"Still grumpy about film criticisms..." Topic

Having just watched a video about film plot holes, the Jurassic Park moat scene came up.

My ignorant self a few years back tried to figure it out, as you do. It is logical.

But that's not the point.

The video made no mention as to why the scene existed.

This happens ALL THE TIME and has gotten old.

Another one was watching a doco on the Braveheart film and having historians whining about.., a movie!

Being around history buffs, I've come across that stance before.

These days I just call it ignorant.

All these "errors" are there for a reason. Without them the film could not be made, at least not without major changes, if even that were possible.

Films follow another underlying story.

In JP, if you take the moat away, then things like the fence climbing scene (guessing, but sounds right) fail to function. As there you have Tim stuck above lex and Alan, then falling into the ground instead of into the tree, without a car, and he was holding the wires, not the others. Also Alan tells him to "jump"/let the wires go, as opposed to telling lex to grab them. Also the electricity is off with the moat, but comes on with the fence. So on.

Now remove the deep moat.

Well, they ain't climbing no fence. How did Tim get in the tree? And the car? So on. Not to mention all the other scenes that become screwed up.

It's like the two famous cut scenes. Lex riding the triceratops and Mr Arnold getting killed by raptors.

Noticing anything?

That's right, the two scenes are complete opposites.

Apparently Samuel l Jackson couldn't film his scene due to weather, so I guess that's why the trike scene was dropped?

Sometimes true stories are set in different places, with different people, so on. It's not bad history research, it's screen writing.

I hope this helps clear it up for some.

I'm just sick of reading/watching people complain about it.

I should watch some griped about films and do a write up.

So "we're telling a story which makes no sense, because a story which made sense would be a different movie" is acceptable to you?

And "this movie, which uses the names of real people and real events is shot full of things which weren't true" demonstrates the ignorance of the critic?

Thanks for clearing up these points.

I like a lot of movies that others do not like. I also hate movies that others like. Just a matter of taste.

"So "we're telling a story which makes no sense, because a story which made sense would be a different movie" is acceptable to you?

And "this movie, which uses the names of real people and real events is shot full of things which weren't true" demonstrates the ignorance of the critic?

Thanks for clearing up these points."

See, it's like it's an epidemic.

"I like a lot of movies that others do not like. I also hate movies that others like. Just a matter of taste."

I'm not talking about taste or personal preference.

People complain about things in films, that need to be such a way, as if it's wrong or a mistake or the writers are stupid. In reality, they are just making the story fit the algorithm/underlying story.

Real events, in particular, don't usually have defined start and end points. Movies do. I suspect that's where the divergence begins. Also reality is extremely complicated. Movies need to simplify things a lot, as do fiction and nonfiction books.

Think of it like a reader's digest version of a novel. Lots of abridging.

Most people seem to believe you can just take some event or story an make a copy paste movie. They are incorrect.

Novels are completely different to film scripts.

Real events are unending and far more complex.

Perhaps people could let me know some films with "issues" and what they are.

A funny example of things is Enterprise, when they did a time travel double ep, but got the planes wrong. The producers? wanted the planes, so they changed the setting date. So that a can certainly be one reason.

Mostly, it will be the writer trying to make one story fit onto the template of another.

I noticed at the start of secret window, the zoom up to the window is a chop job of elements. The trees seem flat cutouts. But as it plays to JP lost world, it's obviously been created to match the algorithm being used.

Why didn't they just shoot a lake house for real?

"Algorithm says no.., cough"

PS

As mentioned in another topic, I believe Dutch and Mac are Dorothy and Dillon Toto, in regards to wizard of Oz and Predator.

Splitting one person into several or merging characters together is also likely in historical movies. Or one character just does things another person actually did in reality.

Depending on run time and budget, you can only fit in so many characters.

Important things done by an otherwise insignificant person may be given to someone more prominent to do, for example. Otherwise you would have an unknown have to have a whole boring explanation, or they just randomly appear, do something highly important, then disappear, which would be weird.

I haven't watch it for a while, but pearl harbour has the chef. I believe he is pretty famous?? which may be why he's in the film. But otherwise, it's not the best role for an action flick. They could have anyone firing guns and not have to have his otherwise dull backstory.

Under siege doesn't count, as Erica had the best role. I thought someone would bring it up. But, hey, she already did.

I don't know if I agree. Explain why trenches had to be at Waterloo? That was an algorithm? It made the movie better? Often, what really did happen in history is much more interesting that what change for a movie and would have fit inside the movie just as well.

