Sure looks like it. The same btw applies to computers, cell phones, every damn piece of electronics. Answer the cell. *bleep* Set destination on a GPS navigator. *bleep* Run a program on a computer. *bleep* Type on a computer. *bleep**bleep**bleep**bleep**bleep**bleep**bleep* And the deafness doesn't even apply just to electronics: so often I see two characters move, like, two yards away from a third character, lower their voices, and whisper, but obviously loudly enough for the third party to hear every word, but somehow they don't. I realize the mics have to catch their words, but couldn't they have moved furhter away from the third guy? Or then figure out another way to convey the information than whispering (or, as is more often the case, actually talking under their breaths) right next to the person who isn't supposed to hear you.
Absolutely! They did it in World War Z, the guy KNOWS that noises set the zombies off on a rampage but does he put his phone on silent? Does he heck!! and then he gets a call ... and you guessed it! aaarrrggghhh, fresh flesh ... I mean, surely they could have made a noise another way, they were on bikes, one of them could have had squeaky brakes ... Twenty years ago, you could've gotten away with the mobile phone thing, they were very new to the market, few people owned them and no-one really knew how they worked. We all remember that one person on the bus who would shout into his/her mobile "I'm on the bus ... yeah! ... Great innit? I'm on the bus ..." but in this day and age where everyone has a phone and everyone is connected, the first thing you do in a serious situation, is either turn it off or put it on silent. Good lord, we do it in the cinema so we sure as hell are gonna put that little bugger on silent if we are trying to avoid zombies by being quieter than a mouse!
Maybe the writers wanted to imply the characters are so scatter-brained, they don't have the levelheadedness to do what's logical and sensible to every other person? All too often writers just can't be arsed to put in the effort and then they write supposedly smart, skilled, brave etc. characters committing the most incredibly stupid blunders you can think of just for the sake of "suspense." And how come people always drop their weapons when it matters the most? They climb, crawl, vault over fences, walk on hands over hot coals etc. while gripping their Glock, but as soon as the bad guy appears, the gun goes flying to the moon. Yeah, it can happen, but I can assure you, if you're in a life and death -situation, you sure as hell squeeze the living crap out of your gun/sword/whatever just for the reason that it does not go flying when a bloody mosquito farts at you ten miles away! And especially when we're talking about people who are supposed to know how to use guns, it would sorta kinda make sense they gripped the guns hard enough that they don't go flying. I mean, recoil would toss it out of your hands anyway if you don't have a firm grip, so you grip your gun hard by default 'cause that's how you always grip it, even when you're just moving around with the pistol in your hand. But no, it's easier to write "experts" turn into amateurs... but only when it's convenient.
Absolutely (I laughed so hard I nearly spat biscuit crumbs all over my laptop!) There are more ways to build suspense than having the good guy lose his gun/sword/whatever. Sometimes that just makes it worse for me as then he/she has to save the world with nothing more than bare hands and a rubber band!
Can't say I agree with that. So would you condone China's government-backed system of forcibly ripping criminals' organs out for transplants? We cannot decide which human deserves or doesn't deserve mercy - we're all in need of mercy sometimes. We cannot know if said criminal has or hasn't repented, and while I would not condemn a victim for not being able to forgive, I would not think it's right or good to condemn a criminal who's remorseful. You could say, of course, only test on the criminals who are unrepentant - but come now, you can see how wrong that could go, and how quickly. Governments would simply do this on anyone they disagreed with (like China and North Korea etc). Maybe 9 out of 10 criminals are hopeless cases - but what about that 1 who could've had a different life if someone gave him the chance? Shown him some mercy and guided him back to the right path? As Abraham said, "But if there were 100 good men, would you not destroy the city?" When God said yes, Abraham pushed on: "But Lord, what if there were only 10 good men? If there were 10 good men, would you not destroy the city?" Perhaps animals are more innocent than man, but I simply cannot agree to testing on criminals even so. The horror we're freely willing to put upon them is too much - we do not understand what we're saying, I do not think, when we say we should test on criminals instead. Just like T.Trian's friends who joked about rape and violence before they encountered it themselves. We do not know what we're saying. Perhaps one bad act deserves another, but you know the moments that move me to tears? When one who has no reason or cause to forgive chooses to forgive, and even love instead. It's not the moment when the victim points a gun at the criminal and shoots - it's the moment when the victim reaches out and cries with the criminal - that's the moment that moves me, and I assume masses of others. That's the moment we live for, and strive for, and the moment that's worth anything at all.
