Just The Facts, Ma’am
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 12:13 by James Dyer in Empire States
Today’s whinge is brought to you in association with The Truth. The Truth (note the capitals) is a commodity in short supply both on screen and off these days but it’s the former that’s currently stuck in my craw. You see, when I sit down in that darkened auditorium to watch a movie, whether I acknowledge it or not I'm entering into a tacit agreement with the filmmaker. They agree to dazzle me with glorious sights of awe and wonder (or drab mediocrity, depending on the choice of film) and in exchange I agree to suspend my cynical disbelief and refrain from pointing out the obvious factual deviations – that, for example, there’s no such thing as a giant sea creature, let alone ones with the wherewithal to single out and vandalise major tourist attractions. Generally speaking this is an arrangement that works quite well. There are, however, moments when this glorious symbiosis breaks down entirely and one of the parties (most often me) gets so worked out that they try to burn the entire cinema down around them using only the power of their indignation.
Allow me to me clarify: I’m not talking about times when a character goes back in time or when an obvious hottie is supposed to come across as ugly just because she’s wearing glasses and a pair of dungarees. No, what really makes me want to hurl dead animals at people is when they take liberties with the little things.
They’re only details, I know, but they’re what grounds a film with the audience, what allows us to connect with events on screen. We all know there’s no such thing as zombie strippers but we can accept (and enjoy) their appearance in a film as long as you don’t also try to tell us that a circle is square or that Pepsi tastes like Coke. The worst examples of this (and most likely to prompt a killing spree from geeks such as myself) are those involving technology. I can only assume that no Hollywood writer has ever used a computer, let alone taken time to find out what they are and how they work. It’s lazy writing at its most unforgivable (something I recognise) and needs to stop. Examples of this most egregious of crimes are legion but here are a few of the most upsetting off the top of my head:
1. Unspeakably grainy VHS footage of that looks like it was taken on a dark night, through thick fog, possibly from another planet with Vaseline smeared on the lens is miraculously enhanced to give a high resolution, crystal clear image of the subject. What devilry is this? Where is this extra detail coming from? Anyone who’s tried to increase the resolution of a tiny picture will know that the result most often looks like some kind of impressionist work of art. In movies, though, it lets you read number plates from 8 miles away and identify a hidden witness by reconstructing a reflection of their crotch on the side of a crisp packet. Utter bloody nonsense.
2. If we in the office are still to find a way to make Macs and PCs play nicely without splurging weird characters all over the place, how exactly are we to believe that they can happily interface with alien technology? In Independence Day Jeff Goldblum not only purports to hook an iBook up to an alien mothership but writes a virus on it that brings down the whole alien fleet. Madness! Even assuming the ship had a free network port - or some kind of unsecured xeno wi-fi - and their entire technology was actually built on Apple software, you think they don’t have alien firewalls? Or anti-virus software? If Dr Norton can come up with the concept, you’d think a galaxy-conquering super race would be equally on the ball.
3. The Internet in general. Where to even start? Well, we could begin with Mission: Impossible where Tom Cruise manages to get real-time streaming video in full screen resolution using Netscape 3.0! Failing that why not look at The Net, a film entirely about the Internet but with no understanding of what it is or how it works. Click a symbol? In the corner of a website? Oh please. It’s called a link and the worst it can do is download unwanted malware or send you to some pop-up-infested porn site.
And while we’re kicking The Net, what’s with all that ‘we’ll delete every record you ever existed’ rubbish? If it takes the government six months to realise you’ve paid off your student loan, do we really believe they’re going to notice if someone deletes your birth certificate? The home office can only dream of that level of efficiency.
4. Hacking. Cinematically, this practice is portrayed as a gauntlet of tricksy countermeasures that need to be disarmed on the fly, virtual doors that need to be opened and weird graphical interfaces that draw you into a test of reflexes and nerve. Not, in fact, the reality of: write script, run script, go and play World of Warcraft.
I know, I know, all of this is trivial in the grand scheme of things but it just bothers me - small-minded pedant that I am. And I haven’t even dredged up the likes of Terminator 2, when he hacks into ATMs with some bloody card on a wire. Or Jurassic Park, when Lex identifies some ridiculous 3D file manager as ‘Unix’. Or Die Hard 4.0 in its entirety. Press escape and your computer will explode? No it bloody won’t. Though I might.
Login or register to comment.
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 15:18
Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Turd.
Apparently a lead lined fridge can protect you from the intense heat of a nuclear blast, even though lead has the one of the lowest melting point of any metal. AND conveniently manages to catapault the fridge far enough away from the blast zone that the hero can get out and have a little look at the explosion without eye protection AND he can actually get out of a fridge with no apparent handle on the inside when any kiddie worth his salt knows you should never play in fridges.
GRRRR that film made me so angry.
And disappointed that Indy's legacy could be tainted so.
I'm still scrubbing my eyes with bleach on a regular basis to try and wash away the images of that attrocity of a film.
(Not really, but I am trying really hard to forget it ever happened
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 15:42
Agreed, Karl! IMDb is full of people who argue the lead fridge is no more realistic than hearts being torn out with the power of the mind, but... I'm going to have to start directing them here.
Temple of Doom - shows you a fantasy that is unknown to us.
Crystal Skull - he uses a fridge, something we're familiar with, what with seeing one every day, and we're supposed to accept that you can survive a nuclear blast in one? Indy IV really pushes it, much like Die Hard 4.0. Besides which - the reason Indy's 60 in this one is because - and Lucas and Spielberg said this themselves somewhere - he's based in the real world (or something).
Bleh, my point is... Indy IV nuked the fridge.
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 16:01
Beyond that, he was thrown a quarter mile, not many 60 yr olds I know can stand up after that kind of toss. Well one, but different story.
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 16:05
Why is it that computers in films make so many unnecessary whirring and beeping sounds which they never, ever make in real life?- the opening of a web-page or a database in a blockbuster movie sounds like R2-D2 reaching climax- the only reason I can think of for this is that computer hacking and browsing databases for criminal profiles are probably pretty dull in real life so they overlay stupid beeping sounds which are supposed to indicate that something incredibly exciting and technologically advanced is going on
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 16:13
It amuses me that we could possibly now retire the 'jumped the shark' phrase in favour of 'nuked the fridge'.
It had a good run.
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 16:14
Everyone is moaning about Indy surviving a Nuclear Blast by hiding in a fridge, claiming it is unrealistic. Now I'm not going to attempt to argue that there is an issue here, clearly if you or I were to attempt the same amazing feat we would be dead (Or at least mutated).
But here's the crux of the issue, the man that did it was Indiana Jones, and so the unrealistic aspect goes, as that man can do whatever he wants. Period.
He could have stood there, took a deep breath and simply blown the explosion out but as this is a movie, and it has to be entertaining so he hid in the fridge, which was amusing.
There, argument settled.
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 16:20
As someone who ADORED Crystal Skull, I have to say the fridge bit (and the climax, which got a bit confusing) was one of the very few dodgy points. Not because he survived an atomic explosion (I can go along with that), but with him being propelled through the air for half a mile. Fractionally TOO silly, like jumping from the plane in the dingy in Temple of Doom. Despite that, it's still a tremendous, wonderful, joyous movie and people who complain are whinging buggers.
As for dubious movie logic, Cloverfield really pissed me off recently. The handheld POV added an air of "realism" which the film promptly pissed on by having Manhatten evacuated in about thirty minutes, characters behaving erratically and unrealistically, and - worst of all - a helicopter crash which the protagonists survive but not the bloody pilots or soldiers also present. Grrrr!
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 16:27
Following on from Jameswhaleofatime, how come computers in movies never get server errors? Its the bane of my life being unable to access sites because I dont have the right software installed. Never seems to happen in movies though.
