Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 88

Author Topic: Nitpicks that Ruined Movies  (Read 135283 times)

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Nitpicks that Ruined Movies
« Reply #240 on: August 09, 2012, 05:00:29 pm »

Quote
Do you think I filled that plothole?

Did you need more then three paragraphs to explain it?
Well, I did have to reference parts of the movie as I explain it. Can you summarize it better?

Because the laws of time and space changed

The ending of the third movie explains it better then I did but basically time acts differently then it did in the first movie.
Logged

Sergius

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Nitpicks that Ruined Movies
« Reply #241 on: August 09, 2012, 06:17:10 pm »

*snip*

I agreed up to the point where it is Ideal-Marty going to the past instead of 1-Week-Younger-Version-of-Regular-Marty.

However:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Logged

Antioch

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Nitpicks that Ruined Movies
« Reply #242 on: August 10, 2012, 06:58:07 am »


In Batman: Dark Knight Rising
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

1. That is actually what would probably happen. Airplane wings are designed to withstand upward forces to withstand lift. The most downward force a larger plane usually receives is gravity whilst on the ground. So 300km/h headlong wind would aslmost certainly destroy the wings.

Now what really annoyed me about the last batman was:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
« Last Edit: August 10, 2012, 07:02:46 am by Antioch »
Logged
You finish ripping the human corpse of Sigmund into pieces.
This raw flesh tastes delicious!

Starver

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Nitpicks that Ruined Movies
« Reply #243 on: August 10, 2012, 07:39:19 am »

Being obviously in denial, I'd completely forgotten about the BttF time-travel thing...  "Fading out" because you're no longer part of the future (and therefore, back in time, part of the now)?  And yet with the wherewithal to realise this and make an extra spurt of effort to correct matters...  or (as it's been a while since I've seen it) to observe the almost independent re-resolution of the events in your current time-zone..?

Worst! Chronological! Paradox! Ever!

On second thoughts, Time Cop (or whatever it was that had Van Damm in) with the "you touch yourself[1], you become a CGI-effect and die" probably takes a second biscuit from the same biscuit tin, on that one.  (It'll not even be the same atoms, in each chronological version of yourself!  You're as likely to have the same atoms meet because you happened to be caught by a gust of wind that contained a few atoms of CO2 that was/will be part of your epidermis!)


But then I prefer self-consistent time-loops, in my fiction (and prefer the aesthetics for it, also, when it comes to how the reality might be).  Twelve Monkeys-style, as well as All You Zombies[2]...  And that Harry Potter fanfic involving him trying the Prime Factorisation, that I got pointed at by someone on these very forums...

(I'll also accept branching universes preserving us from pardoxes, as with parallel (and possibly skewed-in-time) universes that are the ones that you effect (or effect you, but never cyclical, or only when there's no paradox), and a complete instantaneous flip-flop of 'reality' upon any of causaility-disturbing information arrival from future, but that might as well be treated as branching, for all that anyone on either original or perturbed timeline could tell.)


Now what really annoyed me about the last batman was:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I kept an eye on the extras not directly involved in the centre of the acting[3], during that bit.  Remarkably little got done, in that scene, by anyone else. ;)

Mind you, insofar as who prevailed, it would have been a lot different without that little technological help right at the start, which probably meant there was some appropriate morale boosts/suppression, accordingly.


[1] Your future/past self, that is, before you think dirty thoughts... OTOH, it is probably the ultimate slash-fiction subject if you take it to a certain logical conclusion...

[2] With absolutely no comments about footnote-1, here... No siree...

[3] Because by that point in the film it was pretty obvious there'd be close-ups if there was going to be any particularly interesting moves coming from the main guys, and so while there were wide-shots I could safely defy the director's intended point of focus without anything too unexpected going on at the 'centre of the storm'...
Logged

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Nitpicks that Ruined Movies
« Reply #244 on: November 10, 2012, 07:47:02 pm »

JAMES BOND : SKYFALL PLOT SPOILERS CONTAINED WITHIN
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Tldr; Emma derped, welcome to the internet.
Also haaaay derrr youtube product placement :3

I'd give Skyfall a 6/10, worth seeing, but don't get your hopes up. I heard people saying it was the best Bond film Daniel Craig's been in, Casino Royale was better imo.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2012, 07:52:00 pm by Loud Whispers »
Logged

Flying Dice

  • Bay Watcher
  • inveterate shitposter
    • View Profile
Re: Nitpicks that Ruined Movies
« Reply #245 on: November 10, 2012, 08:11:43 pm »

On the Bond-empathy thing: He has been a pretty cold bastard in most of the films, regardless of actor. For good reason, too.
Logged


Aurora on small monitors:
1. Game Parameters -> Reduced Height Windows.
2. Lock taskbar to the right side of your desktop.
3. Run Resize Enable

Starver

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Nitpicks that Ruined Movies
« Reply #246 on: November 10, 2012, 10:20:11 pm »

Okay, my additions/responses to the James Bond/Skyfall thing, then, with the penalty on my memory of it being a number of days since I saw it...

Spoiler: You are warned... (click to show/hide)

Quote
I'd give Skyfall a 6/10, worth seeing, but don't get your hopes up. I heard people saying it was the best Bond film Daniel Craig's been in, Casino Royale was better imo.
Yeah, I loved the bit where he nearly hit the other guy he backed into, but they recognised each other at the last moment and did the old link-arms-and-spin-around to attack each other's attackers thing, and the French guy has to use a phrasebook to say "Ouch", and then his nephew hiccoughs his last few hiccoughs.  Oh wait, that was a different Casino Royale... ;)

Personally, I'd be tempted to give it more than 6/10, but not sure how much because I tend to be more forgiving of plot problems than some people I know.  I am worried about the rampant commercialisation behind it, if I'm going to be recommending everyone to see it, as well.  (At the same time, I'd not want to advocate the piracy method of experiencing it... I just think it's going to make a lot of money as it is, and the fact that any non-pay TV broadcast will likely come way after any patience gives out is a problem to which I have no solution.  Also, cam-versions[1] will be invariably rubbish or even of the wrong language so you really have to wait for the DVD rips to start, or settle for a leaked pre-post-production copy[2].)