Your post made me laugh Best quote ever Btw I will reply to your other longer post soon, maybe via PM so we don't derail the thread any further! (well, said I, when I'd just replied to the animal testing subject on the same thread... oops)
It's just not something I agree with. Animals are very different to us. What blinds a rabbit may not blind us and vice versa. Also, how do you know which criminals will repent and which ones won't?
I'm a total hypocrite for saying this 'cause I did participate in some OT myself, but it really would be better if the animal/human testing discussion was continued in the Debate Room in its own thread. I don't think there is one yet, so someone needs to start one. How about it, @cutecat22, you sorta kinda started it, so I figured I'd give first dibs of thread starter to you.
I think it was mckk that originally mentioned it when we were talking about the effects of violence and those who joke about it until they have experienced, or are close to someone who has experienced that violence but yes, I'll happily start a thread for you.
Aight, back to topic: Why do the unsuspecting protagonists always do the stupid thing when they encounter a bad guy pretending not to be doing anything suspect? Example: a murderer has a caravan stashed away in the woods so he can slice and dice his victims in peace. He's had the caravan in the same spot for years. He's standing outside the caravan when two hikers, the protagonists, wander to the clearing. They stop to greet the murderer, thinking he's just a random codger, maybe ask for directions (since no self-respecting hiker protagonist ever carries a GPS navigator or even a map+compass). The murderer lies that he's just passing through, that he arrived today, and has just stopped for the night. One of the protagonists notices there are no fresh tire tracks on the ground, the caravan is surrounded by fallen leaves etc, indicating it hasn't moved for months, maybe longer. At that point, of course the protagonist just absolutely must blurt out something along the lines of "Just passing through, you say? But... there are no fresh tire marks. This caravan hasn't moved anywhere in months, maybe longer!" And at that point the protagonists realize the codger lied to them, the codger realizes they know he lied, the protagonists realize he knows that they know he lied, and the codger realizes the protagonists know that he knows that they know he lied. And hence he has to capture them which, as it always seems, is ridiculously easy since we all know that even in the States, no hiker ever carries a gun or if they do, they sure as hell don't know how to use it. And either protagonist knowing self-defense is also an impossibility or if the girl does know how to fight, the codger still always overpowers her since another fact of film life seems to be that if the movie is just starting, the girl simply cannot fight off the codger, no matter what. If it were near the end, the matter would likely be different. That being said: why do they always go everywhere totally unarmed and unprepared? So often we see movie hikers go on extended hikes without any first-aid gear, without anything they could use as a weapon, not even a knife or an axe much less firearms, and it's a given nobody knows how to fight except the bad guy (after all, anyone who knows how to fight or carries a gun is Evil!). Then again, if we had smart protagonists who knew how to defend themselves, who carried guns and knives, and who didn't have ridiculous moral qualms about hurting the person trying to murder their fiancée, most horror films would last about 10 minutes.
That's exactly it! I went to the cinema last night - action movie - within ten minutes I was rolling my eyes at the fact that this guy was uploading something from his laptop and the bad guy said "what are you doing" and the guy said something like "oh just checking plans" when you could clearly hear the beep beep beep of the upload!
but he didn't mute the volume, I heard it! Plus, as the viewer, I didn't need to hear the beep beep beep as I could see the laptop screen (the bad guy couldn't) so I could see the upload bar counting, 88%, 89% ... before the bad guy realised what was happening and closed the laptop. What I also found a bit odd, was the file had been sent to a laboratory computer. Now, the lab had been closed and when it was opened FOURTEEN years later and the power was on, the computer miraculously started up on the right page to show the file downloading, 99%, 100%, download complete. I admit, I don't know much about computers but surely a more believable scenario would be for a home screen to appear with a notification, "Download File?" Yes/No or maybe even "Download Complete. Open File?" Yes/No.
This isn't about horror or action, but rather romance, but it's equally frustrating. I absolutely LOATHE subplots that require severe and stupid misunderstanding between characters because apparently actually asking a question or simply discussing something is forbidden. There was once, a Chinese drama. This couple (the guy was the main MC) was about to be married. Another, the girl's best friend has always been in love with the guy. Guy and best friend talk it out and they hug - nothing's happened. Fiancee witnesses the hug from a distance and ALL HELL BREAKS LOSE. Fiancee runs away and cries over her wedding dress, then promptly cancels the wedding. When the guy comes and pleads with her for a reason, she refuses to say anything. Even in a culture where hugs are uncommon, are you really gonna cancel your wedding over a bloody HUG without ever even asking a single question?! Seriously, it's like the world's worst plot ever.