"Explain why trenches had to be at Waterloo?"

Film?

"That was an algorithm?"

Likely.

"It made the movie better?"

Yes. Otherwise is would upset things. They likely wouldn't be able to tell the story they wanted.

"history is much more interesting that what change for a movie"

Irrelevant. It's a movie.

"and would have fit inside the movie just as well."

Again. No. Not using their chosen underlying story/algorithm. You'd more than likely get a different one entirely.

Reality tv is a good?! example.

Things are often out of sequence, people spontaneously changing clothes, moving around within scenes, just to suit the requirements.

"Novels are completely different to film scripts."

Ha! Just ask the authors of those novels. They'll tell you the film adaptations rarely follow what they have written in their books. And also, studios skimp on the scripts (and go overboard on SFX and such) A little extra spent on the scripts would make for better movies, but they don't, so you see what they are shoveling out… ;-)

LOL. This entire thread sounds like the Ridley Scott defence.

"Explain why trenches had to be at Waterloo?

Film?"

I think you know very well, Ridley Scott's Napoleon. Beautifullyy accurate uniforms, and utter abominations of Battle scenes, apparently largely based on paintings of the American Civil War, for no discernible reason.

"I think you know very well, Ridley Scott's Napoleon."

?

If I knew, why would I ask?

Not sure I have it.

"for no discernible reason"

That does show a lack of understanding.

"Let's make a historical movie! Now, be sure we don't allow ourselves to be influenced by anything. It has to be dull and accurate."

No, the idea is to inspire, entertain and sell popcorn.

People went to prison for cutting down the "Robin hood tree." Great film, but I've heard similar criticisms. But the filmmakers obviously did their job well to have a scene remembered in news decades later, on a mostly disperate subject. Obviously news staff thought enough people would have seen it and remember it fondly. And they were right, its only competition is Errol Flynn.

"Inspire?" "Entertain??" Scott's Napoleon? Dial of Destiny? Pretty much any Marvel movie later than Endgame?

How do you feel about dull and inaccurate, H Man? It's a lot more common.

Truth is, they've become an obstacle to selling popcorn. I'd pay for the popcorn if they'd just stop insisting I also buy a ticket to the movie.

Am I in the twilight zone?

"How do you feel about dull and inaccurate, H Man? It's a lot more common."

Actually it's the inaccuracies that make great films.

I remember PJ getting some complaints about LOTR.

Not from Newline, I suspect.

"Truth is, they've become an obstacle to selling popcorn."

Incorrect.

The truth is the more inaccurate, the better the film.

I remember thinking Toby Maguire's Spiderman was odd, as he shot web from his wrists, instead of canisters.

Huge film.

Spectacular? comes along and he has canisters, but there were other issues. Still did pretty well.

JAWS had sharks spot on!

Titanic just made up people, but seemed to turn a dime.

JP was almost nothing like the novel, but is fondly remembered.

Avatar forgot the white hats and pants, but was still big.

So on.

"Am I in the twilight zone?"

Why, yes, you are.

I have almost finished the original series.

It is odd that such a sarcastic remark would include so many writers, not to mention an entire writing course. It is almost like it was accidental.

Another point is, which history, or even, which fiction?

Events can't even be agreed upon today, let alone historical events.

So, there is no correct way to tell things. Someone will always disagree with something.

The same is true in fiction.

Let's make a new transformers movie. Cool!. Now, what colour is rumble?

What about an authentic spawn origin story in three parts. Sweet!. Now, who killed Al Simmons?

So now we're down to "there is no reality, so no such thing as lies or errors?" Really, H Man? How do you feel about internal consistency?

When the lies and inconsistencies are bad enough, "inspire and entertain" don't happen, and when that happens, good luck selling popcorn.

I understand Ridley Scott's doing the Battle of Britain next. Two miles from the nearest theater is about as close as I'd care to be when he does "history" these days.

"there is no reality, so no such thing as lies or errors?"

Really, robert piepenbrink?

If people can't even agree among themselves on many major historical points, exactly what are these lies or errors?

"When the lies and inconsistencies are bad enough, "inspire and entertain" don't happen, and when that happens, good luck selling popcorn."

Now who is suggesting reality doesn't exist?

As my abbreviated list above shows, likely all major films are highly erroneous compared to their source material. All sold popcorn (it appears that's our currency of choice?).

"Ridley Scott's doing the Battle of Britain next"

Its a film, not documentary.

Not that they can't be just as "inaccurate ".