks. It isn't. It's Damon. (as revealed at the end).
And if it's Damon... then he would have no possible way recounting ANY of the story BEFORE the Hanks' platoon finally found him. Private Ryan would have ZERO knowledge of any of the events that preceeded Capt. Miller finding him. Which would make it logically impossible for him to "narrate" the first hour of the film.
TERRIBLE MOVIE MAKING!



ALSO
Star Wars is full o' this shit.
"How did my father die?"
"Darth Vader, who was young pupil of mine, until he turned to evil, killed your father".
NO!
Anakin was a pupil until he turned to evil.
Very misleading.

"Here's a lightsaber. Your father wanted you to have this when you were old enough but your uncle wouldn't allow it."
NOPE. That is not at all what happened AND... Ben's character had no motivation to lie. None. "Here Luke, this used to belong to your dad and now I think you should have it." Boom. Done.
What's with all the subterfuge?


Did I spell "subterfuge" correctly? I've never said it or typed it. Screw you, George Lucas.
No one is narrating Saving Private Ryan. Old Matt Damon isn't standing there at the tomb stone telling the story of how Tom Hanks died to dead Tom hanks.

Although continuity isn't George Lucas's strong point, Obi Wan was trying to keep the fact that Vader was Anakin Skywalker/Luke's father from Luke. Therefore he used this play on words to dance around the truth with Luke. Also, if he had told Luke right away Vader was his father it would have ruined the climax to Empire Strikes Back.

[TooLowBrow]

At the end of Animal House they've been expelled from Faber College by Dean Wormer. They then openly destroyed the parade and committed multiple acts of assault and property destruction.

So how were they able to graduate? (IIRC, Otter, Hoover & D-Day were Class of '63 and Pinto and Flounder were Class of '66)

good point

The Deltas' midterm grades are so bad that they are all expelled from school by Wormer and their draft boards are notified of their eligibility. For revenge, the Deltas decide to wreak havoc on the annual Homecoming parade, inspired by Bluto's impassioned speech. In the ensuing chaos, he steals a car, abducts Mandy and drives off into the sunset, or rather to Washington, D.C., as the futures of many of the main characters are "revealed". Bluto and Mandy become Senator and Mrs. John Blutarsky.

what year did the movie take place? maybe they got drafted, fought, then enrolled and graduated from a different college

[pennington]

Star Wars is full o' this shit.
"How did my father die?"
"Darth Vader, who was young pupil of mine, until he turned to evil, killed your father".
NO!
Anakin was a pupil until he turned to evil.
Very misleading.

"Here's a lightsaber. Your father wanted you to have this when you were old enough but your uncle wouldn't allow it."
NOPE. That is not at all what happened AND... Ben's character had no motivation to lie. None. "Here Luke, this used to belong to your dad and now I think you should have it." Boom. Done.
What's with all the subterfuge?

I remember years ago reading that Obi-Wan was supposed to be Luke's father. Alec Guinness hated the movie and didn't want to do the sequel so they changed it to Darth Vader is Luke's father.

[pennington]

what year did the movie take place? maybe they got drafted, fought, then enrolled and graduated from a different college

The beginning of the movie (again, IIRC) says "Faber College 1962". The older guys are shown as Class of '63 at the end of the movie. So they came back for another year?

[TheMojoPin]

No one is narrating Saving Private Ryan. Old Matt Damon isn't standing there at the tomb stone telling the story of how Tom Hanks died to dead Tom hanks.

I'm with fezident on this one. While the film isn't narrated, it's pretty sloppy filmmaking to do what Spielberg did wih the framing sequence. Such a technique almost always means we're supposed to be seeing what comes "through the eyes" of the character depicted.

Though it's not on topic, I always get a little frustrated when I watch SPR. I think if it didn't have the framing bits from the present day at the beginning and the end and the prolonged cheesy sequence of the army brass figuring out that all the Ryans died as well as the excruciatingly Norman Rockwell-esque depiction of their mother getitng the news the film would be infinitely better. It's so skillfully done as a brutal, intense, "you are there" war film that those scenes just completely take me out of it each time.

[TheMojoPin]

I remember years ago reading that Obi-Wan was supposed to be Luke's father. Alec Guinness hated the movie and didn't want to do the sequel so they changed it to Darth Vader is Luke's father.

But Guinness came back for both of the sequels.

He was not fond of having his career defined by that one character, but I've never head that he was supposed to be Luke's father.

Personally, I think any claims by Lucas about what he meant to do are a load of shit. Watching the first movie and having seen his earlier ideas and drafts, it's pretty fucking clear tha Luke's dad was supposed to be dad, Vader was the villain who killed him and Luke and Leia were not related. Lucas made all that shit up as he went along. If he hadn't, we wouldn't have needed a scene where two characters sit on a fucking log for 10 minutes in the 3rd film and have to explan away everything we've seen until that point.

[TooLowBrow]

I remember years ago reading that Obi-Wan was supposed to be Luke's father. Alec Guinness hated the movie and didn't want to do the sequel so they changed it to Darth Vader is Luke's father.

that was in the script until lucas's third version of it, then it was changed. but i think it was just too make the movie better, not because of guinness

[TripleSkeet]

How about all you Doubting Dickheads come up with some more bits of movie logic that make no goddamned sense? Should be easy, apparently.

How about the fact that in Back to the Future 2, when Doc and Marty are trying to get Jennifer back from the McFly house, and Old Biff steals the time machine, how come the whole 2015 future doesnt automatically change around them?

Know what I mean? During that whole debacle shouldnt everything have changed? Where George dissapears along with most of the family? Considering that was how they explained it was going to happen to Jennifer in 1985 after they fixed everything. It was the only real inconsistency I could find.

I know. Im a nerd.

[fezident]

No one is narrating Saving Private Ryan. Old Matt Damon isn't standing there at the tomb stone telling the story of how Tom Hanks died to dead Tom hanks.

Although continuity isn't George Lucas's strong point, Obi Wan was trying to keep the fact that Vader was Anakin Skywalker/Luke's father from Luke. Therefore he used this play on words to dance around the truth with Luke. Also, if he had told Luke right away Vader was his father it would have ruined the climax to Empire Strikes Back.

SAVING PVT RYAN:
This is why I put "narrating" in quotes.
I understand he isn't verbally narrating the film but... it is needlessly confusing.
The movie begins with an old guy going to a graveyard. The camera zooms in on the old guy's eyes. We then flash back in time and zoom out of a characters eyes. (we've time traveled about 50 years into the past).
BUT... unbeknownst (??) to the audience, we are seeing a DIFFERENT character now. We are no longer with the old guy from the cemetary. We are not seeing HIS past. Nor are we re-living HIS memories. We are now a completely different character. We are suddenly Tom Hanks.
Okay fine.
That's crappy film making but.... fine.
We then proceed to see the Captain gather a few soldiers and we follow them on a mission to locate Damon/Ryan. We hear their dialog. We go on their adventures. On paper... this does not work. Ryan was not there for ANY of these events, and he couldn't possibly know them. And more importantly, he couldn't possibly "remember" these events, as he wasn't privy to any of them even happening.
The whole "zoom in on his eyes and transport to the WWII era" is negated.



STAR WARS:
OF COURSE, I understand Ben's impulse to lie at that moment.
My issue is, the lies are needless.
If you're trying to skirt the issue of Anakin, the dark side, and all that stuff... why the HELL would he even mention Darth Vader at that moment? Or mention that his father wanted him to have the lightsaber but Owen wouldn't allow it? Why not just say, you're father was killed in battle? Or... here... this is an heirloom from your father, it's his lightsaber.
You're trying to ease this farmboy into his "destiny" (which it isn't but... whatever) and you immediately start telling him that his father was murdered? Ben thinks THAT is the babysteps Luke needs to hear?? Hey Luke, your whole life is a lie. Your uncle's a liar. Everything he ever told you about your dad is lie, but I'M going to tell you the truth.

Not.



AND ANOTHER THING.
Fucking midichlorians!
Luke asks "what's the force?" and Ben prattles on about it being an energy field.... created by all living things... it binds the galaxy together. Blah blah.
Yoda gives an identical explanation in the next film.

WHY wouldn't any of them so much as mention that the force resides in little creatures called midichlorians? It was mentioned about 12x in those shitass prequels but NOT ONCE in the OT??? Hell... it's the FIRST thing QuiGon starts blabbering about when he meets young Anakin. It makes ZERO sense.
I completely understand that midichlorians are GL's way of working Scientology into the script but, still..... the OT has already dictated various points of logic. To ignore them is just shitacular film making.