Watched a movie with my eleven year old son today and he asked why movies always have a good/happy ending.
Good God, I hate when they do that. It's yet another cop-out for lazy writers. Why do they... well, not always, but way too often change the rules mid-series? I was watching Warehouse 13, and in the first episodes it was made clear that all warehouse agents must carry a firearm (or one of those thingies that shoot bolts of electricity or some such), yet in the final episodes, every so often the characters wander about unarmed just so they end up in trouble simply because they were unarmed at that moment, situations that would've been easy no-brainers if they'd been packing. This is one of the most common (and lamest) cop-outs in movies/TV. It's as if the writers absolutely hate guns and cell phones (esp. their capacity to communicate and provide the help of internet searches and GPS navigation) and do their utmost to put their characters into situations where they don't have them since a pistol and a cell solve so many problems. I understand it's more difficult to come up with dangerous scenarios for well-prepared characters, but seriously, put in a little effort, people...
The cell phone reminds me of Word War Z - did you see it? The bit where they're sneaking towards the plane they need to board without alerting the zombies, and then half way through Brad Pitt's cell rings Even I was actually waiting for that lol. The other thing I hate - again to do with romance - it's the "I can't love you!" scenario just to prolong a subplot that should've been over already. I still remember in Superman, just as Clark decides to get together with Lois, Lois decides it's a bad idea. They both come to talk and then go "Oh you go first, oh no you go first." And of course, it's always the one who decides it's a bad idea who goes first, and then the other person gives up It's like, seriously!!?? And gosh how easily do these people give up!? FIGHT for the person you love damnit - you'd die for her and yet you can't grab her and say, "No you're making a mistake, we need to be together!" And then the situation reverses and it's Clark who thinks it's a bad idea, and on and on this goes on repeat.
Show him King Kong - it's a pretty good film. Or The Painted Veil. It's quite theatrical. Oooh I know. Show him The Grave of the Fireflies!! No, no, don't do that. Grave of the Fireflies is perhaps the single most disturbing tragedy I've ever seen. It's an anime, there's no direct violence, nothing graphic, but it's definitely for adults. I watched it for the first time in my early 20s and was forever glad afterwards that my parents didn't let us watch this when we were younger. I'm never watching it again myself either. Anyway, it's a beautifully done film!
Haven't seen that one yet, but yeah, it's "funny" how often in movies/series even supposedly trained professionals (special agents and such) forget to turn off their cell's ringtones when they're sneaking about. I think that happened a couple of times in Wh13. I mean, to me it's practically automatic: I mute my phone whenever I go to a lecture, exam, doctor's appointment, job interview etc. It's not really that hard to remember it, especially if not remembering might cost your life. And totally agree about the "impossible" relationships. More often than not, the reasons the characters either don't get together or don't confess their feelings are just ridiculous, things that would be very simple to get around if they really loved one another. Hollywood writers should have a blacklist of cop-outs that wouldn't be allowed anymore (or maybe once per career), so we'd start getting more honestly exciting/interesting movies/series.
Well, in Brad Pitt's case, I still can't remember why he's supposed to be so special. It was a pretty badly-planned movie anyway. The ending was ridiculous, though the scene was kinda cool I must say. That would be really interesting to see what would happen if all these cop-outs were banned! I do confess that it feels like it'd be really hard.
Wasn't he something to do with the UN going off on peace-keeping missions but gave it all up because he didn't want to get caught up in the middle of a war zone as he had a young family at home? We talked about the cell phone scene earlier - I thought the same thing! Would have been much more believable if the chain had fallen off his bike!!!
I think he's seen King Kong (the one with Jack Black in it). Me and him absolutely LOVE Little Shop of Horrors so I told him that originally had a sad ending (google it) and the test audience absolutely panned it so they rewrote and reshot a happy ending to please the masses. More often than not, a good ending is what the public want. I know King Kong is a sad ending but it's a gorilla!!! It dies, just like Audrey II in Little Shop of Horrors. No doubt he will think about this for a week or so and come back to me with a question that starts "but, what if ...?"
There is 1408 based on a short story by Stephen King. I do believe that it avoids most of the tropes.
