Loopholes you Could Drive a Truck Through
-
bailey23_ — 16 years ago(January 04, 2010 03:11 PM)
Agreed. People are so stupid and get so mad about Spoilers when it's like, duh - don't read threads about movies you haven't seen if you don't want to accidentally find out things you don't want to know. I have no idea why people would come to these boards in the first place unless they've seen the movie or don't plan on ever seeing it. A loopholes thread is QUITE CLEARLY going to discuss plot points, and if you're just posting "zomg, LOOPHOLES, tell me if u agree" then u probably shouldn't even be posting that inane crap in the first place. People are dumb an just want to blame everyone but themselves for their own stupidity. It took me exactly ONE time to figure out that if u don't want a movie to be spoiled, DO NOT LOOK FOR INFO ABOUT IT ON THE INTERNET. Done and done. Idiots.
-
mk1 — 17 years ago(June 06, 2008 05:00 AM)
Agreed. "Loopholes" should have been enough to tell you that the topic of conversation will be about events in the movie. When is this NOT the case?
When I browse through the message boards of movies I have not yet watched but plan to, I browse very carefully. I assure you I definitely would not click on a topic that contained "loopholes" in its title.
P.S. Doesn't the OP actually mean "plotholes"? -
Zaphryn — 16 years ago(September 08, 2009 02:57 PM)
MESSAGE BOARDS:
What comes to mind when you see these two words put together?
Do you assume we will discuss the movie without ever having seen it?
Does logic fail you?
Use your 'midget' brain. Heck, even read the title of this post.
YOU show some regard. 'PLEASE'. -
ndatmo-1 — 16 years ago(September 08, 2009 03:11 PM)
At this point, who even knows who is addressing whom. However, thank you lavashopI like the understatement that is
'That is so inconsiderate.'
You wouldn't think that anyone would attempt to discuss a film without having seen it but
they do, and frequently.
..Hate is the essence of weakness in the human mind.. -
patrick-310 — 18 years ago(September 27, 2007 02:33 PM)
So, sentence by sentence or thought by thought or if you will, impression by impression.
Here is a woman strangulated by fear. Implausible, perhaps, but a stranger has taken over.
What people were standing outside the convenience store? Possible that passersby would have heard something, but there were no lurking characters as there were in the gun shop scenario.
The chicken crossed the road to She had fired her weapon seven times previous to that encounter, having personally used a M1911 left handed without support the first time, you learn quick.
Her blood was contained in the sleeve of her jacket. You don't even see it when she gets home and meets her 'apple' neighbor.
Too bad that you didn't like it, the dog thing I would've changed, but as you said it's a metaphor, metaphor for life, a previous, happy, enjoyable life, that's now irreparably destroyed. The ending 'fit', how would you conclude this movie having two grieving almost inter-dependent souls? -
Inspector085 — 18 years ago(October 05, 2007 12:45 AM)
Why write a comment about loopholes if you won't describe the loopholes, especially after the movie has released? Yeah "SPOILER ALERT" really not necessary here. Imagine a comment header that read this:
"Analysis of pivotal twists in the movie"
Now, wouldn't the following be somewhat redundant?
"Analysis of pivotal twists in the movie -SPOILER ALERT-"
"Giggity giggity giggity goo! Aaaaallllll riiight"
-Quagmire -
shi-9 — 18 years ago(October 13, 2007 01:45 PM)
no wonder ADD is rife over there.
So many things are quick and fast and not make to make you think.
So, becoming a nation of thick people you have to beep write SPOILERS where it is beep obvious to those that have a clue.
humans are stupid. -
claytonp-1 — 18 years ago(October 21, 2007 01:09 PM)
Why the heck do you have to write SPOILER ALERT - I would not read anything that says WORST ENDING EVER or LOOPHOLES or WHAT HAPPENED TO XXX? as a title on a message board post if I had not seen the movie, they are here to discuss the movie not give hints as to what happens
Agh! Idiots -
-
tindog — 18 years ago(April 05, 2008 11:18 AM)
No, Inspector, you still need to use "Spoiler Alert" if you believe you are revealing anything about the movie that might spoil the viewing for someone else. Your assertion makes no sense here because for one thing, the phrase "Analysis of pivotal twists in the movie" is not the same as "Loopholes you could drive a truck through", and in either case, it would be easy to write a post under both of those titles that does not reveal plot points or other details, so the only way to make it known that there are definitely spoilers in the post itself, is to put Spoiler Alert in the title.
This: "Analysis of pivotal twists in the movie -SPOILER ALERT" isn't inherently redundant, it only appears that way it becomes redundant only if there are spoilers in the post. -
chipe — 18 years ago(October 07, 2007 10:45 PM)
I put all of this under "suspension of disbelief." . The one thing that got to me, though, is the way she stood still as the car raced towards her and killed the driver with one or two shots, and the car missed her. I just thought they could have made a more realistic way for her to kill the "pimp." . . Also, people wanting to avoid spoilers shouldn't be even looking at the subject index title page of this board the titles alone give much away.
-
bpressey — 18 years ago(October 08, 2007 11:22 AM)
I put all of this under "suspension of disbelief."
Pet Peeve Alert!. I believe you really mean suspend belief. The other way makes absolutely no sense. Suspending disbelief would imply that you bought into it totally. Sort of a sideways double negative.
English Police Out. -
aoeu00-1 — 18 years ago(October 10, 2007 02:31 PM)
I had the same feelings as the 1st post here.
I was watching closely and during the subway "police arrival" scene, you see guys doing what they are supposed to do looking for fingerprints. When Jodie 1st approached the dude in the car, her hand was totally touching the car frame. I'm pretty sure she was using her bare hands! Duh! She also touched the handle to enter the vehicle.
And yes, Jodie just holding the girl and walking away in front of the car was the LAMEST part of the movie. was so obvious what was going to happen. Jodie, with her now "high alertness/awareness", would NOT have ignored the guy who she just pointed a gun to? Very stupid scene.
Also, when she killed the guy with a crowbar, her blood would have been there on the scene and possibly dripping at least part of the way back to her place.
However, if you ignore these stupid flaws in the movie, the ending was still decent.