[TheMojoPin]

How about the fact that in Back to the Future 2, when Doc and Marty are trying to get Jennifer back from the McFly house, and Old Biff steals the time machine, how the come the whole 2015 future doesnt automatically change around them?

Know what I mean? During that whole debacle shouldnt everything have changed? Where George dissapears along with most of the family? Considering that was how they explained it was going to happen to Jennifer in 1985 after they fixed everything. It was the only real inconsistency I could find.

I know. Im a nerd.

Excellent point.

[TheMojoPin]

Star Wars is rife with these things.

As a kid, I loved Jabba and his bunch of monstrous Muppets. It was only after too many viewings that I realized that for a crimelord Jabba was really shitty at his job. He doesn't apparently do anything except be a sadist...his hideout is on the ass end of the galaxy and everyone has to come see him in his shitty lo-tech castle. All of his way of dispatching his enemies involve feeding them to some kind of monster. I suppose it's all well and good to try that once, but when it fucks up the first time it's time to get down to business. Of course, maybe he couldn't. For a criminal empire, I can think of like haf a dozen guns anyone is carrying. All the rest of these criminals seem to be armed with axes and spears and shit.

On top of all that, he's into beastiality. Creepy.

[fezident]

But Guinness came back for both of the sequels.

He was not fond of having his career defined by that one character, but I've never head that he was supposed to be Luke's father.

Personally, I think any claims by Lucas about what he meant to do are a load of shit. Watching the first movie and having seen his earlier ideas and drafts, it's pretty fucking clear tha Luke's dad was supposed to be dad, Vader was the villain who killed him and Luke and Leia were not related. Lucas made all that shit up as he went along. If he hadn't, we wouldn't have needed a scene where two characters sit on a fucking log for 10 minutes in the 3rd film and have to explan away everything we've seen until that point.

QFT... and then some.
The whole "certain point of view" exchange is reeetarded.

[pennington]

How about the fact that in Back to the Future 2, when Doc and Marty are trying to get Jennifer back from the McFly house, and Old Biff steals the time machine, how come the whole 2015 future doesnt automatically change around them?

And how is it that Biff, consistently an idiot, figures out how to use the time machine? Then effortlessly comes back to the exact time he left?

[TheMojoPin]

QFT... and then some.
The whole "certain point of view" exchange is reeetarded.

Such an insanely hack-y scene. I still can't get over that it's two characters SITTING ON A LOG FOR 10 MINUTES. Those movies were huge cash cows at that point...they couldn't have shot some quick flashback scenes? Show, don't tell, Georgie.

[TheMojoPin]

And how is it that Biff, consistently an idiot, figures out how to use the time machine? Then effortlessly comes back to the exact time he left?

And what the fuck happens to old Biff? He breaks his cane and smacks himself in the chest...does he have a heart attack? They show him all sweaty and groaning in pain before collapsing...it's really odd and a little disturbing.

Though maybe not all that bad...the guy does try to kill Marty with every single version of Biff we see. The evil Biff owning the town ad the old west outlaw, OK, fine...but he's straight up trying to MURDER Marty, sometimes more than once, in the 50's and as Griff.

[TripleSkeet]

And what the fuck happens to old Biff? He breaks his cane and smacks himself in the chest...does he have a heart attack? They show him all sweaty and groaning in pain before collapsing...it's really odd and a little disturbing.

Though maybe not all that bad...the guy does try to kill Marty with every single version of Biff we see. The evil Biff owning the town ad the old west outlaw, OK, fine...but he's straight up trying to MURDER Marty, sometimes more than once, in the 50's and as Griff.

Actually on the dvd you see Biff start to dissapear, basically saying he doesnt survive to see 2015.

The other part that kills me though is when he gets back from 1955, the fucking Delorean appears and he starts landing it as Marty is no more then 50 fucking feet away! You literally see him in the middle of the street right there. How dont you notice something like that???

[cougarjake13]

OK, I wasn't sure what to title this thread so you get that mess. ANYWAY...I caught the end of Back to the Future today, and this was probably like the 30th time I've seen it, but something only just finally NOW struck me as odd.

Yes, I know, it's a movie about a time-traveling Delorean, so an obvious suspension of disbelief is required, but at the end when everything has been turned around by Marty's antics in the past and his family is now all successful, why the fuck has George given Biff a job working around the house?

Or, to put it another way, WHO THE FUCK GIVES HOUSE KEYS TO THE THUG THAT TRIED TO RAPE YOUR WIFE?!?

That seems like a poor choice by George McFly.


b/c although every thing was fixed honky dory there was 1 minor change

george never stood up to biff before and marty helped him do that at the dance so his parents would get together and he wouldnt disappear in the picture

also notice how in the beginning his bro and sis are smucks but at the end of the move theyre both successful

[cougarjake13]

ALSO
Star Wars is full o' this shit.
"How did my father die?"
"Darth Vader, who was young pupil of mine, until he turned to evil, killed your father".
NO!
Anakin was a pupil until he turned to evil.
Very misleading.

"Here's a lightsaber. Your father wanted you to have this when you were old enough but your uncle wouldn't allow it."
NOPE. That is not at all what happened AND... Ben's character had no motivation to lie. None. "Here Luke, this used to belong to your dad and now I think you should have it." Boom. Done.
What's with all the subterfuge?


Did I spell "subterfuge" correctly? I've never said it or typed it. Screw you, George Lucas.

yeh obviously with the prequels the your father wanted you have it line is false but it was just part of bens way i guess to get luke to go with him


and in a way anakin becoming vader does make that line close to true but yeh he wsnt called vader when he was obi's patawon

[cougarjake13]

How about the fact that in Back to the Future 2, when Doc and Marty are trying to get Jennifer back from the McFly house, and Old Biff steals the time machine, how come the whole 2015 future doesnt automatically change around them?

Know what I mean? During that whole debacle shouldnt everything have changed? Where George dissapears along with most of the family? Considering that was how they explained it was going to happen to Jennifer in 1985 after they fixed everything. It was the only real inconsistency I could find.

I know. Im a nerd.



how bout the fact that the far away future of 2015 is less than 6 yrs away

[cougarjake13]

another part of the back to the future weirdness and i think its been talked about here before


why would they name the revine after marty in part 3 ??

they name it eastwood revine instead of the teacher who fell into but was saved by doc brown

[fezident]

yeh obviously with the prequels the your father wanted you have it line is false but it was just part of bens way i guess to get luke to go with him


and in a way anakin becoming vader does make that line close to true but yeh he wsnt called vader when he was obi's patawon

Yes. The movie is not confusing. It's illogical.

[pennington]

another part of the back to the future weirdness and i think its been talked about here before


why would they name the revine after marty in part 3 ??

they name it eastwood revine instead of the teacher who fell into but was saved by doc brown

Because the teacher didn't die, Doc saved her. Marty, known as Clint Eastwood, was on the train that crashed. I guess the engineer, who was thrown off when the train was hijacked, figured out it was Marty (even though he had a mask on).

[pennington]

This isn't so much plot logic, more of an over-sight.

In The Poseidon Adventure when the ship turns over Pamela Sue Martin is stuck on the table in what is now the ceiling. The table is supposedly bolted to the floor, but why are the chairs still up there?

[El Mudo]

I prefer a tricked out toaster

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/jefn/homer.jpg



"I'm the first non-Brazillian person ever to travel through time!"

[El Mudo]

I'm with fezident on this one. While the film isn't narrated, it's pretty sloppy filmmaking to do what Spielberg did wih the framing sequence. Such a technique almost always means we're supposed to be seeing what comes "through the eyes" of the character depicted.

Though it's not on topic, I always get a little frustrated when I watch SPR. I think if it didn't have the framing bits from the present day at the beginning and the end and the prolonged cheesy sequence of the army brass figuring out that all the Ryans died as well as the excruciatingly Norman Rockwell-esque depiction of their mother getitng the news the film would be infinitely better. It's so skillfully done as a brutal, intense, "you are there" war film that those scenes just completely take me out of it each time.


I think those scenes were done in a way that added emotionally to the story. The best example of those "norman rockwell-esque" depictions of grief being overused/not necessary was the Mel Gibson adaptation of We Were Soldiers Once...And Young a few years ago (which is/was an EXCELLENT book).

If the major reason they were sent out looking for Private Ryan was because all his brothers had died, doesn't it make more sense that they would show the actual process of that being found out and its effect (to a limited extent) on his family?

