smile Yes, John

So, I guess the consensus so far (addressing the numbered parts above):

1. Every movie gets a pass for an unlikely introduction. After all, that is why the story is being told.

But

2. Unless we are attempting to tell a 100% authentic true story, all stories are made up, and thus, contrived. The only term we have is to refer to it in differing degrees: "feels contrived", "is a bit contrived", etc.

3. I could say a film has "too many small contrivances".  An unlikely start followed by a series of unlikely events can break suspension of disbelief, though YMMV regarding what is a contrivance.

I'd really love to have catchier terms for this stuff, though. We have Spielberging and Baying. Would it make sense to say it was too much "De Palma"? Is there a writer or director I'm not thinking of who is known for contrivances or plot holes in what could be straight-forward or hard science movies?

Also, thank you for everyone's input. There have been plenty of good points about specific movies here. I'm just trying to stay on topic about the one thing that I can't well describe and puts me off plenty of movies.

***

As a side note: I know not everyone feels the same as I do. But, just as motivations are supremely important in a drama, I feel fact is important in a survival movie. The danger in the plot isn't motivated by an antagonist. So, the survival situation becomes a kind of math: water, warmth, food, etc. The sloppier writer creates new obstacles one-by-one as the movie progresses while the better writer builds it all into the initial event. I'd love to give good and bad examples of this but my memory is crap.

I agree completely that he could have been overconfident due to skill. My guess is he was short on cash. All of the comments regarding the movie are valid and worth discussing. I used a poor example in 'All is Lost', as I am well aware that most people seem to have missed/ignored/disagreed with the problems I saw.

The main point of #3, though, is to discover if there is already film terminology to refer to this sort of thing shorthand. I just don't know any quick way to say: "It would be better if he was borrowing the boat and assumed it was fully stocked and then got to sea and realized it wasn't but decided it was only 2 days to the next port so why turn around and that was an understandable if cocky decision but it lead to a lot of problems." So, instead I have to feel nitpicky and wish the film gave me some room to suspend my disbelief. The problem isn't really a plot hole or contrivance. But, I don't know what to call those things that strain my suspension of disbelief and, if too many occur, leave me feeling like it is contrived. What do you call the little problem or the string of little problems?

Recently posting in the Gravity thread and watching 'War of the Worlds' a couple days ago, I have been thinking about bad writing and plot contrivances.

The guys have done a great job of creating some terminology for discussing a lot of this (such as 'magic bean'). But, knowing my own thoughts while viewing movies, I'm wondering if a couple new terms might be useful to me for describing problems I have with some/many movies. I'll try to lay out my thoughts using as few movies as possible. [Edit] Clearly not few words.

1. In 'All is Lost', Robert Redford's boat hits a floating shipping container. This isn't a magic bean. But, it kind of is. The odds are incredibly low for such an event. We give it a pass because it's actually a kind of initial event or catalyst for the plot. I've been in a lot of English classes (including full semesters each of Shakespear, the Bible as literature and Science Fiction) and neither I nor Google seem able to recall if this event has a name. Regardless, I feel the more unlikely the initial event, the less I can suspend my disbelief for future, unlikely events. In short, you get one magic bean; Do you also get one highly-improbable event?

2. In 'Mission to Mars', Tim Robbins needs to connect a lifeline to a capsule so the crew can reach the surface. He succeeds. He also doesn't secure himself. As a result, he drifts towards Mars to die. There is no 'Fridge Logic' here. Maybe it could happen as depicted on screen. My first thought, though, is: What astronaut doesn't tether himself? It is a constant in space, right? Drilled into their heads with a para-military regularity. He has a line to connect, he would connect himself to it. If he connects the line, he is automatically also connected. What astronaut would trust to a hand grip; through a space suit; after an impact; at speed? It boggles my mind. But, it is not Fridge Logic. Just a very unlikely and kind of nonsensical event. My biggest problem with it is that there are consequences: the death of a character. The small, unlikely event is tied to the death of the character and makes me feel the entire situation is contrived. But, it's an emergency and high stress. Is this a baby contrivance? How about the nearly identical layout of the scene in Gravity? George Clooney didn't have to get tangled in a parachute. There are odds involved in something like that. Maybe even training conducted to recognize or avoid it. Since it leads, inexorably, to the death of the character, the tangling is important. Is it a contrivance or reasonable or something else?