James Bond 23 script - scene 98 : Bad guy is standing over henchman who is hunched over his computer.
Bad Guy "Now all we need to do to detonate the tectonic plates in the earth causing such devastation that the entire finance market will seize to exist and all power reverts to me is start that Exmo programm. Egor - initiate program!!"
Egor presses enter. His computer screen goes blank. He looks puzzled.
Bad Guy "Whats going on?"
Egor "Its says I need Quicktime 10 to access this program"
Bad Guy "Well load it then!" Egor frantically accesses Apple website and begins download. Suddenly the computer freezes up.
Egor "I think itsbroken"
Bad Guy "Have you tried turning it off and on again?"
Bond bursts in with an army contingent - "The games up bad guy"
Copyright Karl Crutchley 2008
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 16:30
It's fairly easy to start moaning over Indy IV and it's unrealistic edges of which it has plenty. Should we really care though? Indiana Jones is back on the big screen after nearly 20 years! Instead of turning over every stone looking for mistakes, we should celebrate and enjoy this movie for it's many glorious moments.
Nice blog. You should make another about the same subject in some time, maybe take a different subject (instead of technology).
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 16:47
I agree with that getting small details wrong is annoying, but if they actually showed people using computers properly in films it would be so boring. Have you ever seen some use a computer? Probably the most uncinematic thing ever.
Mad Dog Tannen
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 17:16
A computer thing in movies which irritates me the most (and isn't really related to James Dyers' point) is when some hot-shot does his computer thing and is made to look like some rock star rocking out at Wembley Stadium.
That bit with Hugh Jackman in Swordfish being the best (worst) example. He thinks he's so cool, spinning around and all that, but he's just typing on a computer keyboard. What a twat.
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 17:16
I tried sending an e-mail to Max (from mission impossible) at her address known only as max@job 3:14
I was so disappointed when it didn't work, i was going to order me a pair of Uzi's.
Still, at least that technology was still better than John Geiger's 'Fiber Optic Convertor'.
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 17:20
I agree with Chud...
"Press ctrl alt del..."
"Okay I've done that but the pop-up box of 'task manager' has frozen over the crashed internet"
"Shall I re..."
"No you first"
"Okay, well shall I just restart?"
"Well I was gonna suggest just turn it off at the mains"
"Okay I'll do that..."
(Turns it off)
"Yeh, I'll just do that later..."
"Shall we get the guns and go pop a cap in that guys ass?"
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 17:25
How come all these computer geeks never, but never, use a mouse like the rest of us do?
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 17:35
I think the most realistic depiction of computers during a film was when Windows 98 made an appearance in South Park: Bigger Longer Uncut.
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 17:49
With regard to point #1, Enemy of the State is the worst proponent. That bit where Jack Black and Seth Green actually twist the camera viewpoint around. Completely ruined an otherwise great film.
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 18:17
"Temple of Doom - shows you a fantasy that is unknown to us.
Crystal Skull - he uses a fridge, something we're familiar with, what with seeing one every day, and we're supposed to accept that you can survive a nuclear blast in one? "
Hold on there Glass3005. Fair enough the comparison to the heart ripping is wrong but what about when in the temple of doom when Indy and co jumped out an airplane at about 500 feet with only a raft to cushin their fall. Tell me was that a fantasy unknown to us? or how about when he hitched a ride on the roof of a U-boat in Raiders? Indiana Jones has never needed to make sense as it is inspired by old cerials that made even less sense.
If you and Karl Crutchley want to mouth off about the movie then go to IMDb this isn't your pesonal soap box. So in the words of Nicolas Angel "Jog on".
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 18:19
Pepsi does taste like Coke.
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 18:25
Bond supervillain: "Have you tried switching it off and on again?"
Anyway, on to Sunshine. There are so many scientific flaws with this film that it simply doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.
Firstly there is the frankly ridiculous suggestion that the sun could burn out and whither in the next 50 years. The sun has an expected life span of somewhere in the region of around 4 and a half billion years, and when it does go it'll be with a bang instead of a whimper.
Then there's the idea that to reignite the sun a nuclear device could be detonated at the surface of the sun. It's outrageous. in the extremely unlikely event that mankind would ever be able to gather enough nuclear material to make any kind of impact on the normal lifespan of a star (impossible), such an hypothetical device would have to be detonated at the star's core (impossible) from where it would take some 5000 odd years to reach the surface (useless to the films protagonists).
Finally, in this little rant at least, why on earth is it necessary for this mission to be manned? I realise in the script they give all this crap about needing cillian murphy's character to tend to and detonate the bomb, but i really can't see how this would be the case in real life.
The most frustrating thing about this is that it is entirely unnecessary. There are plenty of scientific reasons why a similar mission might be launched, so why not just use a scientifically valid one? There simply is no cause to use such a ridiculous invented crisis in order to get a film made and there can't be any excuse for it either.
It's similar to Mr Dyers problem with the unspeakably wretched vhs footage - there's no narrative need for it. Why not just start with crystal clear images? It's just trying to ratchett up tension where there isn't any.
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 18:28
I do realise that britesparc already responded to Glass3005 and Karl Cruchley's trolling but i felt that he was a little bit too nice about it.
Yes everlbody has a right to their own opinion but i am sick of these people who take ageanst a film like indy VI, Star wars I II & III or Die hard 4.0 based purely on the fact that they refuse to accept that a beloved franchise can be added too.
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 18:34
Can I just say, that I agree with all you guys, well accept those who don't understand the obvious allusion to the stupidity of the 'duck 'n' cover' videos of the fifities. 'Hide under the table, the bomb won't get you.' I quite frankly thought it was hilarious, and quite clever, but what do I know? I don't even look for mistakes in films, what a retard I am.
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 18:58
Macs do play nicely with PC's
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 19:03
Another thing about computer screens:
Some of them seem to reflect the image on the screen onto the face of the guy sitting in front of it (example: the FBI computers in The Rock). How does that work? Do they have a beamer built into them? And how does the guy manage to still see anything?
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 20:01
I suppose the little things are the ones that take us out of the dimension of the film and just break the fourth wall completely, ruining the experience and the escapism of the film. That's the only reason why I think I could handle the big ape, the dinosaurs and the weird birdy-vampire things, but got so utterly irritated by Ann Darrow's refusal to break any bones in King Kong I had to walk out of the pictures and cheer myself up with a pick 'n mix.
Or I could just be incredibly anal and a natural critic =].
Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008, 20:59
HA HA HA!!!
James let me congradulate on a great article, it had me laughing all of the way through it... Fantastic rant mate!!!
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 02:58
After reading a couple of the comments posted below I'd like to say FUCK YOU VERY MUCH for letting out details of IJATKOTCS, not all of us have been able to catch it yet. Oh and how many times does someone need to change gear on a straight piece of road, Mr Paul Walker 2 Fast 2 Furious.
Cletus Van Damme
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 08:12
Well done, Mr dyer. i agree, most accuracy issues are just basic laziness on the part of film makers and especially screen writers.
My constant ones (and car themed) are:
1. CCTV footage is unrealistic:
Whenever a character looks at CCTV footage of another character, it is shown as if they have been filmed as part of the film, with a moving up close camera. CCTV is static and usually B+W and shot from a long way off.
2. Cars exploding when they go over cliffs. Why?
3. People can jump out of moving cars in excess of 40 mph, roll over and escape unhurt. Try hitting tarmac at 40mph. It doesn't do you any good. See Brucie Bonus in the truly awful DH4. Screen writers can be such idiots. They reference each other's work rather than, you know, real physics.
4. characters constantly re-cocking guns on semi-automatics (they re-cock themselves) hence the term, 'semi-automatic'.