[TheMojoPin]

I think those scenes were done in a way that added emotionally to the story. The best example of those "norman rockwell-esque" depictions of grief being overused/not necessary was the Mel Gibson adaptation of We Were Soldiers Once...And Young a few years ago (which is/was an EXCELLENT book).

Oh, definitely. It's painfully obvious why Spielberg put that in there. As much as I admire Spielberg as a filmmaker, most of the time he can't avoid squeezing in some kind of positive emotiona coda even in films where they have no place. I actually really like his take on War of the Worlds , yet at the end you have son inexplicably showing up at the mom's house alive and well. Even Schindler's List has to have the scene near the end where Schindler is praised and reassured over what he did. It's a miracle when he pulls of something like Munich wih it's decidedly ambiguous and arguably unhappy ending.

The problem with the SPR scenes away from the battlefront is that they were totally unecessary. It's already a film with massive, raw emotional impact. We don't need sappy schmaltz forced in there...it totally detracts from what he's accomplishing with the rest of the film.

If the major reason they were sent out looking for Private Ryan was because all his brothers had died, doesn't it make more sense that they would show the actual process of that being found out and its effect (to a limited extent) on his family?

No, it really doesn't. For most of the movie, the guys are shown griping about being ordered into shitty situations and being treated basically like targets. Having the order essentially being dropped on them by an unseen chain of command just reinforces that and lends weight to their decision to stay and figtht with Ryan at the end and to the men they lose along the way. As it stands, everything can be "justified" by seeing the nice general quoting Lincoln and the Mrs. Ryan on the porch and swelling music and the amber waves of grain. BULLSHIT, says me. SPR should be totally contained at the level of the soldiers. If you completely edit out the scenes of high command figuring out about the Ryans and jump right to the scene between Hanks and Farina where Farina explains exactly what we just saw in about 90 seconds with 110% less horseshit, boom, perfect.

[El Mudo]

Oh, definitely. It's painfully obvious why Spielberg put that in there. As much as I admire Spielberg as a filmmaker, most of the time he can't avoid squeezing in some kind of positive emotiona coda even in films where they have no place. I actually really like his take on War of the Worlds , yet at the end you have son inexplicably showing up at the mom's house alive and well. Even Schindler's List has to have the scene near the end where Schindler is praised and reassured over what he did. It's a miracle when he pulls of something like Munich wih it's decidedly ambiguous and arguably unhappy ending.

The problem with the SPR scenes away from the battlefront is that they were totally unecessary. It's already a film with massive, raw emotional impact. We don't need sappy schmaltz forced in there...it totally detracts from what he's accomplishing with the rest of the film.



No, it really doesn't. For most of the movie, the guys are shown griping about being ordered into shitty situations and being treated basically like targets. Having the order essentially being dropped on them by an unseen chain of command just reinforces that and lends weight to their decision to stay and figtht with Ryan at the end and to the men they lose along the way. As it stands, everything can be "justified" by seeing the nice general quoting Lincoln and the Mrs. Ryan on the porch and swelling music and the amber waves of grain. BULLSHIT, says me. SPR should be totally contained at the level of the soldiers. If you completely edit out the scenes of high command figuring out about the Ryans and jump right to the scene between Hanks and Farina where Farina explains exactly what we just saw in about 90 seconds with 110% less horseshit, boom, perfect.


I haven't watched the movie in a while, but in my recollection, doesn't it go directly from Farina saying "i've got another mission for you..straight from the top" into Captain Miller explaining to Sgt. Horvath about how some private in the 101st lost three of his brothers, and now they've got to find him? If that's the case, that's a pretty massive plot point to drop without SOME sort of backstory. They do show the one brother on the beach, which is a good segue into the whole office scene. And its what....a 5-10 minute scene at most? I would agree with you if Ryan's mother was a major character that they kept going back to (which is how the We Were Soldiers movie was ruined), but her whole scene is seeing the cars coming up the drive way and then collapsing on the porch when the preacher shows up (with no dialogue)...and its a pretty moving scene.

[Furtherman]

I've mentioned this before (and Furtherman debated me), but it took me about 5 times of watching Die Hard, it occurred to me that Hans used english to tell Karl to shoot the window, after trying to tell him in German, their native language, 2-3 times.

It should have been the other way around.

Here we go again!

Hans tells Karl to shoot the glass, in German, once. Actually, he doesn't say it very loud and with all the shooting and glass breaking, Karl looks back at him with a "What the fuck did you say?" look and Hans, showing frustration, yells at him to shoot the glass, in English. This is only after he sees the blood coming from his own dead henchmen who got his knees blown out by McClain seconds before and he remembers that McClain is barefoot. It's really not that out of the ordinary.

If it were to be more "realistic", then Hans as his men would have been speaking German the entire time, but they switch back and forth throughout the movie.

[TheMojoPin]

I haven't watched the movie in a while, but in my recollection, doesn't it go directly from Farina saying "i've got another mission for you..straight from the top" into Captain Miller explaining to Sgt. Horvath about how some private in the 101st lost three of his brothers, and now they've got to find him? If that's the case, that's a pretty massive plot point to drop without SOME sort of backstory. They do show the one brother on the beach, which is a good segue into the whole office scene. And its what....a 5-10 minute scene at most?

It's a shitty scene that doesn't fit at all with the tone and feel of the rest of the movie. All the dialogue, music and cinematography shifts to insanely Capra-esque levels. It's a jarring change that totally take you out of the traumatic and immersive combat world the rest of the film so amazingly creates.

And what backstory is provided by the scene? Absolutely nothing that we don't get out of the dialogue after it. All that's lost ae a bunch of cheesy speeches and camera shots.

I would agree with you if Ryan's mother was a major character that they kept going back to (which is how the We Were Soldiers movie was ruined), but her whole scene is seeing the cars coming up the drive way and then collapsing on the porch when the preacher shows up (with no dialogue)...and its a pretty moving scene.

It's a totally different "type" of moving from the rest of the film.
It's way too manufactured and melodramatic and it conrasts too much with the ugly reality we see the rest of the film. The cutaway to HQ and the mom's house feels fake compared with everything else. It looks and sounds like the kind of garbage we saw too much in Pearl Harbor. It's exactly the kind of shmlatzy war film that the rest of SPR so successfully manages NOT to be.

[Furtherman]

As for SPR, I don't think the whole "eyes" trick Spielberg pulled takes away from the movie. That just gave me a whole "Wait, Tom Hanks is dead?!", moment at the end and then we see it's Ryan, who lived a long and loving life thanks to Hanks and the others. It was a nice surprise.

[TheMojoPin]

As for SPR, I don't think the whole "eyes" trick Spielberg pulled takes away from the movie. That just gave me a whole "Wait, Tom Hanks is dead?!", moment at the end and then we see it's Ryan, who lived a long and loving life thanks to Hanks and the others. It was a nice surprise.

Why do we need it? We know he survives the battle and they hold the bridge...that's all we need to know.

[Furtherman]

Why do we need it? We know he survives the battle and they hold the bridge...that's all we need to know.

Well, now we know Ryan survived the war. Made it home, started a family. I think it was also done in homage to all the WWII vets who made it home, but lost so many brothers in arms. It shows that Ryan didn't waste his life, he earned a good one, like the Hanks character told him too.

I don't know if it's technically a poor story choice in regards to movie-making and maybe that's something for directors to discuss, but it didn't take anything away from the movie for me. It was a nice ending to a good movie.

[Snoogans]

I kinda got an opposite one.

Me and Knox used to think the scene in Scarface where Tony had the guy call Frank's office at 3am was dumb, since he already knew Frank did it, what was the point?

But I thought on it and actually if you think of it from an organized crime side of it, it makes tons of sense. Respect and loyalty means alot to people, and even though he was gonna kill Frank regardless, he had him call to see if Frank would be a man and just own up to it or do like he did and try to bitch out of it.

[TheMojoPin]

Well, now we know Ryan survived the war. Made it home, started a family. I think it was also done in homage to all the WWII vets who made it home, but lost so many brothers in arms. It shows that Ryan didn't waste his life, he earned a good one, like the Hanks character told him too.

I don't know if it's technically a poor story choice in regards to movie-making and maybe that's something for directors to discuss, but it didn't take anything away from the movie for me. It was a nice ending to a good movie.

How do we know he didn't waste his life? We basically jumped 50 years. For all we know he had his kid(s) in between his binges as a junkie and robbing banks. Why not give us a pointless zoom-ahead of Ed Burns' character since he lives, too? Why not Upham(sp?)?

