Do You Get Upset By Illogical Details In Movies?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, I agree with you. The movie then loses all credibility with me.

I recently saw the movie "The Mist" with my ex roommate. We had an argument- (well, more like an intellectual disagreement)- at the end, because after being attacked by giant bugs and creatures, the main characters decided to kill themselves. But what I didn´t understand was that when they killed themselves, they were sitting in a car, all was quiet- i.e., no creature was attacking them- and they killed themselves. I thought, why would people kill themselves when all was quiet and calm? I can see them making this decision, due to desperation, but then you wait to commit suicide when the creature is about to attack you! Not before. You never know what is going to happen, and I believe the will to live in humans is strong. As the one character killed the others, I thought "this is stupid, they might be saved or the whole thing might end somehow"....and, sure enough, it did. But my friend was irritated that I saw it this way, and that I couldn´t just follow the movie. I felt the characters weren´t reacting in a way that made sense psychologically...so, that´s another thing that bothers me....

Aside from the fact that I didn´t relate to the characters at all, they were all so strange. And some of those giant bugs were kind of cute. So there were times in the movie when I was on the side of the bugs...

When I find a major logic issue in a movie, it really annoys me. Two things come to mind:

ET: The extra terestial: If ET can levetate others, objects, ect.. Why did'nt he levetate himself up to the ship as it was flying away?

The Lord of the Rings movies: if Gandalf can call on giant eagles to ride on, why did'nt they just fly over the volcano on eagles and throw the ring in instead of walking there?

The only one that comes to mind at this time is an advert about being in the RAF and a technician stating to fix a computer, al he has to do is flick the switch, off then on again... That would cause an almost disastrous spike doing more harm than good. You would have to check it's ok to turn the power off and drain the capacitors out fully. Unless it's a standard reset in which it's just a push switch that returns to it's off position when released..

Pearl Harbor is lousy with them! The Hawaiian currency is wrong, the time of day is wrong and one of the buildings shouldn't even be there! I also tend to notice indiscrepencies with the costuming; Like in the last LOTR movie Frodo's underwear is visible. And don't even get me started on the dumb broads in horror movies. (The bathtub really? )

I agree. Another point along this line is language. Like in period pieces when they throw in all these curse words, when people didn't talk like that, especially women or mixed company. Or they use modern phraseology instead of the more formal usage of "back in the day".

The movie portrayal of the events in Chariots of Fire was completely wrong if one knows the real story. It is full of misrepresentations. After reading the real history of the Olympic Games, watching the movie drives me nuts.

It was either Blade 2 or 3: at the end of the movie, the hero releases an anti-vampire virus that is supposed to cure the curse. There are close-ups of the virus attacking red blood cells, allegedly doing its work. The problem is, red cells don't have nuclei. A virus could do nothing there.

hadn't thought of the Blade bit... huhn..

Yeah, I'm terrible for that. I actually liked the Matrix movies, but since it's sci-fi...

My blooper I caught was in 'City of God'. They're assembling knights from around Europe, when suddenly I see the flag of Aragon and Castille (not lord o' the rings!... flying in the 13th Century, when the actual union didn't take place until the 15th [almost the 16th]...

I have to keep myself quiet when movies are on, and someone screws up like that... But I find it very amusing at times...

Also, Friends seems to think that Minsk is in Russia, but it's in Belarus. I checked it in my atlas and all.

Last night I finally saw the "X-Files" movie. As I live in Europe, I don´t keep up regularly with X-Files; I don´t watch it all the time on TV, I just get dvds every now and then of some of the episodes, or the movies. Anyway, while watching this movie I was thoroughly distracted by the fact that Gillian Anderson (Agent Scully) looked so different that she seemed unrecognizable to me. I would have thought it was a different actress, save for the fact that her voice and vocal quality were the same. Has anyone else noticed this? Has she changed her face in some way? (I know many actresses and famous people have cosmetic surgery). I know this has nothing to do with logic anymore, but I was so distracted by how she looked- as well as her acting style- (I´ll get into that in a minute), that I couldn´t keep track of what was actually happening in the movie. Maybe she made a more gradual change for people who watch it regularly (ok, her hair got longer). For me, the change seemed so dramatic it threw me.