5. characters who NEVER lock their cars, even when pulling up outside Crack dens etc.
6. mobile phone black spots just when the character needs to use their phone.
7. characters talking in a car, the actor doing the driving clearly has no idea that the wheel is supposed to have a relationship with the direction of the car.
8. Car scenes: the soundtrack (car engine and tyres) doesn't match the behaviour of the car. Weird. And Lazy.
9. Characters NEVER indicate when they make a turn.
10. Shooting car tyres. Almost impossible.
11. car chases that have been clearly filmed slowly and then edited MTV style to appear as though they have been driven quickly. Putting the camera near the ground to enhance speed effects no longer works. We are not idiots.
12. Gun fight. Someone hides behind a parked car. They are pieces of thin metal and plastic. They don't stop bullets. We have got passed the 1950s gun fight cliche of hiding behind wooden tables. can we get passed this one please.
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 08:34
In reply to Bobson13 and in defence of me, I have been a Star Wars fan since 1978 and I actually love the prequels. In fact ROTS is my 2nd favourite SW film and I prefer AOTC to ROTJ.
And I did enjoy Die Hard 4.
My problem is Indy 4 was rubbish.
But thats my opinion.
Which I have a right to, as you say.
And in addition to Cletus's car themes
Cars that are involved in HUGE jumps and manage to land perfectly and drive away, without a scratch on.
Just once can we have the cocky hero thinking he's going to escape by jumping a car over some roadworks/river, only for it to land breaking the axle/wheels and him being captured.
Now that would surprise me.
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 09:18
On a more personla note - one of the things that really drives me nuts is the depiction of fighting in movies. Yes, when I was lad and young and naive I used to marvel at how many times a guy could get hit with an iron bar and still stand up again and carry on smacking headas together (See any Schwarzenegger or Van Damme movie) - now though, I just cant accept it.
What I would love to see is the hero and villain circle each other, squaring off for the big climactic fight scene, and then the hero sucker punches the villain, bounces his head off the ground and then walks away as the villain will be out cold for a good ten minutes. Not even Heavyweight Champs can take the beatings doled out on a regular basis in most movies.....and don't even get me started on the 'Oh look, I've been stabbed, and they were kind enough to leave the knife in so I can pull it out later and use it myself' scenario.
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 09:19
I strongly agree with most of what Cletus Van Damme says apart from Die Hard4 being terrible but sometimes its nice to have some fantasy in films although it is refreshing to have some realism in films.
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 09:48
I agree that they are things in a movie, little things, that can completely break your suspension of reality due to sheer absurdity but the response to this problem is not to put as much real life on screen as possible. As William Goldman says in 'Which Lie Did I Tell' the reason movie characters never lock a car door, or look at the change they give to taxis or spend a half hour driving round building trying to find a parking space is because that information is boring and slows down a movie unnecessarily.
I think when making a movie you can be forgiven for some of the little things cause bogging a movie down in reality isn't gonna be to anyone's enjoyment.
Cletus Van Damme
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 10:02
Injuries are a good area of contention:
1. Punches to the face cause bruises which last for weeks not hours. Yet the injury of choice is usually small scratch type cuts, which heal in hours.
2. A punch to the nose causes huge bruising. not just an easily healed nose bleed.
3. Women getting hit is not a pretty sight. Hitting a girl with a car is downright offensive. Watching her get back up again to fight a 200 pound man is downright super natural. (See DH4).
4. Lets not forget the hero shot to the shoulder. Bullets do life long tissue, bone and nerve damage. Walking around with a sore shoulder hours after getting shot by a sub sonic 9mm round is becoming farcical. The new hero wound is the flabby area above the groin. But with our 2% body fat heros, this is also a bit far fetched. Why do they HAVE to get shot?
5. Paramedics attending to a character and declaring, "I think they're gonna make it". Yeah? How the fuck do you know?
6. Glass bottles. If they break, they cause mass bleeding. If they don't, they break bones. Windows, same rule applies. Bridget Jones saw her two rivals go through a plate glass window. No blood or organ damage?
7. car accidents. They are loud, scary and cause all kinds of injuries. Just cos the character has an air bag doesn't mean they should be up and walking around after a quick checkup up at the hospital.
8. In 51st State, Robert Carlyle gets shot in the arse and then has sex with his girlfriend. One scene later he isn't even bleeding.
While I am ranting, how about cute pets. Dogs do not bark on cue when you ask them a question. And how many times have we seen a cute dog, clearly NOT barking only to have the sound mixer guy dub it on later. hahahaha silly buggers.
Cletus Van Damme
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 10:06
I disagree to some extent. You can say that about a lot of movie stock scenes. Why do we need to see a character park the car at all, pay the taxi driver, walk into a building. They are all unnecessary from this point of view.
I wanna see a character actually LOCK the car. In the days of remote locking, how hard can it be?
Cletus Van Damme
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 10:15
The opposite point is a good one to make:
We give movies 'credit' when they don't take the piss. Last night I saw an episode of Dexter, serial killer who kills serial killers. One of the characters got shot. We never had the standard, "I think shes gonna be okay" from a back ground character, instead we got "she is in surgery, no idea on the outcome". Because of this, i am willing to give the writers some 'credit' and they can get away with more fanciful story lines later on.
Same with Bourne. Some of the stuff is plain daft. But because the fundamentals are in place (cars bend and break, fights are messy) i can forgive other more fanciful areas.
The point where the Bourne series really broke new ground and guaranteed it legendary status? ...the bit in Supremacy where Matty Damon throws the bad German bloke onto a living room table and the table DOESN"T BREAK . That bit was truly class. Its the little things which make a great film.
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 11:04
A personal favourite of mine, and this is indeed both shallow and pedantic, is the ability of men and women who have never met before to make dates with each other without getting any personal details whatsoever.
'Pick you up at 7?'
How exactly does he seem to know her address? Are we guessing he knows it anyway? 'Cause that's just plain weird, and a little stalkery.
Also hilarious, although I don't necessarily dislike it, is the stubborn refusal of characters to ever say goodbye before hanging up the phone. Any episode of Entourage is particularly good for this, although technically Ari's supposed to be a douche. Just don't watch the second half of season three, 'cause it sucks.
Mad Dog Tannen
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 11:12
If you guys don't want to see cool stuff in action movies like cars taking off and landing perfectly and all that, why do you bother going?
Action movies are supposed to be ramped up for our entertainment, and usually the filmmakers are just about on the right side of idiotic. I agree that when they enter the realms of science fiction and the their film becomes just plain stupid they lose me, but on the whole I WANT to see Jason Bourne and James Bond achieve the virtually impossible.
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 11:17
I agree with most of the previous comments. A pet hate of mine for a long time has been watching actors typing in movies. None of these fuckers can type or even make it look convincing. I'm not asking them to go to secretarial school they can just use a couple of fingers and thumbs but a huge amount of people these days work with keyboards and we can all tell when someone looks like they are typing qwerty qwerty qwerty over and over it just looks stupid. The worst films with computers for me were Swordfish (Hugh Jackman dancing at his keyboard!) and War Games (is it really possible to make free phone calls from a phonebooth using a ring pull!)
As for bigger things - Bruce Willis running around on the back of a plane! It looked stupid in True Lies so why try it again - it didn't add anything to the story.
On the subject of the Crystal Skull i agree it stretched some things too far. I thought it was poor and so did my 11 year old son.
Mad Dog Tannen
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 11:22
Probably my absolute number one most hated thing about movies is The Impossible Camera.
I'm talking about when the camera glides in and out of the cars and up the pipes and through the engines in The Fast And The Furious, before hurtling up the road and then back up the exhaust pipe before resting on the actor's face.