The majority of SPR is a world that most of us don't know and will hopefully never know. The whole thing should be that, especially since everything shot outside of it looks so jarringly different and staged. "Home" and "family" should just be distant thoughts and salavation to the characters in that film and to the viewers. We should be stuck in that shit right there with them the whole time.

It's just a pet peeve of mine when movies I think are near perfect toss in scenes that seem totally uncessary and pointless. LA Confidential and the ending after all the cop cars are coming up with on Exley with his badge raised, I'm looking at YOU.

[ToiletCrusher]

After all the dumb things guys do in romantic comedies, how do they end up with the girl in the end? I think that logic stinks.

[Furtherman]

How do we know he didn't waste his life? We basically jumped 50 years. For all we know he had his kid(s) in between his binges as a junkie and robbing banks. Why not give us a pointless zoom-ahead of Ed Burns' character since he lives, too? Why not Upham(sp?)?

Because the movie was called Saving Private Ryan, not Saving Private Reiben or Saving Private Upham.

[EliSnow]

How do we know he didn't waste his life? We basically jumped 50 years. For all we know he had his kid(s) in between his binges as a junkie and robbing banks. Why not give us a pointless zoom-ahead of Ed Burns' character since he lives, too? Why not Upham(sp?)?

Because the story is Saving Private Ryan. Everyone was risking their lives to save him and bring him home. So finding out what happened to the other characters is not important except to know that they sacrificed for him.

I get your point about the "trickery" involved, but given the story the old man could only be Ryan or maybe Hanks' character.





It's just a pet peeve of mine when movies I think are near perfect toss in scenes that seem totally uncessary and pointless. LA Confidential and the ending after all the cop cars are coming up with on Exley with his badge raised, I'm looking at YOU.

Can you be more specific about your issue with this scene?

[mikeyboy]

As for SPR, I don't think the whole "eyes" trick Spielberg pulled takes away from the movie. That just gave me a whole "Wait, Tom Hanks is dead?!", moment at the end and then we see it's Ryan, who lived a long and loving life thanks to Hanks and the others. It was a nice surprise.

That aspect always bugged the shit out of me. It seemed like a cheap trick and killed any kind of consistency in the narrative for me.

[ANC]

"I'm the first non-Brazillian person ever to travel through time!"

:thumbup:

[mikeyboy]

Because the story is Saving Private Ryan. Everyone was risking their lives to save him and bring him home. So finding out what happened to the other characters is not important except to know that they sacrificed for him.

I get your point about the "trickery" involved, but given the story the old man could only be Ryan or maybe Hanks' character.




Not necessarily. For a consistent narrative, the old man could have been Hanks or anyone present during the Normandy Invasion who was involved in the mission to rescue Ryan (it's been a long time since I've seen the movie. I honestly don't remember if anyone besides Hanks was shown during the invasion). You could still have Hanks die, and the POV would still make sense.

[Furtherman]

That aspect always bugged the shit out of me. It seemed like a cheap trick and killed any kind of consistency in the narrative for me.

You and Mojo should egg Spielberg's house together.

[EliSnow]

Not necessarily. For a consistent narrative, the old man could have been Hanks or anyone present during the Normandy Invasion who was involved in the mission to rescue Ryan (it's been a long time since I've seen the movie. I honestly don't remember if anyone besides Hanks was shown during the invasion). You could still have Hanks die, and the POV would still make sense.

The movie started off with the old man and we get a shot of his eyes, and then there's a transition (can't remember if it's a fade/washout), and we see Hanks' eyes as a younger man during the war. So it creates an implication that the old man is Hanks. The rest of the movie is pretty much told from his point of view except for a couple of scenes, such as the Upham thing. Which is why I said maybe Hanks' character.

None of the other characters really got the screen time or story development that would make them candidates for being the old man. The fact that it was Ryan made sense story-wise although given it was jarring given how Hanks was introduced after seeing the old man at the beginning.

[TheMojoPin]

Because the story is Saving Private Ryan. Everyone was risking their lives to save him and bring him home. So finding out what happened to the other characters is not important except to know that they sacrificed for him.

I get your point about the "trickery" involved, but given the story the old man could only be Ryan or maybe Hanks' character.

It's not "trickery"...it's just sloppy filmmaking. Don't pull that shit if we're not following that character. That's like Storytelling 101. It's the filmmaking equivalent of specifically wriing about a character flashing back in a novel and then writing 10 chapters of shit he didn't see and experience.

Even though we know that the old man is Ryan, I don't give a shit who he is. He sucks, he totally detracts from the rest of the film. Fuck him, his family, and the stupid middle scene at HQ and the Ryan farm.

Can you be more specific about your issue with this scene?

More bad storytelling. Bud broke his code when he slapped whatsisface. That was the one thing really making him a "good guy" and he fucked up. When a character does that in films or books, it's curtains. He can try and redeem himself, as he does, but for him to not only survive the shootout the way he did AND to end up with the girl that he smacked around is a load of shit.

Personaly, it reeks of studio notes to me. The way that shootout is shot, it's pretty obvious Bud is fucking killed by Dudley. Every time I watch the movie I wish it would fade out with that beautiful shot of Exley holding up his badge to the cop cars. Tha would make it perfect. Everything that comes afterwards is superfluous and unecessary and feels like a tacked on bullshit "happy ending."

[Furtherman]

I don't see it as sloppy. Maybe a little over sentimental, but then again, I think he added that in to portray a veteran's feelings. It certainly doesn't take me out of the movie.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_976Nt4Z9vlQ/RxTD_E5srPI/AAAAAAAABeY/AXTUwqpCboo/s320/Old+guy+wide+2.jpg
What's wrong dear?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_976Nt4Z9vlQ/RxTGc05srWI/AAAAAAAABfM/ECG2bzsSc4A/s320/Old+guy+medium+2.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_976Nt4Z9vlQ/RxTEf05srRI/AAAAAAAABeo/zBDPkihISZE/s320/Old+eyes.jpg
Mojo hates me....

[EliSnow]

More bad storytelling. Bud broke his code when he slapped whatsisface. That was the one thing really making him a "good guy" and he fucked up. When a character does that in films or books, it's curtains. He can try and redeem himself, as he does, but for him to not only survive the shootout the way he did AND to end up with the girl that he smacked around is a load of shit.

Personaly, it reeks of studio notes to me. The way that shootout is shot, it's pretty obvious Bud is fucking killed by Dudley. Every time I watch the movie I wish it would fade out with that beautiful shot of Exley holding up his badge to the cop cars. Tha would make it perfect. Everything that comes afterwards is superfluous and unecessary and feels like a tacked on bullshit "happy ending."

You would be wrong.

In the original novel by Ellroy, Bud White gets shot up and lives, just like in the movie. And it ends with Exley being the "hero" and Bud White going off with Lynne. Dudley Smith while being a crook isn't part of the shootout.

Now that's not going to change your opinion about bad storytelling, but it wasn't studio notes.

[fezident]

I truly believe that people like Spielberg (and George Lucas... big time) are so surrounded by yes-men and lemmings that they honestly don't know how sloppy and reckless their film making is.
I find it hard to accept that NOBODY in Camp Spielberg said to him "Hey Steven... this is needlessly elaborate. This movie would be better served WITHOUT these scenes. They are not needed, they add nothing, and they don't match the tone. You should remove them."


Steven is a genius but, that doesn't mean he's incapable of making a mistake. And he definitely made one here.
He also made a huge blunder in WAR OF THE WORLDS. Not a "logic" error but, just an error in storytelling judgment.
Tom Cruise's character (Ray) is forced to let his son die. His character is literally torn between rescuing his daughter and rescuing his son. His son WANTS to die. He WANTS to go to battle. He WANTS to fight the aliens.... and with that knowledge.... Ray literally lets go. He lets his son run off to fight the big bad aliens. We say goodbye to him. We feel for Ray. We are sad. We accept this plotpoint and we move forward with the remaining characters.
Then... for absolutely NO god damned reason, at the end of the movie, Ray is reunited with his son! Oh, and his son is perfectly healthy and unharmed.
WHAT
THE
FUCK

There is no reason for this. We are all at peace with the death of Ray's son, Robbie. We almost ADMIRE him for wanting to get in there and fight back. Okay... so he died... but he died with honor. (wow.. that was corny to type, but it's true)

Not only is this needlessly "heart stringy" but, it TOTALLY undermines whatever danger the aliens posed to humanity.
These things are ruthless, cold, violent creatures who think nothing of killing millions upon millions of innocent earthlings. The military can't stop 'em. Nothing can stop 'em.
But... in the heat of battle, a 15 year old kid with no training or equipment can scream "lemme at 'em" and run into the fray WITHOUT ANY HARM???!!!