I had the feeling also that they "feminized" her. I´m not sure if this was a decision of the directors, or her own decision. When I first saw the show, I liked her character because she seemed intelligent, logical and strong...not the sort of qualities that are shown often in heroines on TV, but the sort of qualities one would see in different people in real life. Suddenly, in this movie she seemed much "softer", way more emotional, and her acting and speaking style seemed different...she held her face differently, etc. I remember I used to think she was beautiful, partly because she was different looking; she had a distinctive face. But in this movie, she looked more typical somehow, as if she had knocked out all the distinctive elements of her face. I´ve seen several actresses do this, suddenly change everything charismatic about them and end up looking like everyone else in Hollywood. (Not sure if she had some work done, or if she was just using her face differently). I know it´s not a question of logic anymore; someone could change like that, in life, too. But I really wanted the old Scully back! (This new version of Scully just seemed so diminutive, no "bite" to her at all. So when they tried to have her act sort of strong, like the old Scully, it just came across as lame bitchiness). I really hate it when characters I like change. I think that was also part of the Octavian problem with me, it was a matter of logic, yes, but I also wanted the old Octavian back. I liked that character. The new Octavian was pathetic.

Is this an AS thing too (not liking characters to change), or is this just me?

I think in the case of "Lord of the Rings", they couldn´t be too obvious going into Mordor. They would have been too visible flying in on an eagle, and would have been destroyed. Hence, the walking and sneaking in the back way. (Remember, there was that giant "Eye", that saw everything). That was why it was necessary for Frodo to take the ring; not only because of his innocence to its corruption, but also because no one would suspect a hobbit.

What got me in that movie though was how the "Eye" looked like a giant, fiery female vagina, ready to swallow everything up. Made me wonder about the psychological backgrounds and traumas of the films creators....

Good point about ET. I think I was always disturbed by the fact that the other ETs- (his parents?)- just left him there. Didn´t they try to come back and find him? Why did he have to "phone home"- couldn´t they see he wasn´t with them? Or did they forget where they landed, so he had to give them the coordinates again?

word!

anyway Morgana, I know exactly what you mean about Gillian Anderson! I felt the same way when watching Calista Flockhart in Brothers&Sisters, I remembered her from Ally McBeal and I was so massively freaked out by her botoxed face, I could hardly follow the plot.

Same here. After Friends ended, they made a spin-off series called Joey, and it majorly annoys me that, because they have different writers, the character of Joey is totally different (he doesn't seem as kind. He was going to marry Alex "for a dare", which just seems like something that the boys from my class would do, unlike in Friends when he offered to marry Phoebe because he thought she was pregnant, even though it wasn't even his). And that's not even the MOST annoying thing, it's the fact that he was friends with the rest of the gang for over a decade, and then he moves to LA and never even MENTIONS them! That wouldn't happen, because even if you stop being friends with someone because of an argument, you still say stuff like, "I remember when I was talking to so-and-so...". You don't just completely FORGET them, especially not after that long. So it makes no sense.

Also, his tan suddenly looks really fake, which is weird because he had a natural tan before.

The machines *MUST* have had a considerable energy surplus. How else could they

a) Keep the Matrix running & maintain
b) Keep the power-plant running & maintain
c) Keep their own machine-city running & maintain
d) Coordinate all this and do it simultaneously

I notice inconsistencies with 19th century buildings, furnishings and clothing, because I'm a historian and that time period is my specialty. Have always been annoyed by The Sixth Sense because the school building they claimed was from the 18th century was built in the late 19th century. Probably others wouldn't pick up on it but I do.

In Lord of the Rings (the books as well as the movies), which seems to get inspiration from early continental Europe and the British Isles, they have tobacco and potatoes, imports from the Americas in the late 1400s and early 1500s, way later than the period that Tolkein was trying to emulate. Just a little factoid that I notice.

Z

Actually, in 1980, the drinking age varied state by state. And in Michigan, where the series takes place, the drinking age at the time was 21. So it's not an anachronism, not an inaccuracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._histo ... e_by_state