I'm talking about Tom Cruise being picked up by the tentacle in War Of The Worlds and the camera leaps up with him and glides up and down and all around the bloody place.
I'm talking cameras moving through coffee pot handles in Panic Room.
I can't stand it. Apart from the fact that it almost always looks stupid, it just completely destroys the sense that this stuff is actually happening.
The best kind of effects scenes are the ones when you could actually believe a camera crew is there filming it. That's why the space battle in Return Of The Jedi works so well, it looks like there's a second unit crew in a small spaceship really filming all that stuff.
The same goes for all those shots of Christopher Reeve flying in the Superman films. The camera never goes in and around his cape or inside his boots.
Know what I mean?
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 11:40
Great thread and clearly we movie fans need to vent. I agree with most comments re innaccuracies. It's not that our belief isn't suspended, but why do script writers feel they need to push it even further, when actually, an unexpected blast of realism would probably give the tension they're looking for?
My bugbears are:
1) people typing lengthy commands into a computer to perform straightforward tasks like zooming in on an image or fast forwarding video files, which are more easily and quickly performed with a click of a mouse or shortcut key command;
2) that none of these operatives and their seniors can simply point at an image on screen and say: "Zoom in on this bit here...", and choose instead to refer to the area by its coordinates;
3) and interfaces on computers where you get a bloody great animated opening envelope everytime the character opens new mail? In the real world that would get annoying half way through the first time - by mid morning my screen would have a chair leg through it;
4) and whilst I'm still on computers, the Apple logo is extensively used as a visual shortcut to indicate the character is either a) high tech, b) loaded or c) uber cool. When in actual fact they're either a) a fashion victim, or b) not very good at shopping around.
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 11:47
One that always got me was at the end of Daredevil (yes I watched it to the end!), Joe Pantoliano is pondering whether to send or scrap his article revealing the secret identity of our masked avenger. Opting to do the right thing he hits 'Delete' once and the whole document if deleted word by word.
There was no Ctrl 'A' beforehand, just one tap of the button...
I'm just glad I didn't make any last minute corrections to my 10,000 word dissertation on his computer!!
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 12:19
I liked indy IV. I thought the fridge thing was a bit daft but entertaining. Mutt swinging through the jungle with his new found monkey friends before setting them on the Russian bird with the stupid accent/hairdoo was just a piss take...
the most annoying thing for me in movies is when the bad guys can't shoot for shit - stormtroopers. Meant to be big badass clones but cant hit a 7ft walking carpet?
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 12:21
I always love it in films when said character is on a laptop and closes it in haste to hide whats on it from another approaching. When re-opening, the screen is instantly back, when, certainly on my laptop, you wait a few mins and have to log back in!
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 12:29
As a smoker, I hate to see actors clearly pretend to smoke and I hate it when '80s and '90s computers have some kind of AI interface when you can type in something like -
"If subject A is Brundle, what is subject b?" only to have the computer give an answer full of personality and good grammar.
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 12:30
One of my little annoyances, is that in computer based films, no one ever seems to move a mouse, espcially in the future. I know watching people type fast is slightly more exciting than someone's right hand slowly moving a mouse (and clicking violently if I'm anything to go by).
Cletus Van Damme
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 12:40
Mad Dog tannen: Not sure what you are on about mate. re read the thread. Movies are allowed to create their own realities as long as they adhere to basic common sense within those realities. Back to the Future flying cars are fine by me, put Bond or Will Smith in one (MiB) and the film has started to jump the shark, or nuke the fridge to use the ultra modern vernacular.
What annoys me is that they are mistakes based in laziness and NOT logic. Why does Brucie have to fight a plane?
Ellis james: good points. Another odd thing with computers is when a computer does 'something' we get that odd squeely computer noise. Computers never do stuff in silence. hahahahah
Cletus Van Damme
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 12:46
Mad Dog Tannen, sorry I re read your post and I was confused. I know what you mean, with the camera thing. It stops us from enjoying the image as REAL. IN panic room, the house becomes unreal as soon as he zooms i n through that coffee jug. It was daft and unnecessary. An attempt to show off. I am not a big fan of the camera zooming in on a plane or a car and then 'going through' the window in the environs within. That annoys me. Or the kid with the big vocab. Kids are selfish un-aware little blighters, God love 'em, but they aren't wise cracking life affirming insightful gurus, which no matter the film or format are always presented as such.
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 12:56
have you ever noticed when someone is doing something amazing on a computer like hacking or changing the res on a picture so we can ready a number plate; , they never use the mouse, only type frantically on keys...when have we ever used keys on a keyboard other than to type text....
Cletus Van Damme
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 13:03
Hey I have just thought of something. I made the point above about Bourne being great because the fight scenes reaffirm certain laws of physics (in this example, the table doesn't break, biros can hurt if you shove them in someone's hand etc)
This is the opposite of jumping the shark/nuking the fridge. its a moment when the film says to the audience, this is our reality and we are going to reaffirm it with something subtle, logical and usually against movie lore.
The point is: they are not done to SHOCK the audience as a plot device, but done subtlety, to help you buy in to a reality while adhering to existing laws of logic.
We need a phrase, unless there is one already, EMPIRE ADMIN, do we need a new thread?
Here are my examples off the top of my head (and I put forward the Bourne moment, 'they didn't break the table' as first dibs on the phrase):
1. They didn't break the table in Bourne
2. The fights and Fists hurt in Fight Club. And they got rid of that awful movie fist sound cliche
3. The real gun fight and effects in Heat.
4. Characters don't need to talk with each other in Miami Vice (but when they do, it would be nice if we could fucking hear what they are saying, Mr Mann!)
5. All the car effects in the Shield are very cool. the tyres don't squeal unnecessarily, the engine noises match the behaviour of the car and the actors are clearly driving.
I can't think of any more right now. Anyone else???
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 13:09
Never mind the fridge. I got turned off Indy when the magnetic clouds at the start traveled in straight lines and turned right hand corners rather than taking the shortest route to the magnet.
One of the reasons I hate Blade 2 is because of the UV light bombs that travel around corners.
Mad Dog Tannen
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 13:13
The worst thing about computers in movies is that computers are in movies! It's just so boring.
No one can break into a bank or a casino without a computer. No one can blow up a building without a computer. No one can walk across the street without a computer.
I long for the day when a bunch of characters who haven't got a damn clue about computers decide to rob a bank or casino using nothing but their ingenuity.
Of course, it'll never happen because screenwriters are too lazy to conjure up the wit or imagination to successfully pull off such a scenario. "Just give them a computer, it'll be easier to write!"
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 13:36
Does this Blog come with a dictionary?
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 13:36
A real pet hate of mine is every time a character in the Matrix films lifts or aims a gun at someone, you hear the sound of it being cocked...
Did he/she do that? Nooooo!!
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 13:39
i agree with the indy stuff. the film was poor and when the monkeys came on screen i almost got up and left!
As for the Actual blog comment about computers....you have taken it too far. who cares man, go take a chill pill and relax!
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 15:20
For those of you complaining about people using the keyboard instead of the mouse, it's worth bearing in mind that a lot of hardcore geeks hate using the mouse, and will use the keyboard almost all the time. I'm not a puritan about it meself, but I know some who are. Admittedly this isn't the case with image work, but hacking i would expect to be keyboard based. It's actually quicker to keep your hands on the keys than it is to break contact with the keyboard, switch to the mouse, click around, and then go back to the keyboard (so long as you know what keys you need to press instead)
Of course, the big pop up windows in 30 pt fonts and lots of colours are a whole different issue.