Oh.. and he even somehow manages to beat Ray & Dakota to their house! Robbie's there when Ray arrives!!!

That's grilled cheese, man.
Somebody needs to slap SS every once in a while and let him know that the audience is okay with characters dying and/or being in harms way.
Ya don't have to digitally replace the handguns with walkietalkies, Steve. We're not ALL pussies.

[TheMojoPin]

You would be wrong.

In the original novel by Ellroy, Bud White gets shot up and lives, just like in the movie. And it ends with Exley being the "hero" and Bud White going off with Lynne. Dudley Smith while being a crook isn't part of the shootout.

Now that's not going to change your opinion about bad storytelling, but it wasn't studio notes.

I know that it's in the book, but it sucks there, too. There's just something about the way the whole thing is shot that it makes the end very jarring and seemingly tacked-on. They do a really shitty job of having Bud get shot and then him being alive not seem ridiulous.

My ending is better than both the book and movie's, so therefore I am better than James Ellroy.

Though not that shittye endings are anything new to Ellroy. I love most of his books and his writing "voice," but the endings to the LA Quartet all stink, especially LAC and The Black Dhalia.

[TheMojoPin]

I truly believe that people like Spielberg (and George Lucas... big time) are so surrounded by yes-men and lemmings that they honestly don't know how sloppy and reckless their film making is.
I find it hard to accept that NOBODY in Camp Spielberg said to him "Hey Steven... this is needlessly elaborate. This movie would be better served WITHOUT these scenes. They are not needed, they add nothing, and they don't match the tone. You should remove them."


Steven is a genius but, that doesn't mean he's incapable of making a mistake. And he definitely made one here.
He also made a huge blunder in WAR OF THE WORLDS. Not a "logic" error but, just an error in storytelling judgment.
Tom Cruise's character (Ray) is forced to let his son die. His character is literally torn between rescuing his daughter and rescuing his son. His son WANTS to die. He WANTS to go to battle. He WANTS to fight the aliens.... and with that knowledge.... Ray literally lets go. He lets his son run off to fight the big bad aliens. We say goodbye to him. We feel for Ray. We are sad. We accept this plotpoint and we move forward with the remaining characters.
Then... for absolutely NO god damned reason, at the end of the movie, Ray is reunited with his son! Oh, and his son is perfectly healthy and unharmed.
WHAT
THE
FUCK

There is no reason for this. We are all at peace with the death of Ray's son, Robbie. We almost ADMIRE him for wanting to get in there and fight back. Okay... so he died... but he died with honor. (wow.. that was corny to type, but it's true)

Not only is this needlessly "heart stringy" but, it TOTALLY undermines whatever danger the aliens posed to humanity.
These things are ruthless, cold, violent creatures who think nothing of killing millions upon millions of innocent earthlings. The military can't stop 'em. Nothing can stop 'em.
But... in the heat of battle, a 15 year old kid with no training or equipment can scream "lemme at 'em" and run into the fray WITHOUT ANY HARM???!!!

Oh.. and he even somehow manages to beat Ray & Dakota to their house! Robbie's there when Ray arrives!!!

That's grilled cheese, man.
Somebody needs to slap SS every once in a while and let him know that the audience is okay with characters dying and/or being in harms way.
Ya don't have to digitally replace the handguns with walkietalkies, Steve. We're not ALL pussies.

I really like Spielberg as a filmmaker, but Munich is really the only film where he didn't chicken out.

Jaws comes close until you realized Richard Dreyfuss has survived for no good goddamned reason at all.

Schindler's List comes REAL close until the coda at the end.

[fezident]

The coda at the end of Schindler's List would've made for an AMAAAZING dvd extra. But... tagged onto the end of the proper film was definitely a blunder. His choice for the theatrical ending was far too neat.

[GreatAmericanZero]

The coda at the end of Schindler's List would've made for an AMAAAZING dvd extra. But... tagged onto the end of the proper film was definitely a blunder. His choice for the theatrical ending was far too neat.

the bookends of schindler's list (the coda at the end and the jews praying at the begning) and "Saving Private Ryan" (with the old man in the cemetery) should both have been cut in my opinion

[LaBoob]

Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure... this always confused me... The future was built on the music of Bill and Ted and their success, however Rufus initially comes back to ensure they pass their history final and could then go on to be the successful musicians that the future could be based on. Why is this necessary, if the future where Rufus comes from is already the future based on Bill and Ted's music?

[fezident]

I excuse anything and everything having to do with time travel.
The rules are simply not subject to normal logic.

[led37zep]

How that I REALLY, REALLY think about it.

Why would a space alien duck end up in Cleveland? Just doesn't make any sense, ESPECIALLY for a documentary.

http://madeinhead.org/anism/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/howard-the-duck-5.jpg

[mikeyboy]

How that I REALLY, REALLY think about it.

Why would a space alien duck end up in Cleveland? Just doesn't make any sense, ESPECIALLY for a documentary.

http://madeinhead.org/anism/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/howard-the-duck-5.jpg

I was watching that dubbed in Portuguese last week. It's not any worse.

[fezident]

One thing that I actually really really liked about Speilberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS is that we never ever leave Tom Cruise's POV. We don't know anything that his character doesn't know, and I thought that was really clever & well done.
I think he directed that movie really well. With the major exception being that he brought the son back from the dead.
(EDIT... just now realized that Mojo already railed on this two pages ago. Ooops)

Along with CATCH ME IF YOU CAN.... I think it shows how good Spielberg really can be.

[El Mudo]

How that I REALLY, REALLY think about it.

Why would a space alien duck end up in Cleveland? Just doesn't make any sense, ESPECIALLY for a documentary.

http://madeinhead.org/anism/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/howard-the-duck-5.jpg


Lea Thompson's hair in that movie deserves its own documentary

[EliSnow]

Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure... this always confused me... The future was built on the music of Bill and Ted and their success, however Rufus initially comes back to ensure they pass their history final and could then go on to be the successful musicians that the future could be based on. Why is this necessary, if the future where Rufus comes from is already the future based on Bill and Ted's music?

Because they knew that the Bill and Ted's music wouldn't happen without a little time travel help.

It's a time travel paradox that's often featured in stories which follow the 12 Monkeys/Lost theory of time travel -- that is that you can't change history with time travel. History/time has already taken into account your time travel and made it's changes. The first Terminator movie followed this theory, but the second one didn't.

[Furtherman]

He also made a huge blunder in WAR OF THE WORLDS. Not a "logic" error but, just an error in storytelling judgment.
Tom Cruise's character (Ray) is forced to let his son die. His character is literally torn between rescuing his daughter and rescuing his son. His son WANTS to die. He WANTS to go to battle. He WANTS to fight the aliens.... and with that knowledge.... Ray literally lets go. He lets his son run off to fight the big bad aliens. We say goodbye to him. We feel for Ray. We are sad. We accept this plotpoint and we move forward with the remaining characters.
Then... for absolutely NO god damned reason, at the end of the movie, Ray is reunited with his son! Oh, and his son is perfectly healthy and unharmed..

His son didn't want to fight the aliens, he wanted to watch the army fight the aliens. He asks his dad "Please, I need to see this." And since it's established at the beginning of the movie that his kid is frustrated as a young boy, Ray makes the decision to let his son go - let him go be a man, make his own decisions while he takes care of his daughter. He might as well since it seems the whole world is coming to an end.

As for the ending? Again with Spielberg's sentimentality and the whole family surviving thing. Although this is one of his rare movies where the father actually comes through and saves the family, whereas his daddy issues always had him portraying a father as absent or aloof.



Jaws comes close until you realized Richard Dreyfuss has survived for no good goddamned reason at all.

He was able to swim down to the reef while the shark was tangled up in the anti-shark cage. He had scuba gear on, therefore he survived.

[foodcourtdruide]

One thing that I actually really really liked about Speilberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS is that we never ever leave Tom Cruise's POV. We don't know anything that his character doesn't know, and I thought that was really clever & well done.
I think he directed that movie really well. With the major exception being that he brought the son back from the dead.
(EDIT... just now realized that Mojo already railed on this two pages ago. Ooops)

Along with CATCH ME IF YOU CAN.... I think it shows how good Spielberg really can be.

