Do you find yourself analysing movies a lot?

[ShadowOfMyself]

I dont, it actually annoys me when people start nit picking stuff, specially in fantasy movies and such

Thats like listening to a song and thinking "Hah, they should have gone with E instead of A here"... Its retarded, just sit back and enjoy it

 

[marvdmartian]

Today I decided to watch Speed 2 because I never seen it. During the whole movie I was thinking of guarantee ways to stop that ship. I'm thinking "Why don't they just go in the boiler room and manually turn everything off? There's got to be some kind of main fuel valve!"

I'm sure it was the sign on the engine room door, that said CREW MEMBERS ONLY that kept them from doing that!


Being prior-service navy, and now working for the air force, I tend to pick apart movies about the military (tv shows too). Really amazing, how ignorant the screen writers in Hollywood are about their own country's military.

 

[gorcorps]

I do sometimes... depends on my mood. I wish I could turn my brain off all the time though as I'd be much more easily entertained.

I overthought Avatar and didn't like it much at all, and then saw The Book of Eli incredibly tired and thought it was great. Movies are great when you aren't paying attention to too much.

 

[MrPickins]

Most movies make me feel like acting out an episode of MST3K...

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

You have to watch a movie for what it is. If it's trying to be serious and deep, judge it as such - ignore most of the action and look at the plot. If it's just being an action movie, don't bother picking apart the characters and plot - it's not going to be interesting. I saw Avatar and, although it had an exceedingly simple plot and transparent characters, it was fun. It was also very well-done. Besides the movie being beautiful and energetic, I liked how the alien language was consistent and understandable if you tried at it. It was one of the few really long movies that was fun all the way through, unlike Pearl Harbor or Helen of Troy.

 

[ShawnD1]

If that happened, then the movie would be pathetically short.

Do you remember Wrath of Khan? The whole point of the movie was to kill him, and they did. I love that movie so much.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084726/

 

[Sea Moose]

"Why don't they just go in the boiler room and manually turn everything off? There's got to be some kind of main fuel valve!"

because somewhere on that boat, rubycon is defending the main fuel valve with her superior knowledge of cheese

 

[Rubycon]

Yes Speed 2 was bad in many ways.
The biggest question is what was already brought up about shutting down the engines manually. With large diesels there are many ways to do this very easily. Also carrying around a device to wirelessly activate doors and other features is not going to happen.

Nor is a passenger just stumbling on the bridge! There is not just one door that leads to the bridge - at least on our ship there is not. All the senior officers' staterooms are accessible by a corridor that's secured by a digital combination lock. The door to the bridge is only accessible through this corridor. To gain access to the bridge you have to be buzzed in by an officer on the bridge after you are verified through a two way video intercom system. This is the post 9/11 requirement for passenger vessels.

Even worse in the movie is the ballast tank scene and bow thrusters. While it's true that ballast tanks are flooded and pumped out they are NOT accessible decks like shown in the movie!

Bow thrusters even on smaller ships - (the vessel in the movie is around 10,000 tons) are HUGE electric motors with hundreds, sometimes 1000s of hp! There's no way in hell the output of a man (never mind holding breath under water!) is going to make a difference in the heading of a ship. (never mind the ship is under way at over 12 knots!) Even standing still there would be no movement. Bow thrusters don't have any way to manually move them either.

One thing I can say that's true was them coming into port at St Maarten - the ragboaters yelling "Hey we have the right of way!". Yes they will do that but you would think common sense would tell them to get the hell out of the way! Would a ship come in that far ashore? It's hard to say as its never happened. It would really depend on a lot of factors. Let's just say Speed 2 was very expensive to make because they actually "rented" the ship from Seabourne for several weeks to make the movie and that costs a LOT of money. They apparently skimped on CG as they could not really run a ship into St Maarten. It's a good thing too because that is one of my favorite ports. :biggrin:


Oh and I definitely DO have pet peeves with the way things are done in movies. I mean come on it's 2010 - EVERYONE has a computer and EVERYONE knows when you do things with computers you don't hear all these stupid noises like they dub in!

Did you know in the movie Titanic the fittings shown in the engine room - specifically the bronze fittings and gauge used just did not exist in 1912? Ditto for the passageway lighting! Soft white, high diffusion coated incandescent bulbs simply did not exist then! Not only was that a dead giveaway but the attack and decay times of the lighting when the power was fading in and out in the latter part of the movie was just not presented accurately. I remember chuckling in this part of the movie and other people were wondering what I was laughing at! That made me chuckle even more! :biggrin:

 

[moshquerade]

I've always hated when people say "oh that's so fake" and such, I just want to sit down and enjoy the movie. But I now find myself also being one of those people who analyze movies a bit too much too.

Today I decided to watch Speed 2 because I never seen it. During the whole movie I was thinking of guarantee ways to stop that ship. I'm thinking "Why don't they just go in the boiler room and manually turn everything off? There's got to be some kind of main fuel valve!"

Sure sign you are getting old, cynical, or both.

 

[Genx87]

Yes I do that all the time. Even in movies that are clearly fiction.

 

[fatpat268]

Being prior-service navy, and now working for the air force, I tend to pick apart movies about the military (tv shows too). Really amazing, how ignorant the screen writers in Hollywood are about their own country's military.

Haha, I can't stand military movies where an army base on american soil consists of a few barracks and everybody else driving around the base in humvees/jeeps with their weapons. Makes you wonder if the film director had ever been to a military base before...