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 15:37
Right, hang on. Don't fault Terminator 2 for the hacking into ATMs, and later, hacking into the safe at Cyberdine. It's John Connor. He is reprogramming the system for his own ends. Remember he does this in the future when he reprograms Arnold to protect his younger self.
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 16:21
I have to agree with splatEric, true computer geeks would hardly ever use the mouse.
When it comes to the little details I'd have to go with the classics:
When an actor is driving down a straight road they insist on steering from side to side(it still happens).
No one ever pays for drinks at the bar.
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 16:45
Wanna know what bugs me in films/tv shows????
When people have sex then straight sfterwards get up,get dressed & go to work/to bar/to anywhere!!!!
Might be being a bit personnal & slightly pedantic here but a lap around the shower (ladies) or at least a rinse under the tap (gents) wouldnt go amiss!
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 16:46
One minor one the bugs me is to do with mobiles (Identity & more). It's like the main character is just about to get raped/killed/hurt & they need to call the police but low & behold, there's no signal & they go on & on about this. Now I don't know about everyone else, but the phones I've used can still make an emergency call when there's no signal.
Maybe it's just the American services are useless.....
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 16:57
True, "The Fridge" was annoying, but it was not as annoying as "Swinging With The Monkeys", "Landing The Aquatic Jeep On The Tree" and "Five Characters Going Over Three Waterfalls The Size of Niagara And Not One Of Them Dying Or Being Seriously Injured."
The whole Peru section was awful, including the ending which if you think about was nothing more than, "Put Skull Back, Run Away And Watch The Mummy Returns Style Implosion Of Temple From A Convenient Distance".
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 17:15
"Indiana Jones is back on the big screen after nearly 20 years! Instead of turning over every stone looking for mistakes, we should celebrate and enjoy this movie for it's many glorious moments."
It's many glorious moments.............such as...................?
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 19:24
Right, I've read all the above points, and not wishing to be left out :
Since movies began, folk have managed to fall great distances, at near terminal velocity at times, and catch hold of something, allowing them to stop and swing about safely for another few minutes etc. Most people don't have the ability to hang from one arm for more than a few seconds(try this at home), let alone from a height. This is before considering the injuries already sustained, and the sort of thing they manage to grab, like Obi-wan clinging to what looks like piano wire in Attack of George Lucas' fridge drawings!! Why didn't his Jedi fingers end up at the bottom of the ocean?
Further to that, COLD! Sooooo many people climb from lakes(often having been beneath the ice), and proceed to operate equipment/fight villains etc. The same happens to those trapped in the Arctic wastes, walk in freezers or whatever. I used to sell door-to-door mid November, and once lucky enough to be invited in to close a sale, couldn't hold my f*ckin pen!!
Points to David Mamet and Arec Bar-rin, for 'The Edge', which finally showed that while hypothermic, a simple zipper on an inside pocket can be MURDER!
Sorry, I appear to have gone on a bit.
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 20:52
Angusto, great post! I have that conversation every damn day...
1. Various methods of alerting the user he has email. Only Tell No-One seems to have done it properly: subtle bing-bong noise and a tiny icon near the clock; not a screen-filling animated envelope with orchestral sound alert. If my computer did that I'd put my foot through it after ten minutes!
2. Admittedly, this isn't common, but it's so stupid I have to mention it. A CCTV stream that can change angle, has editing, and even zooms!
3. Character has flashback, but they just show us the same scene from earlier, even though they couldn't have had that point of view.
4. Wrong sounds: tyre screeches on gravel; tape recorders with surround sound; etc.
5. I'm in no way anti-America, but how the heck have they won every war? The fact they took two years to get stuck in to WWII is always glossed over, but worse, according to U571, they got the Enigma machine...
Now I liked Crystal Skull, but if you think it belongs here, then ok. Opinions, and all that, but don't start arguing about it. It's supposed to be comments on a blog, not another "What did you think of Indy 4" thread!
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 21:25
Easy on the caffeine, Dyer.
Posted on Wednesday June 4, 2008, 23:09
Regarding people not using a mouse in the movies being unrealistic I agree to a point, certainly your average user needs it but a real expert on a computer can easily get by without. You can use a PC without a mouse but you can't use a PC without a keyboard (well I guess you could but you'd be limited, and slow)
If you're fast enough then it's quicker to never take your hands off the keyboard then it is to ever use a mouse.
Posted on Thursday June 5, 2008, 00:47
I feel I must bring to people's attention the totally preposterous 24 (pick a season, any season), which streches the use of technology and coincidence too far on a regular basis. Plus Dennis Hoppers' 'accent' in season 1 is hilarious.
On the subject of Indy 4, I was just so glad to see the man back on my cinema screen that the 2 hours passed in a joyful haze. The fridge bit and the other over the top moments to me seem very much in keeping with the rest of the series - it's tongue in cheek with knowing winks - I'm in agreement with crazymoviesdude.
Posted on Thursday June 5, 2008, 09:33
Did anybody else get really angry when Neo got powers in the real world and could see when blind? Where did all the science go from the first film!?!
Or how Uwe Boll continues to get work, truly boggles the mind.
Posted on Thursday June 5, 2008, 09:34
Worst culprit of all, no arguing...
In the Sex and the City one of them sends a picture message from an iPhone. (Which you can't do).
Posted on Thursday June 5, 2008, 10:13
Transformers - What the hell is it that that really irritating hacker does? I mean, what the hell kind of a programme is that. every time I watch it, it really grates. You can't do that! It's a PC!!!!
Posted on Thursday June 5, 2008, 11:39
Can I remove my comment? I don't want to be associated with such blatant saps.
Yes, I am talking to you "Cletus van Damme".
Posted on Thursday June 5, 2008, 12:06
Sorry to burst your bubble with the 3d operating system in Jurassic Park, but that was actually an experimental 3d rendering of a file system called FSN. It was as slow as hell though and completely unuseable.
Cletus Van Damme
Posted on Thursday June 5, 2008, 12:24
What ARE you on about?
Posted on Thursday June 5, 2008, 12:50
Bravo... My BSc in Information Systems was completly worth it only because it lets me appreciate how hillarious this article is. Now I know I'm not alone at huffing at the screen when some geek, genius or not as in the Transformers instantly decodes an alien code by pressing a button and uses some GUI and algorithm (he/she just happens to have lying around) on some commercially available hard and software nevermind the processing time for a script of that presumed complexity. NASA/NSA/MIT/CIA/MI6 noooo... some idiot in his mothers basement of course!
Posted on Thursday June 5, 2008, 12:51
Based on Indy IV logic I wonder if after the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings there were lots of people wandering around going "the whole city has been reduced to rubble...but at least my Muller Light is still good"?
Posted on Thursday June 5, 2008, 12:53
The thing that really grinds my gears about Hollywood's depiction of 'real life' is: how come everyone has the driving ability of Lewis Hamilton & The Stig's bastard offspring? No matter what their profession or background - nurse, teacher, park ranger they're all quite happy hot dogging around. And why, when they're jinking through traffic at 110mph do the other road users calmly maintain theie speed & direction? Meanwhile, in the real world, you so much a drop a sweet wrapper out of your window on th motorway and it causes a 50 car pile up.
Posted on Thursday June 5, 2008, 13:19
ok, i didn;t read all the posts - but on the technology side of things, on the computer side of things - WHERE IS THE FUCK MOUSE?! and why is it that to send a virus/hack into a computer, all you have to do is jam some keys, press space F1 and enter at the same time and BANG, you're in! nothing to click on? no windows to move around so you can see everything properly?
i think every computer in every film is devoid of a mouse, pop ups, security check boxes and reality!!
Posted on Thursday June 5, 2008, 13:52
Brilliant! I absolutely agree. I also have the problem that I studied biology, so things like forensic tests results coming back from the lab within half an hour or anything involving cloning just drives me crazy.