I agree with you. A lot of people shit on Spielberg's War of the Worlds, but I think it's a great adaptation. However, I HATE HATE HATE HATE that the son lives at the end. It's so freakin' cheap.

I really hate when films kill someone, then magically bring them back. I love the LOTR books and movies, but I H-A-T-E that Gandalf doesn't die in the Mines of Moria.

[KnoxHarrington]

the bookends of schindler's list (the coda at the end and the jews praying at the begning) and "Saving Private Ryan" (with the old man in the cemetery) should both have been cut in my opinion

To me, both endings show my basic problem with Spielberg: he can't stop being a Hollywood hack in the end, and he does not trust an audience to decide for itself.

In the case of "Saving Private Ryan", he can't bear for us to think that Tom Hanks and his crew went through all this and died to save a total asshole. The story, if left on its own, could almost point out the absurdity of World War II: in the midst of all this carnage and slaughter, one private is picked out to be the one who gets out of it. And I think this implication of the story scared Spielberg, because it runs against the "Greatest Generation" social meme that holds that WWII was some sort of "Good War", on a higher moral plane than other wars we've had. So he has to tack on this coda to assure us Private Ryan turned out to be a nice grandpa with a hot granddaughter.

In the case of "Schindler's List", I think Spielberg was too worried about the moral ambiguity of Schindler's character. After all, Schindler didn't get into the whole thing because he wanted to save Jews from the Holocaust: like a lot of German industrialists at the time, he wanted slave labor. Later, he does have this moral awakening and tries to save them, but there's always going to be this question with him: did he mean it? Wasn't he really a Nazi? So Spielberg goes out of his way to show that he's a Good Person -- it's that whole scene where he's tearing stuff off himself and wailing "This could have saved 3 more lives!" as he's being put in a concentration camp outfit that really turns me off there.

In both cases, Spielberg feels that the audience must be instructed on how to feel about what has happened. It's the mark of a filmmaker way too concerned with external reaction to his movies. And it's really kept a few of his movies from really taking off into the truly great works that they could have been.

Spielberg called Kubrick an influence and a hero, but I cannot imagine Spielberg making a movie like "A Clockwork Orange" -- he'd be way too scared of the shitstorm he'd see coming from it. Which is why I don't let Spielberg into that inner circle of the great directors that Stanley Kubrick is in.

[TheMojoPin]

He was able to swim down to the reef while the shark was tangled up in the anti-shark cage. He had scuba gear on, therefore he survived.

Yeah, I know HOW he did it, but storywise there's no good reason for him to survive. He's basically a useless character after he initially shows up and explains what's going on. After he finds the head in the boat, he could just vanish and you wouldn't miss him.

[TheMojoPin]

Spielberg called Kubrick an influence and a hero, but I cannot imagine Spielberg making a movie like "A Clockwork Orange" -- he'd be way too scared of the shitstorm he'd see coming from it. Which is why I don't let Spielberg into that inner circle of the great directors that Stanley Kubrick is in.

I think Spielberg as a storyteller is greatly flawed, but as a director I'll readily call him "great."

And all your points just make me realize even more why I like Munich so much. It's like he finally took the jump he almost made with SL and SPR and showed shitty things happen shittily with an ending that's ambiguous at best.

[fezident]

His son didn't want to fight the aliens, he wanted to watch the army fight the aliens. He asks his dad "Please, I need to see this." And since it's established at the beginning of the movie that his kid is frustrated as a young boy, Ray makes the decision to let his son go - let him go be a man, make his own decisions while he takes care of his daughter.


I definitely recall a scene where a military convoy passes by and Robbie wants to hop on. Ray says "oh, whattya gonna do Robbie, go with them?!" and Robbie screams "yes... we join these soldiers and FIGHT instead of just running away like YOU always do."
So... 45 minutes later, Robbie runs off into the thick of it. Even though, you are correct that he states "I need to see this". I assumed that he wanted to do more than "see" what was going on.
Any way you slice it... it's implied that he dies a few minutes later. And it cheapens their father/son "farewell" moment by having Robbie reappear later in the film -unharmed.

[Furtherman]

Yeah, I know HOW he did it, but storywise there's no good reason for him to survive. He's basically a useless character after he initially shows up and explains what's going on. After he finds the head in the boat, he could just vanish and you wouldn't miss him.

"Hooper drives the boat, Chief!"

Three men were needed on the Orca.

Even conversation wise, without Hooper, we wouldn't have found out about the USS Indianapolis.

Hooper was needed for story and character development.

[TheMojoPin]

"Hooper drives the boat, Chief!"

Three men were needed on the Orca.

Even conversation wise, without Hooper, we wouldn't have found out about the USS Indianapolis.

Hooper was needed for story and character development.

That just makes him a body. We already saw Quint with some kind of sidekick earlier: that guy could drive the boat.

And call me crazy, but it wouldn't be difficult to bring up the Indianapolis without Hooper.

The final act is all about Quint and the Chief. Hooper is superfluous.

[Furtherman]

That just makes him a body. We already saw Quint with some kind of sidekick earlier: that guy could drive the boat.

And call me crazy, but it wouldn't be difficult to bring up the Indianapolis without Hooper.

The final act is all about Quint and the Chief. Hooper is superfluous.

Quint's little helper man was just following him around at the town meeting. We don't know who he is! And the whole scene of Hooper and Quint drinking to their legs is a classic. A moment the Chief surely would not have instigated.

And, you're crazy.

[EliSnow]

That just makes him a body. We already saw Quint with some kind of sidekick earlier: that guy could drive the boat.

And call me crazy, but it wouldn't be difficult to bring up the Indianapolis without Hooper.

The final act is all about Quint and the Chief. Hooper is superfluous.

I disagree. You need to have some conflict between the individuals. There really wasn't any between Quint and the Chief because once the Chief is on the boat, he's out of his element and falls in line with what Quint says.

Not so with Hooper. He's dealt with sharks and he's been on boats before. And because Hooper is involved with his ideas about sharks etc. which conflict with Quint's, you get some good drama to add to the final act. Quint looks more like a madman, plus the shark is given more gravitas because the shark is outside of what Hooper knows about sharks.

[EliSnow]

And the whole scene of Hooper and Quint drinking to their legs is a classic. A moment the Chief surely would not have instigated.

I agree. That moment would not have happened without the conflict/competition between Hooper and Quint. The Chief was not part of that and wouldn't have tried to one-up Quint on his scars.

[TheMojoPin]

I disagree. You need to have some conflict between the individuals. There really wasn't any between Quint and the Chief because once the Chief is on the boat, he's out of his element and falls in line with what Quint says.

Yet, because Hooper is involved with his ideas about sharks etc. which conflict with Quint's, you get some good drama to add to the final act. Quint looks more like a madman, plus the shark is given more gravitas because the shark is outside of what Hooper knows about sharks.

Yeah, but all the stuff you guys are listing he can be there for if he gets killed when his dumb ass goes into the cage. Personally, I think he's all but useless before that, but even covering all the scenes you guys are talking about he could still get chomped down in the cage. The ending is much more badass when it's just the Chief vs. the shark. It's so anti-climactic when the Chief pulls off his amazing shot, the shark blows up and then Hooper just pops up out of the water having done nothing the last 10-15 minutes and served no purpose whatsoever. It would be better if the two guys who thought they knew everything about sharks BOTH got their comeuppance trying to do things "their way" and the only survivor is the guy most out of his element.

Let him do all these scenes you guys are talking about and then he gets eaten. Bueno.

[TheMojoPin]

I agree. That moment would not have happened without the conflict/competition between Hooper and Quint. The Chief was not part of that and wouldn't have tried to one-up Quint on his scars.

So have him there for that. He should still die when he's in the cage. He serves ZERO purpose once he goes in the water.

[EliSnow]

Yeah, but all the stuff you guys are listing he can be there for if he gets killed when his dumb ass goes into the cage. Personally, I think he's all but useless before that, but even covering all the scenes you guys are talking about he could still get chomped down in the cage. The ending is much more badass when it's just the Chief vs. the shark. It's so anti-climactic when the Chief pulls off his amazing shot, the shark blows up and then Hooper just pops up out of the water having done nothing the last 10-15 minutes and served no purpose whatsoever. It would be better if the two guys who thought they knew everything about sharks BOTH got their comeuppance trying to do things "their way" and the only survivor is the guy most out of his element.

Let him do all these scenes you guys are talking about and then he gets eaten. Bueno.

