Loopholes you Could Drive a Truck Through
-
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. -
benjm — 18 years ago(October 12, 2007 08:02 PM)
Yes, when you have a serious actor in a serious film about a serious subject, it is a real downer when scenes include very stupid stuff. Here I am, empathizing with the character and following all the details of a well-crafted film, and then it gets dumb, makes me cringe and blows my enjoyment following the rest of the film. Why do they have to ruin a good thing?
One thought is that they only have so much time to setup and convey stuff, and the director goes for an easy out to conserve time and move-on to a more important scene? Maybe not
How about they have to throw some scenes to the dumb people who can't follow the logic of the film anyway, and just want to see dumb action and think nothing above "Yeah! kill the " So, this theory holds that the writers and directors have to dish out both thoughtful scenes for thoughtful people and dumb scenes for dumb people, thus broadening their market immensely.
In any event, it's stupid to make a good movie stupid. -
capechick2730 — 17 years ago(July 12, 2008 08:52 PM)
I was wondering about something. If she wasn't in the "system" as a criminal would her blood or DNA be something that could be compared to the crime scene or the police would have to wait until they had a suspect to match the DNA against?
-
CrackSpidersBitch — 18 years ago(January 12, 2008 12:21 AM)
The meaning of suspension of disbelief IS that you totally bought into it. Ordinarily there will be stupid things that will come up in a fictional construct that would wreck the story if you stopped to say hey that's dumb. You suspend your disbelief in order to enjoy the story.
-
Sir_Anonymity — 18 years ago(January 12, 2008 04:45 PM)
Perhaps they did find blood at the crowbar murder scene. Though if you watched the movie, no one except the main police officer had the Jodie character as a suspect at all.
the transition from scared-to-leave-house to cold-blooded-vigilante was probably over a period of months.
The gun was bought for self defence initially.
Perhaps people did hear shooting at the convenience store but do you really think people go to look at a place where they hear shooting? No, they hide for fear of being shot themselves.I do believe in you. I just know you are going to fail.
-
juniperjoline — 18 years ago(February 10, 2008 12:03 AM)
You're right, "suspension of disbelief" is the correct term. It means that you don't really believe it, but you suspend or withhold your rational disbelief for the sake of enjoying the movie. By the way, I was able to do that for most of the movie, but I just couldn't buy the ending.
-
alkamal_r — 18 years ago(March 01, 2008 10:33 PM)
I know this has been corrected but just had to mention that I too thought the same using your logic. Until that is I hit up Wikipedia, the solution to all of life's questions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief
Ironically, this isn't even ironic at all. -
tindog — 17 years ago(May 27, 2008 12:25 PM)
That's not correct. What the phrase means is that if there is a scene that is so preposterous that you can't believe it, you suspend your disbelief in order to accept the premise. So the phrase is "suspension of disbelief".