There was a great series on the BBC a few years ago called Hollywood Science. In each episode they picked 3 movie scenes and tested the plausibility of the science. Apparently the method of breaking into the safe in The Score might actually have worked, but catapulting over the wall in Robin Hood:Prince of Thieves would have left Robin rather dead. Which in that movie might not have been a bad thing...
Posted on Thursday June 5, 2008, 13:54
I always thought that the Mac-Alien interface problem could have been solved with one throw away line about how they reverse enginered most of the "advanced" technology from the crashed UFO.
Posted on Thursday June 5, 2008, 14:01
It's my opinion that all this movie 'faux I.T.' has spawned a generation of people who assume that all I.T. matters can be fixed at a quick click of a button....
Working in I.T. this has become a severe pain. I'm expected to know everything about a profession that encompasses a lot of fields! Now I know that watching someone slave over an I.T. problem that envolves nothing more that staring at a screen for hours may not make good viewing, but for the sake of all people in my field of work please try and make it a little realistic!
Posted on Thursday June 5, 2008, 14:43
For me it really depends on the context what breaks the magic. The fridge thing doesn't bug me a bit in Indy4 but it would bug me plenty in some more serious film.
Posted on Thursday June 5, 2008, 15:37
a personal favorite of mine on the computer side of things is that in films, normal computers manage to handle conversations with the user, and do things that a computer isn't made to do..
example: the fly, he types in questions and informally asked the computer to do things..'has brundle assimlated fly?' where are the boxes to click, or the help bar?
in highlander, there's a bit where the computer knows how to take a piece from 5 different signatures and piece them together to form a name or something.. the doctor or whoever he is prefixes this action with '..and incase there's any doubt' and turns the screen round to show the computer working its magic..yeah, incase there's any doubt watch this computer do something completely ridiculous.
Posted on Thursday June 5, 2008, 16:28
I get so much backlash from this, but I think the disengaging of the force shield in ID4 was not so outrageous (well, for a movie with aliens in it) as people make it out to be.
JG's character obviously knew a lot about computers, signals, etc. And he also had the alien ship that crashed landed on Earth. So if he had about 3-4 hours to look at the crashed ship, he could learn a great deal about the Mothership's computer system.
And maybe the virus wasn't so complex. And maybe he used some of the computer hardware from the crashed alien ship to simplify the interfacing with the mothership. I don't think it was straight "plug-n-play"
That's my theory and I'm sticking with it!
Posted on Thursday June 5, 2008, 19:01
KingButtMonkey - that was a really good article, thanks for uploading the link!
Mr Dyer, hang your head in shame for touching on a similiar subject as ONE other article posted on t'internet 5 months ago!
Posted on Thursday June 5, 2008, 19:46
A pet hate of mine is the food wastage, typical scene family ot whoever sits down to meal, mother serves food, something happens and the food is left on plate untouched..... obviously no one ever needs to eat in movies.....
Posted on Thursday June 5, 2008, 19:46
Its not technological unrealities that bug me, but historical inaccuracies, from the small (Priam taking bank the definitely ruined Briseis in Troy) to the huge (I refuse to watch U-571). I don't care how much people tell me its just a movie and its artistic licence and blah blah blah, it pi***s the heck outta me.
Posted on Thursday June 5, 2008, 20:39
Actually, Maffew, The Fly's computer interface is far from impossible. My first computer (a humble Amstrad PCW) had a Sage database program that could accept queries in English, and make a good fist of replying politely. If you swore at it it, it would tell you it wouldn't work until you asked nicely! Bored programmers could fake A.I. quite easily years before that. In a way, it might hint at something in Brundle's character that he would have made his computer that way.
Posted on Thursday June 5, 2008, 22:29
Referring back to aranel0112, I'm sure I caught one of those Hollywood Science episodes, in which they showed how the 50ft jump in Speed wouldn't have worked. I was surprised to find out that it would've been close, and might have worked had there been more of an incline before the jump. Still, I guess having Keanu, Sandra & co smash into the side of the unfinished freeway and detonating the bomb would've ended the movie on a bit of a downer... At least there wouldn't have been a Speed 2.
Posted on Friday June 6, 2008, 00:48
"Nuking The Fridge" is the new "Jumping The Shark"
Posted on Friday June 6, 2008, 09:09
Modern moviegoers are so boring!
For crying out loud, The fridge thing was over the top but so is everything in an Indians Jones Movie. We'll take one of my favourite films, and accepted king of the genre Raiders of the lost ark. Just SOME of the daftness that we accept.
. Why is there a two seater plane waiting for INDY? was he expecting everyone else to die? How can he never have seen the giant pet snake before?
His hat, come on! :)
A U-boat that NEVER submerges? If it did where the hell was Indy hiding? those things are abot a big as a Hummer!
What the hell happened to Marcus Brody in the 2 years between Raiders and Last Crusade to turn him from the suave, cool gentleman of Raiders into the bumbling English, public school chiinless wonder of Last Crusade? seriously, his Cojones got chopped off big style! i
(been said) but we're happy with jumping out of a plane in a life raft, landing in a raging river and dying, but the fridge and the duck / waterfall thing from Skulls we can't?
The monkey spy from raiders yes, naughty monkeys in skull no (not exactly the same but as Indy says "come on".)
Again the animals in temple of doom?
The invisble bridge in last crusade?
the width of the tunnel the plane goes through in last crusade?
Let's not even get into the issue with Jews, Christians AND hindus ALL being right. (I know you could argue that only the Jewish / Christian God is represented and as that is same being it could just be the Christians that are right, but BOTH Hindu AND Christian Gods YES Aliens no?
You can pick anything apart if you choose to. There's no more nonsense in this than any other Indiana jones movie, maybe the issue is you were too young to notice / care the 1st time around?
(on a side note, I'm really not saying it would work, but if you think a 1950s fridge is anything like the ones you see today you're wrong. It's like comparing a mini to a tank. they might as well have been made of adamantium)
Posted on Friday June 6, 2008, 09:26
Well said everton, pretty much in agreement
one that hasnt been mentioned is the 'defying the law of gravity' moments so common after the Matrix came out
Charlies Angles being the first that comes to mind. Yes the could run up walls in the Matrix because there was an accepted reason given in the film, however in real life if you tried running along a wall to avoid a fight you would promptly end up on your ass
And dodging bullets in super cool slow mo has really run its course.
El Robo Diablo
Posted on Friday June 6, 2008, 09:40
again, this is a plagiarised article. see my post just above (#89) for a link to the real article. this is a bunch of ripped-off crap.
support quality writing.
Posted on Friday June 6, 2008, 12:52
The thing that's annoyed me most, recently, was from Iron Man. I loved the movie and I was happy to believe all the superhero stuff but the movie lost credibility for me when Pepper Potts managed to run in three-inch stillettos on a metal grating.
I'm sorry but that's just not possible.
Posted on Friday June 6, 2008, 13:16
This goes so far towards explaining the Terminator conversation. Although I actually agree about most of these...
Posted on Friday June 6, 2008, 17:11
Ah, it really ticks me off when people light a cigarette, have half a drag on it and then throw it away. No smoker ever does that in real life.
Oh, and swinging through the trees with monkies at, what, 40mph? Not good Steven, not good.
Posted on Friday June 6, 2008, 17:51
NUKED. THE. FRIDGE.
That is all.