Well our arguments were in response to your position that he should never have been on the boat in the first place. I'm okay with him getting eaten, but then I'm okay with him living too.

[A.J.]

So have him there for that. He should still die when he's in the cage. He serves ZERO purpose once he goes in the water.

He helps Chief Brody get back to shore.

[TheMojoPin]

He helps Chief Brody get back to shore.

Ridiculous. All they did was grab a piece of debris and paddle back. The Chief couldn't do that on his own?

[EliSnow]

He helps Chief Brody get back to shore.

That's really why Mojo is angry. He wants Brody to die too. He's not happy if anyone lives through a movie.

[A.J.]

Ridiculous. All they did was grab a piece of debris and paddle back. The Chief couldn't do that on his own?

He seemed to come across as afraid of the water and/or unable to swim.

[TheMojoPin]

He would have figured it out. At that point, Chief is the MAN. Hooper and Quint were too caught it their ways being the right way and it got them killed. Fuck them. Why does Hooper get to live and Quint doesn't? Hooper's tactics fail, too.

[mikeyboy]

Not that it really matters, because there's no requirement that the elements of a book be kept when it becomes a movie, but did Hooper live in the book?

[EliSnow]

Not that it really matters, because there's no requirement that the elements of a book be kept when it becomes a movie, but did Hooper live in the book?

I never read it, but according to this (http://www.shvoong.com/books/1744250-jaws/), he dies. But he was fucking the Chief's wife so he deserved to die.

[TheMojoPin]

Doesn't Quint actually live in the book?

I've never made it past about 100 pages or so in the book. Awful, awful writing.

[EliSnow]

Doesn't Quint actually live in the book?

I've never made it past about 100 pages or so in the book. Awful, awful writing.

According to the summary, he doesn't.

[TheMojoPin]

According to the summary, he doesn't.

So Chief is the only survivor?

Huh.

Kudos to the shitty book, then.

[Furtherman]

Ridiculous. All they did was grab a piece of debris and paddle back. The Chief couldn't do that on his own?

He seemed to come across as afraid of the water and/or unable to swim.

The Chief was terrified of the water ("There's a clinical name for it." "Drowning").

It wasn't just a piece of debris. They took two of the shark barrels and tied them to piece of wood to make a makeshift raft. Considering Chief was afraid of the water, the fact that Hooper was around helped him accomplish this, which he might not have alone.

[A.J.]

The Chief was terrified of the water ("There's a clinical name for it." "Drowning").

It wasn't just a piece of debris. They took two of the shark barrels and tied them to piece of wood to make a makeshift raft. Considering Chief was afraid of the water, the fact that Hooper was around helped him accomplish this, which he might not have alone.

And 4 legs are better than 2 to paddle back.

[TheMojoPin]

The Chief was terrified of the water ("There's a clinical name for it." "Drowning").

It wasn't just a piece of debris. They took two of the shark barrels and tied them to piece of wood to make a makeshift raft. Considering Chief was afraid of the water, the fact that Hooper was around helped him accomplish this, which he might not have alone.

Yes, we all know he was afraid of the water, hence why I said how great it is that the out of his element guy is the big winner when the two arrogant experts get themselves killed.

Having the chief grab some wood and swim back on his own would just show how he clearly conquered his own fears to kill the giant fucking shark he just blew up.

Fuck Hooper. His ass should have been chum and he's not necessary for Chief to be on his way home at the end. I'm glad Dreyfuss' career went into the shitter.

[sailor]

mojo, so you're upset that it wasn't the formulaic comeuppance cliche you wanted? crazy.

[Furtherman]

http://www.allthatjaws.com/ATJImages/ATJpix/regardez.jpg

Look at that. It's a Mojo. He scraped me when I was taking samples.

[EliSnow]

Yes, we all know he was afraid of the water, hence why I said how great it is that the out of his element guy is the big winner when the two arrogant experts get themselves killed.

Having the chief grab some wood and swim back on his own would just show how he clearly conquered his own fears to kill the giant fucking shark he just blew up.

Fuck Hooper. His ass should have been chum and he's not necessary for Chief to be on his way home at the end. I'm glad Dreyfuss' career went into the shitter.

I think we need to re-name you "AngryMojo."

[foodcourtdruide]

mojo, so you're upset that it wasn't the formulaic comeuppance cliche you wanted? crazy.

LOL!!! This had me laughing out loud. Seriously Mojo, would you have been happier if Will Smith arrived on a spaceship at the end and saved the world?

[TheMojoPin]

mojo, so you're upset that it wasn't the formulaic comeuppance cliche you wanted? crazy.

How is it any better to have a character randomly survive when he has no business surviving? The whole thing is set up for him to be eaten. Don't talk like Hooper surviving is some brilliant storytelling device that changes the entire film...IT DOESN'T.

Yeah, my suggesting of a well-structured and sensibly crafted story sucks compared to a guy being set up to die yet he inexplicably survives and does NOTHING during the climax except hide on the bottom of the ocean.

Shuit the fuck up, sailor. If it would be "cliche" for Hooper to die, it's cliche that Quint dies. There's zero reason for Hooper to live after going into the cage. NONE.

[TheMojoPin]

LOL!!! This had me laughing out loud. Seriously Mojo, would you have been happier if Will Smith arrived on a spaceship at the end and saved the world?

Are you fucking high? Hooper randomly surviving is much closer to a deaus ex machina than what I'm talking about. What am I changing to the movie that's critical to the climax? Quint still dies. Chief still overcomes his fears and blows up the shark. I'm talking about SUBTRACTING something that's superfluous bullshit as opposed to adding ridiculous twists.

[mikeyboy]

:popcorn:

[TheMojoPin]

God, I fucking HATE sailor. He's ruined my entire day. Why can't a shark eat him?

[sailor]

If it would be "cliche" for Hooper to die, it's cliche that Quint dies. There's zero reason for Hooper to live after going into the cage. NONE.

he did it to piss you off. well played, steven. well played.

[mikeyboy]

God, I fucking HATE sailor. He's ruined my entire day. Why can't a shark eat him?

That's kind of cliche.

[TheMojoPin]

That's kind of cliche.

What if the shark is riding a chimpanzee?

[mikeyboy]

What if the shark is riding a chimpanzee?

He would probably survive just because it would piss you off.

[EliSnow]

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/9264/hooper.jpg

[A.J.]

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/9264/hooper.jpg

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

[TheMojoPin]

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/9264/hooper.jpg

Ahahahahahahahahahaaaaah!

Toooooouche.

[mikeyboy]

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/9264/hooper.jpg

:lol:

[foodcourtdruide]

Are you fucking high? Hooper randomly surviving is much closer to a deaus ex machina than what I'm talking about. What am I changing to the movie that's critical to the climax? Quint still dies. Chief still overcomes his fears and blows up the shark. I'm talking about SUBTRACTING something that's superfluous bullshit as opposed to adding ridiculous twists.

I think it would have been better if Quint survived and the movie ends with him standing on top of the boat screaming, "JAWS, YOU'RE F@#$NG OUT!"

[Furtherman]

NICE Eli!

[TheMojoPin]

I heard through the grapevine that Ron agreed with me today on the subject of Hooper surviving. Well played, Mr. Bennington.

[Furtherman]

DAMN YOU GRAPEVINE!!!! :furious:



When he said that I thought, "Oh no, I hope Mojo didn't hear that." HAHAHA How could you Ron!?

[EliSnow]

DAMN YOU GRAPEVINE!!!! :furious:



When he said that I thought, "Oh no, I hope Mojo didn't hear that." HAHAHA How could you Ron!?

I was tempted to let him know, but I had a similar thought.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

I found it somewhat disturbing that Crocodile Dundee's limo driver decides to shoot his gun to kill the final boss in Die Hard- after he had made a moral choice not to shoot his gun anymore FOR A GOOD FUCKING REASON- that being he "accidentally" shot and killed a kid once.

And as though it weren't enough that Al has to shoot his gun, but he fires it FOUR (?) fucking times- and the music swells up to this super heroic "ISNT THIS GREAT THAT AL CAN KILL AGAIN?!?!?" theme.

When I first saw that, it was awesome. Now I gotta think twice when I see that scene.

[Furtherman]

I found it somewhat disturbing that Crocodile Dundee's limo driver decides to shoot his gun to kill the final boss in Die Hard- after he had made a moral choice not to shoot his gun anymore FOR A GOOD FUCKING REASON- that being he "accidentally" shot and killed a kid once.