But... well, YMMV, but "definitely see eventually" is my half-arsed recommendation.



[1] There was specifically a prominent warning notice at the cinema about not being allowed to record the performance where a film-advertising poster normally goes, behind the ticket desk.  Given all the usual warnings already posted at the doors to the various screens and invariably during the half-hour-long trailer segment prior to the film start, I found this overkill that could not have been a cheap extension to the already present notifications.

[2] Speaking only from experience of what others have shown me, proud to have the latest release of the moment through unethical means, only to present something that has half-finished effects or wobbly/unfocussed screen framing with toilet-goers silhouetting themselves.  No, I'd rather wait for it to be on broadcast TV than that, usually.
Logged

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Nitpicks that Ruined Movies
« Reply #247 on: November 10, 2012, 10:32:53 pm »

Quote
It'd wait for the guy to die of infection before nommin'.

In another hint that scientists can actually be just as stupid as you and me... They found out Komodo dragons actually do have poison. (unless that has changed since then)
Logged

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Nitpicks that Ruined Movies
« Reply #248 on: November 10, 2012, 11:38:06 pm »

Okay, my additions/responses to the James Bond/Skyfall thing, then, with the penalty on my memory of it being a number of days since I saw it...

Spoiler: You are warned... (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Quote
It'd wait for the guy to die of infection before nommin'.
In another hint that scientists can actually be just as stupid as you and me... They found out Komodo dragons actually do have poison. (unless that has changed since then)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Nitpicks that Ruined Movies
« Reply #249 on: November 11, 2012, 12:03:46 am »

Quote
So a quick search reveals that Komodo dragons are not poisonous, but they are venomous

Same thing if you use what people usually mean when they say "Poisonous". In that you can be "Poisoned" by that creature.

Mind you "Envenomed" is a real word too.

Quote
they've also got a venom that acts as a coagulant, making its prey bleed out or die from infection

You may want to read this very carefully for mistakes.
Logged

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Nitpicks that Ruined Movies
« Reply #250 on: November 11, 2012, 12:09:24 am »

Same thing if you use what people usually mean when they say "Poisonous". In that you can be "Poisoned" by that creature.
Did you eat the Komodo dragon, then suffer its ill effects? Hence, venom. The cure to snake venom isn't anti-poison. Anti-venom :D


Quote
they've also got a venom that acts as a coagulant, making its prey bleed out or die from infection
You may want to read this very carefully for mistakes.
What mistakes? I said they had an extremely virulent bite that also happened to be venomous. Seems legit.

Flying Dice

  • Bay Watcher
  • inveterate shitposter
    • View Profile
Re: Nitpicks that Ruined Movies
« Reply #251 on: November 11, 2012, 12:10:18 am »

Quote
they've also got a venom that acts as a coagulant, making its prey bleed out or die from infection
You may want to read this very carefully for mistakes.
What mistakes? I said they had an extremely virulent bite that also happened to be venomous. Seems legit.
Does that help?
Logged


Aurora on small monitors:
1. Game Parameters -> Reduced Height Windows.
2. Lock taskbar to the right side of your desktop.
3. Run Resize Enable

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Nitpicks that Ruined Movies
« Reply #252 on: November 11, 2012, 12:11:43 am »

You guys.

You guys.

Are the.

Worst.

>_<

Cheers.

Flying Dice

  • Bay Watcher
  • inveterate shitposter
    • View Profile
Re: Nitpicks that Ruined Movies
« Reply #253 on: November 11, 2012, 12:12:43 am »

Cheers, mate.  :P
Logged


Aurora on small monitors:
1. Game Parameters -> Reduced Height Windows.
2. Lock taskbar to the right side of your desktop.
3. Run Resize Enable

Max White

  • Bay Watcher
  • Still not hollowed!
    • View Profile
Re: Nitpicks that Ruined Movies
« Reply #254 on: November 11, 2012, 12:17:03 am »

Hand on to your nostalgia, because I am about to destroy something you hold dear!

Howls Moving Castle
Pretty good movie, right? Well let's take a look at some of the symbolism involved in the movie and what some of the characters represent.
Howl is the 'Ladies man'. He is good looking and mysterious. In the movie, magic is a metaphor for the power of speech, and Howl is about as charismatic as it gets. He is also shallow and vein, spending at least an hour every morning putting lotions on to try and look his best. He is also known for 'Eating the hearts of pretty girls', meaning going out with them until they get attached to him, then dumping them like the jerk that he really is. He is so narcissistic that even his own mother (Role filled by the Queen) worries about what will become of him.
Turnip Head is the 'Best friend' who is in love with Sophie, but he can't tell her. Throughout the movie, he is always willing to help Sophie in one way or another. When Howl gets annoyed at Sophie and she ends up crying out in the pouring rain, it is Turnip Head who holds up umbrella over her, leaving himself to get wet. He loves her too much to ever see her suffer. Yet all he ever does is say nothing and smile. He plays the role of the friend who can never express his feelings because he feels they won't be returned.

So, in the end, who gets the girl? Is it the guy who has verbally abused Sophie when things didn't work out perfectly for him, or the guy who genuinely cares for her? No prizes for knowing that Howl wins this round.
Moral of the story? The jerk always wins.


Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 88