Posted on Saturday June 7, 2008, 01:24
On Independce Day.....THANK GOOD GOD someone else besides me screams bloody murder at the tv (because guess what, Independence Day is on for the quadrilienth time this year- that's right its on so often that i made up a number to quantify it) during that bit in Independence Day when Goldblum heroically ends the aliens' quest for inter-planetary domination with a super nerdery the likes of which have never been seen in the galaxies: an Earth computer virus. What they ain't got McAfee? I kid, I kid...seriously though, what f***ing libertines, eh? Gets me every time- such a comedown after Bill Pullman's hi-larious speech. ;0) do I still watch it again and again? Of course. But that's neither here nor there, now is it?
Posted on Saturday June 7, 2008, 02:17
oh and before i go...has everyone forgotten Signs? Sure, it had some quality tension building moments but its Reveal?! I remember feeling that panicky feeling...like I'd just eaten something and wasn't sure if it had gone off...was it simply repeating on me or had I given myself food poisoning? Then, as I was exiting the cinema it occured to me: what would have happened to the aliens if it had rained? I never got round to Lady in the Water and I didn't mind Unbreakable- it had its own park-yer-brain charms and was beautifully shot but I'm really hoping The Happening doesn't see him blow it, AGAIN just for the sake of contrived cleverness. The ending of The Village made me sad for him to the extent that I was almost annoyed at myself for copping it 30 mins before it was over.
but dear, benevolent God surely intelligent beings sensitive to water would run a few tests: ie. Can we breath on this here planet we're looking to invade? Check. Ummm...Is there anything about in abundance that will kill us or disfigure us horribly? No? Umkay then, charter a course for that planet...yeah...the blue one. You know, the one that's 70% water. Look Shyamalan, we're not your bitches. You can't drug us up on pretty imagery and then slap us around a bit just before you piss off home. Pull the finger out man!
I feel better now. aw, you guys....you're the best. Hahahhaa! God I'm such a raging nerd.;0) xx
Posted on Saturday June 7, 2008, 11:14
:) loving the heels thing!
Cheers, gotta say, as I loved Blade, when thy did the slow mo bullet dodging in the Matrix it was already getting "old" then everyone did it, all the time. As for running along walls, It might work in Chinese fantasy tales, or even Jackie Chan movies, but lord it's so over. I swear they were even doing that in Charmed, CHARMED!!!!
Posted on Saturday June 7, 2008, 11:52
"I hate it when films use edits. Cutting from one shot to another... life just isn't like that. I hate fiction too. It's just not real." Gimme a motha fockin' break!
Posted on Saturday June 7, 2008, 13:47
You know films aren't real, right?
Posted on Saturday June 7, 2008, 14:38
If i hear one more gun make a cocking noise as it is raised i will scream! I know that if i raised my weapon and it rattled like some film-weapons do, i sure as hell wouldn't fire it!
Plus the sheer amount of stuff that movies claim will stop gunfire, car doors for example, a 5.56mm will go through both sides of a car without breaking a sweat.
Posted on Saturday June 7, 2008, 16:02
Personally I don't have an issue with Indy surviving the fridge as if we are lead to believe Indy 4 actually carries on from the earlier films then he can't die. But of course if we are lead to believe this then why did his father die as he drank from the cup also
Posted on Saturday June 7, 2008, 16:52
The knight said that the price of immortality is that you have to stay within the temple.
Posted on Saturday June 7, 2008, 17:08
wow. What a complete and utter waste of everything.
wow, you mean when we see the white house explode or luke skywalker make his final run on the death star it isn't real?
fuck, i thought Mission Impossible was a documentary.
Posted on Saturday June 7, 2008, 18:38
haha! Mission Impossible, a documentary lol.Good one clarkkent.
Anyway, even though I think it's quite sad, worrying and ranting about things like this, I always wonder, how do actors run into train stations, jump the barriers and get on the train? I mean, there's NO WAY you could do that on the london underground! That's just a bit too unreal for me.
Apart from that, My good Lord, It's JUST a film.
Posted on Saturday June 7, 2008, 23:49
Cletus Van Damme, as for your argument about plate glass windows, I went through one and I didn't get a scratch on me. And another thing.. Cars don't stop bullets, that is correct, although they can change the direction of the bullet and have you ever thought that the people hiding behind cars is just HIDING so that the bad guy with the guns can't see where to shoot?
Surely that's one of the things that annoys me, when the "goodguy" and the "badguy" empty their clips and hit nothing but air, I mean, often these guys are professional hitmen/soldiers/cops... they should do some more target practise before they're allowed to use that weapon again.
That's what I like about the Bourne series, there's no shootout where they miss every shot. They shoot, they hit, cuz they're professionals.
That's all for me, please excuse my writing, over'n'out.
Posted on Sunday June 8, 2008, 14:25
Im sorry but im getting mighty sick of the Indy4 rage going on here! The article was about REALISM in film!! HELLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOO?!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?! INDIANA JONES IS ESSENTIALLY A FANTASY FILM!! Why do people keep slaggin off its lack of realsim? im gettin sick of people in every area of my life (not just this stupid forum! grrr) labelling this film as crap, mainly due to the end! National Treasure 2 is a 'crap' film!!!! 'Crap' used as a descriptive doesnt apply here, people just forget about the melting Nazi's and thousand year old Knights weve seen in the previous trilogy only focusing on it as an action film! Indy has always had its paranormal guise so remeber that!! i agree the end was a complete head spin but its Speilberg-he never makes things easy for his audiences!!! His popcorn reputation comes almost in whole, from the money his films make!!! The fridge might not be realistic but it was entertaining! and thats the whole point. ....and breathe
Posted on Sunday June 8, 2008, 20:38
Actually my brother and his friends can run up walls!
Posted on Monday June 9, 2008, 08:13
Time travel devices. Harry Potter (3 I think) was the most recent 'big' example. If you have something, be it a magic necklace or flying car, why not just go back to before whatever is causing you trouble in the movie and be done with it. Why doesn't Mister Potter zap back to before his mom n pops were nixed and finish the franchinse 48 movies early?
Posted on Monday June 9, 2008, 12:07
I can understand "ignoring the boring bits" lack of reality in films, e.g. never locking cars, and the cars not getting nicked, people rarely eats and no-one ever takes a dump (except Vincent Vega).
If the film is supposed to have a fantastical element to it - i can normally accomodate it. However, nuking the fridge still pisses me off, because as a sequence - it was completely un-bleeding-neccessary for the story to progress.
However, as most people have ranted on about errors in physics and computing, lets start hammering home on biochemical cock-ups.
First offender - Mission-Impossible 2. Forget the implausible action sequences. What on earth is an anti-virus. hmmmm. Doesn't exist. utter bollocks. Humans get a bacterial/fungal infection- anti-biotics to treat it. You get a virus. You're either a) Screwed and will die from it. b) Will have it for the rest of your life. c) Your immune system will eventually deal with the infected cells and "mop up" the consituent parts. No "magic bullets" involved. (okay, there might be some scope for anti-bodies, but the "informations" given in the film doesn't seem to suggest this")
My biggest annoyance of late though is lazyness in Dr. Who.
How does DNA get carried by lightning? DNA is a bloddy big molecule, and can not move through metal. Lightning or not. As for spikey Dalek DNA. It shouldn't be, but as a "depiction" I can live with it. What really pisses me off though. Spend thousands-millions on special effects, and have Daleks and aliens running about but still get the structure of DNA WRONG. It is a double Helix. A Nobel prize was awarded for elucidating it. so why when we know what its looks like, do people just draw "a couple of wavy lines" and not the actual thing? Its not going to be that much harder to do anyway!
Posted on Monday June 9, 2008, 12:10
Sorry for any dodgy spelling, and poor sentance structure above. Mid rant I get a bit ahead of my self and forget to go back and edit.