 

[SandEagle]

just watched Fight Club for the first time last night. my head asploded just trying to analyze it. its such a ridonkulous movie

 

[Kev]

Yes Speed 2 was bad in many ways.
The biggest question is what was already brought up about shutting down the engines manually. With large diesels there are many ways to do this very easily. Also carrying around a device to wirelessly activate doors and other features is not going to happen.

Nor is a passenger just stumbling on the bridge! There is not just one door that leads to the bridge - at least on our ship there is not. All the senior officers' staterooms are accessible by a corridor that's secured by a digital combination lock. The door to the bridge is only accessible through this corridor. To gain access to the bridge you have to be buzzed in by an officer on the bridge after you are verified through a two way video intercom system. This is the post 9/11 requirement for passenger vessels.

Even worse in the movie is the ballast tank scene and bow thrusters. While it's true that ballast tanks are flooded and pumped out they are NOT accessible decks like shown in the movie!

Bow thrusters even on smaller ships - (the vessel in the movie is around 10,000 tons) are HUGE electric motors with hundreds, sometimes 1000s of hp! There's no way in hell the output of a man (never mind holding breath under water!) is going to make a difference in the heading of a ship. (never mind the ship is under way at over 12 knots!) Even standing still there would be no movement. Bow thrusters don't have any way to manually move them either.

One thing I can say that's true was them coming into port at St Maarten - the ragboaters yelling "Hey we have the right of way!". Yes they will do that but you would think common sense would tell them to get the hell out of the way! Would a ship come in that far ashore? It's hard to say as its never happened. It would really depend on a lot of factors. Let's just say Speed 2 was very expensive to make because they actually "rented" the ship from Seabourne for several weeks to make the movie and that costs a LOT of money. They apparently skimped on CG as they could not really run a ship into St Maarten. It's a good thing too because that is one of my favorite ports. :biggrin:


Oh and I definitely DO have pet peeves with the way things are done in movies. I mean come on it's 2010 - EVERYONE has a computer and EVERYONE knows when you do things with computers you don't hear all these stupid noises like they dub in!

Did you know in the movie Titanic the fittings shown in the engine room - specifically the bronze fittings and gauge used just did not exist in 1912? Ditto for the passageway lighting! Soft white, high diffusion coated incandescent bulbs simply did not exist then! Not only was that a dead giveaway but the attack and decay times of the lighting when the power was fading in and out in the latter part of the movie was just not presented accurately. I remember chuckling in this part of the movie and other people were wondering what I was laughing at! That made me chuckle even more! :biggrin:

Speed 2 was my favorite movie of all time until reading this post

 

[geno]

Did you analyze Analyze This? That would have been appropriate.

 

[vi edit]

I'm fortunate enough that even though I have the job description of "analyst" I can still turn off that part of my brain and enjoy a movie for it's intended purpose of entertainment.

 

[Pheran]

One movie I really want to see is Transporter. Apparently it's like super unrealistic. I find when it's very bad, it just turns into a comedy, and it's still fun to watch.

Transporter is definitely unrealistic, but the I think the most laugh-out-loud over-the-top unrealistic action movies I've ever seen are Crank and Shoot 'Em Up. Don't get me wrong - I like both of them for the sheer humor value, and at least Shoot 'Em Up is an intentional parody.

 

[CraigRT]

Strictly entertainment... My last GF was such a pain to watch movies with because she would get upset if there were men being mean to women, etc. in the movie. Who cares, its a freaking movie!!!

 

[BurnItDwn]

no, not really. I mean, if you only watch stupid mindless movies, then yeah. But plenty are meant to make you think.

To me, they are a waste of my time if I can feel my brain bleeding out of my ears while watching.

QFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That said, there are times when I just want something dumb to make me laugh.... But that's totally different from watching a good movie IMO....

 

[BurnItDwn]

I'm fortunate enough that even though I have the job description of "analyst" I can still turn off that part of my brain and enjoy a movie for it's intended purpose of entertainment.

Even "The Core" ? If so, what's your secret!!!!

 

[sandorski]

Even "The Core" ? If so, what's your secret!!!!

I rather enjoyed the Core. The end was super stupid, but the rest of it was watchable.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I rather enjoyed the Core. The end was super stupid, but the rest of it was watchable.

It was absolutely horrible. We watched it in IGCSE Physics at the end of the year so that we could have a good time pointing out everything that was wrong with it. And there was a lot.

just watched Fight Club for the first time last night. my head asploded just trying to analyze it. its such a ridonkulous movie

Try Adaptation.

 

[TallBill]

Haha, I can't stand military movies where an army base on american soil consists of a few barracks and everybody else driving around the base in humvees/jeeps with their weapons. Makes you wonder if the film director had ever been to a military base before...

Yeah, some of my biggest turn offs to movies are retarded military or police scenes.


In general I want believability. That doesn't mean that I don't like science fiction, but the plot, story, and specific events need to be believable. The more plot holes that pop up or silly stuff put in, the more detracted I feel from watching a movie or show.

 

[StageLeft]

Yes, I do.

 

[Rubycon]

Haha The Core was hideous. At least the hacker kid (Trident?! ) could've been playing Quake3 or UT instead of Pong after he shut down the NW grid when they were going to fire Destiny.

The Day After Tomorrow is another. Oh and let's not forget 2012 just last November.

Oh and "laser" weapons used on spacecraft don't make those funny noises. :biggrin:

 

[vi edit]

Even "The Core" ? If so, what's your secret!!!!

Beer. Lots and lots of beer.