And as though it weren't enough that Al has to shoot his gun, but he fires it SIX fucking times- and the music swells up to this super heroic "ISNT THIS GREAT THAT AL CAN KILL AGAIN?!?!?" theme.

When I first saw that, it was awesome. Now I gotta think twice when I see that scene.

He killed a kid. It was dark. He had a ray gun that looked real enough.

The character of Al Powell was such a great part of the movie, that it was great that he could go back to being the cop he was - to serve and protect - and he protected John and Holly. He emptied his gun because Karl didn't go down on the first shot, and started to aim his gun towards them. He put him down gooood.

And that music that swelled up? Listen to it again - it was a leftover track from Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Kahn! It totally sounds like Star Trek music. If anything, that takes me out of the movie a little.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

He killed a kid. It was dark. He had a ray gun that looked real enough.

The character of Al Powell was such a great part of the movie, that it was great that he could go back to being the cop he was - to serve and protect - and he protected John and Holly. He emptied his gun because Karl didn't go down on the first shot, and started to aim his gun towards them. He put him down gooood.

And that music that swelled up? Listen to it again - it was a leftover track from Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Kahn! It totally sounds like Star Trek music. If anything, that takes me out of the movie a little.

He's great part of the movie, but it's a rather dubious thing to be happy about, dontcha think? I just like how Bruce rolls his eyes in shock as he realizes that Karl's steyr aug didn't fire off a few rounds.

[foodcourtdruide]

lol who the hell eats 10 twinkies for dinner.

[Furtherman]

lol who the hell eats 10 twinkies for dinner.

They were for his wife. She was pregnant!

By the way, in that scene he walks outside to look at Nakatomi Plaza and you can see the gas prices.

73 cents a gallon!!!

[EliSnow]

I found it somewhat disturbing that Crocodile Dundee's limo driver decides to shoot his gun to kill the final boss in Die Hard- after he had made a moral choice not to shoot his gun anymore FOR A GOOD FUCKING REASON- that being he "accidentally" shot and killed a kid once.

And as though it weren't enough that Al has to shoot his gun, but he fires it FOUR (?) fucking times- and the music swells up to this super heroic "ISNT THIS GREAT THAT AL CAN KILL AGAIN?!?!?" theme.

When I first saw that, it was awesome. Now I gotta think twice when I see that scene.


He didn't make a moral choice to not shoot his gun anymore. He was scared to do so, because he once made a mistake and it cost a kid his life.

And he overcame that fear to save a life.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

He didn't make a moral choice to not shoot his gun anymore. He was scared to do so, because he once made a mistake and it cost a kid his life.

And he overcame that fear to save a life.

Yeah but he was clearly going gun-crazy already because as soon as Argyle comes peeling into the parking lot in that limo Bruce Willus has to hold him down before he shoots that poor Afro-American behind the wheel! I smell future disaster in the works.

[Furtherman]

Yeah but he was clearly going gun-crazy already because as soon as Argyle comes peeling into the parking lot in that limo Bruce Willus has to hold him down before he shoots that poor Afro-American behind the wheel! I smell future disaster in the works.

All Al does is turn around to the sound of the limo crashing through the gate. His gun is up, but not aimed. John just puts his hand on the gun and says "Whoa... this one's with me."

[EliSnow]

Yeah but he was clearly going gun-crazy already because as soon as Argyle comes peeling into the parking lot in that limo Bruce Willus has to hold him down before he shoots that poor Afro-American behind the wheel! I smell future disaster in the works.

The future disaster is that he moved later moved next door to Urkel. And didn't shoot him.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

The future disaster is that he moved later moved next door to Urkel. And didn't shoot him.

I don't understand your grammatically incorrect logic Mister! I think the fact he whipped out his gun and started shooting bad guys is exactly why he hates kids and is the worst thing you could call a person today!

At least he's still more famous than Jaleel.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

bumping because this thread is relevant, damn it. despite what the apologists say.

[TheMojoPin]

More SPR thoughts:

I think it's a really poor move on the part of the filmmakers to have Upham kill "Steamboat Willie" at the end of the film. Nevermind that Willie showing up again and killing Hanks is SO cliche and hack and pointless, but it totally undermines the pivotal scene earlier where Upham and Hanks do the right thing and refuse to execute an unarmed prisoner. Yeah, I understand that it's war and that it's fucked up, but it reeks too much of Spielberg and co. frantically trying to "hero up" Upha's character in the end. All it does is just add to his flaws...we see that he's indecisive, unsure and cowardly in combat, but now he's shooting down prisoners, too? If they wanted to give him a little redemption by capturing those Germans, fine, but to have him so purposely and cold bloodedly shoot down Willie when the guy (Hanks) that agreed with him that not killing an unarmed prisoner is the "good" and right thing to has just been cut down seems shitty. So much of the movie is about retaining ones own humanity and honor in the middle of all the chaos and misery of the war...Upham's killing of Willie is meant to make him seem more "good," yet it actually makes him more of a "bad" character when you actually look at it.

Another minor nitpick, but I'm surprised at it given the relative accuracy of the rest of the film and what we saw in Band of Brothers, but I'm surprised at how some of the main actors were allowed to have such long hair. I know those guys were stuck on ships getting ready for the invasion for a while and that it wasn't boot camp, but you look at pictures from the time and very few guys in combat, if any, have the floppy hair that Ed Burns, Matt Damon (his is especialy ridiculous since it's short everywhere except towards the front, like he told the army barber how to style it for easy gel application) and the guy that plays Upham have. It's a total movie star move that sticks out in a movie like this.

[TheMojoPin]

And for anyone that is still unsure, no, Willie is not the German soldier that stabs Mellish and walks past Upham on the stairs. That's just arguably poor casting of two guys who look very much alike. Check the credits and you'll see both characters and actors are listed seperately.

[GreatAmericanZero]

In "Passion of the Christ" a person is born to a virgin and then killed and resurrected? What idiot wrote that movie!

[TheMojoPin]

I hate you so much.

[fezident]

Very often, I have major issues with characters that have super-powers of some kind. The amount of power they have is always a bit vague.

In Superman II, we establish the Superman can fly at millions of times the speed of light. He can fly around our planet a million times in just one second. Then... in the latest installment, he is absolutely struggling to catch up to a commercial airplane that's crashing to the ground. In both instances, Lois was in peril. She was either dead.... or about to be. But anyway ya slice it.... he should've been able to catch that plane with minimal effort.

This is usually when somebody says "yeah... but then the movie would be over in two seconds!". This statement is without logic. It's up to the writers to find a way to work this stuff out.




The Matrix is full of this shit too. In one scene.... a HUNDRED Agent Smith's pile up on Neo and pound on 'em. It has no effect. Then, later... Neo seems injured and at a disadvantage when he's up against just ONE Agent Smith. And ( I'm pretty sure) all this occurs after it's established that Neo can't be killed.

[JerryTaker]

There a millions of these illogical loopholes.


I don't understand why Bilbo Baggins can put the ring on all the time... goof around with it... have fun turning invisible etc etc. But... when Frodo puts it on, he's in pain, agony, hell on (middle) earth, and that gigantic eyeball (Sauron? Sauramon?) is IMMEDIATELY aware the ring has been activated.






I can't believe nobody answered this over 5 pages... Sauron was slowly regaining his consciousness, and he wasn't yet at the point that he could mentally connect with the ring while Bilbo was going around and using the ring to rob and whatnot, but Bilbo finally only decided to get away from the ring once he realized that Sauron could once again connect with the ring. (he didn't know exactly what it was, but he knew it was bad) Keep in mind, also, that in the original story, Frodo doesn't dust off the ring and leave the shire for another ten years after Bilbo leaves, so it's not like he just picked up the ring the next day, and it was suddenly evil. see? perfect sense...

[TheMojoPin]

Very often, I have major issues with characters that have super-powers of some kind. The amount of power they have is always a bit vague.

In Superman II, we establish the Superman can fly at millions of times the speed of light. He can fly around our planet a million times in just one second. Then... in the latest installment, he is absolutely struggling to catch up to a commercial airplane that's crashing to the ground. In both instances, Lois was in peril. She was either dead.... or about to be. But anyway ya slice it.... he should've been able to catch that plane with minimal effort.

The plane one I don't see so much as him "struggling" to catch it as trying to stop the thing without destroying it. A guy as fast and as strong as him can't just outfly a crashing plane and then grab it: it'll just tear apart.

Though his powers in the movies are pretty vague. Who knew he could turn his "S" shield into some kind of plastic super-trap?