Posted on Monday June 9, 2008, 12:40
Guys, however far fetched the ideas of technologly used in film, are they are there to advance the plot of the film. Films (even those 'based on a true story) are works of fiction. Would you rather have a film that carries a decent story but uses technolgy that is sketchy at best, or one that gets so bogged down in reality that it is boring and unwatchable?
The Indy film stuggled not because of the fridge incident, but because of a plot that was something out of a 10 year old's imagination.
If you're going to get annoyed about the use of little blurring of the edges and limits of technology you're forgetting that the whole reason that people watch films is to be entertained. How interesting would Die Hard 4.0 have been if John McClane had spent the whole time sat infront of a computer writing and running scripts, who cares if there is no 'anti-virus'. It's entertaing and a great way to escape reality for a couple of hours!
Posted on Monday June 9, 2008, 15:16
For the most fun example in real life, think back to winter 1999:
''The Millenium Bug - Or how half the world thought their computers would explode because they might be to stupid to count past 31-12-1999.''
Damn, that time was hilarious. Literally the joke of the century.
Posted on Tuesday June 10, 2008, 02:08
Keir, in Potter you can't bring back to life someone who died, so even if they did go back in time to when Voldemort was trying to kill him as a baby it wouldnt work, also they cant do something that hasnt already happened, and those timeturners are hourly, how do you calculate years back?
Posted on Tuesday June 10, 2008, 02:16
Forgot to say, i hate it when (in an emergency esp) a character is trying to get hold of a friend and calls them on their house phone instead of their mobile (which they'd be more likely to get hold of on)! Also hate it when a character sneezes when hiding just as the pursuer is about to leave. Not techy, just annoys me...
Posted on Tuesday June 10, 2008, 12:13
Here's another example of hard-to believe physics:
When Tom Cruise breaks into the Vatican in M:I III he does so by putting a photograph in front of a CCTV camera so it will show an image without him in it.
1. The picture he takes just happens to replicate the exact angle of the camera
2. He puts the picture about 5 centimeters in front of the lense yet on the security screen the picture isn't out of focus at all even though the camera is focused on a wide angle.
Posted on Wednesday June 11, 2008, 15:25
Has anybody mentioned the first x files movie?
I'm referring chiefly to the climax wherein a soaking wet Mulder and Scully somehow seem able to walk home barefoot from the Antarctic after all the snowcats or any other usable vehicles fall into the massive big hole left by the buried spaceship? (presumably this is where it went once Indy saw it off)
Posted on Wednesday June 11, 2008, 17:36
Posted on Monday June 9, 2008, 12:07
Dr. Who? seriously? The "dna" of an alien species?
methinks this talkback has "jumped the shark" or "nuked the fridge".
Especially as people are now moaning about the physics of time travel, which every 8 year old knows means if you travel back in time you can't interfere with events in your own past, or you'll cause yourself not to go back in time, AND interfere with your own past.......... mind boggling, brain liquifying paradoxes ensue!
Posted on Friday June 13, 2008, 10:42
Yes, seriously (I am assuming you are not questioning the fact that I watch and am commenting on the longest running sci-fi TV show).
As a biochemist, I get pissed off when "The Truth" (As James Dyer puts it" is missing. I feel that just as many liberties get taken with my field of interest as get taken with other areas. I just feel it just gets overlooked more often as there are [geusstimation] less people who feel confident about their biological/ chemistry knowledge than their physics/computing knowlegde.
So, telling me that even though Dalek DNA looks different to human DNA (bear in mind, that human DNA, as a molecule, looks pretty much the same as that for all other species on the planet), is taking a liberty, as it means that Dalek DNA isn't actually DNA.
Its like saying to a computer programmer that C++ and Java are the same thing. Or suggesting that PCs and Macs communicate flawlessly.
However, as I said, I can stomach it as it makes the depiction easier for viewers.
And as for my other Dr. Who gripe, getting the structure wrong for DNA, when time and money was spent making sure that New York looked historically acurate is a case of lazy research.
Posted on Friday June 13, 2008, 17:36
First of all, in response to comment #90 by everton, as a 17 year old, I am a young movie-goer and I love nothing more than the 'daftness' that everyone is criticising in Indy 4, other than that, kudos on your response everton!
And to everyone who is shooting down Indy, when (and only when) you create a franchise as big as Indiana Jones can you freely slate and slag it off.
You know, if you want realisim, maybe movies aren't the right way to go, I hear documentaries are much more suited to your needs.
Posted on Sunday June 15, 2008, 13:36
HERE HERE Daftlikejack!!!!!!
Posted on Sunday June 15, 2008, 22:12
I may be joining this debate a little late and forgive me if i reiterate what has been said before but I'm all for heightened realism in films that don't purport to be real. The Indy films deal with mystical, spiritual or other (no spoilers for non-'Skull' veterans) forces and so you can allow them the odd face-melting or little tribal pygmies coming out of the walls.
Bond films, on the other hand, begin to jarr when we are led to believe a bloke can paraglide across a tidal-wave of water and ice, that a car can be given a cloaking device or even that M's personal lap top has software sophistcated - and user-friendly - enough to pinpoint the exact location that a text message was sent using lovely map models and satisfying whirrs and beeps.
A film that can set up it's own rules and stick to them - no matter how unreal they are - is perfectly fine. Take Sixth Sense - Cole gives us the rules right there in the hospital bed and the film stays true to its promises.
And ok - you could argue that something like X-Men takes it a bit far cos all the mutants just happen to have rather useful powers due to their mutations. But a film about guys who can turn orange juice into apple juice or grow their fingernails quite quickly (thanks, Family Guy!) wouldn't really make for a satisfying experience at the cinema...
Posted on Friday June 20, 2008, 20:54
Personally I thought the fridge thing was brilliant, who cares if its real or not, to be fair (and I know Im repeating what others have said) but you always had to take the old Indy films with a pinch of salt and so why should the new one be any different! I loved it, even the aliens!
Posted on Wednesday June 25, 2008, 14:40
What really gets me is that when characters are walking quickly between rooms in a house or flat, nobody ever gets their clothes caught on a door handle. That kind of stuff just doesn't happen in real life.
Posted on Sunday August 3, 2008, 13:07
What gets me is:
1. When picking up on holes in logic you could drive a bus through, blinded fans say "When you make a film as big as Star Wars' only then can you criticise...
WRONG!!!! I can criticise anything if it's crap. If your local restaurant poisons you or the food is just awful, are you only allowed to complain/sue if you're also a restauranteur? Bollocks.
2. It's only a movie!
So that excuses any and everything? WRONG!!!!!
If I read a book and it's logically ludicrous, I put it down and if anyone asks, I will tell them it's shit. If I see a movie and it's logically ludicrous, then I will also tell people it's shit. Logic does not only apply to every day physics, but also to fictional 'science' and even magic. One of the first rules of writing is 'internal logic' - you can have magic, fantastic science, defying unbelievable odds..., but it needs internal consistency. Nothing kills suspension of disbelief more than breaking this internal logic, whether it be in a realistic drama or high fantasy, such as Superman (flying round the earth backwards to reverse time... Puh-lease - even at 10 I knew that was ridiculous, even though I was Superman mad).
3. Indy 4 apologisers.
Yes, Indy has always been about surviving ridiculous odds, but when it goes TOO FAR (nuking the fridge), then only an idiot still clings to the 'but it's Indy - anything goes' line. Crap is crap is crap. Indy just got crap. It's hard, I know, but give it up - Spielberg and Lucas don't care any more - why should you?
I could go on (and on and on...), but Sunday lunch calls...
Posted on Friday August 15, 2008, 19:22
there is one thing i hate: when they never use the mouse on the computer. i mean they ALWAYS save the world, disarm the bomb, hack into some security systems without a mouse or the pad. i mean what are they typing? turn off bomb please?