To me, it feels like things are more contrived when they are more obvious or have less set-up time. If someone dies as an immediate result of a long-odds event, I can get annoyed. But, when Doc Holiday dies of a health condition he's had for the entirety of Tombstone, I am ok. Someone is still trying to manipulate my emotions, but it's somehow different for me. The idea of time and set-up leads me to:

3. In 'All is Lost', Robert Redford is sailing the ocean. Alone. Anyone who knows anything about small vessel sailing knows there is a huge difference between sailing with a crew and sailing alone. Alone, there are things you just have to do or you will die. Robert Redford's character, from the outset is set to die. Moreover, he does not do the things he needs to do to survive. [Spoiler] It's why he ends up on a raft. The biggest and, to me, most obvious issue is the radio. If my cellphone stops working, I'll ask to borrow one or use a pay phone. Hundreds of miles from another human, Robert Redford can't do that in the movie. When he sees the boat is flooding, he needs to move the radio. He walks past it repeatedly and does nothing. Anyone sailing like was should have a small, waterproof lockbox with a back-up radio. He does not have any backup. He also doesn't have: a few lengths of lumber for emergency hull repair, fabric for sail repair, or even a handle for his bilge pump. None of these shortfalls are fridge logic. There's really no dialogue so we don't get to know the character's past. What we glean about the man is mostly conjecture. But, crash + no backup radio + no patching lumber + no pump handle = I am annoyed and kind of want the guy to die. He has failed at living repeatedly in what we should all understand is a dangerous situation. Am I being an ass? A government or union boat would ship with all of those things and at least one extra crew, right? Is there a name for "the unlikely stacks to such a height as to be preposterous"? Or, "the supposed protagonist earned death but survived"?

I think everyone understand the need to suspend disbelief and everyone can feel the most clumsy attempts to manipulate their emotions or back-fill a plot hole. The questions I'm asking, I know, are more nit-picky to the majority of the viewing public. But, they make the difference between enjoying a movie and not, for me.

I sincerely apologize if I've wasted your time,
John

79

(26 replies, posted in Episodes)

Most of my problems with this move were addressed here and on the podcast.

I watched the movie yesterday and never intend to watch it again. For those who choose to, please consider this possible explanation for much of Tom Cruise's performance: Ray is an 80 IQ high school dropout. Suddenly, lots of scenes make sense and you don't expect much from Ray. He's doing pretty good for a guy with a learning disability and poor social skills!

Also, EWW/CinemaSins-style, I'll say I believe the quick filming. There are lots of sloppy details in the production: army trucks suddenly appear as Dakota runs to Goku after their pee break. Before the cut, the last truck passes and the road behind is empty to the hills. After the cut there is a whole new convoy starting. The scene with falling clothing is not clothing and the materials have no variation (denim/cotton/silk fall differently) and are cloth that does not significantly resemble clothing to me (it is also the only scene we see falling clothes from the sky). The bodies in the stream start passing only when Dakota shows up. the army guys are using vietnam-era radio equipment. There's more and you can say it is for impact but it's still careless.

Great job on making this list of fixes. Not everyone will agree with all of it. But, it gives us all something to think about.

For me, the movie didn't work. I couldn't put my finger on it at the time. Later, I noticed that only 2 songs ('Let it Go' and "Do You Want to Build a Snowman') stuck with me at all and half of the lyrics of 'snowman' drive me crazy. I completely agree about the lack of 'timeless' grammar. The entire 'first time in forever' song made me want to turn the movie off. I'm sure I'm in the minority but I hate songs that are full of pointless 'stream of consciousness' or 'narration of what just happened' lyrics. It reminds me of the Family Guy Randy Newman parody [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWpIMFEe2ds].

You are quite right that nothing is 'let go' after the song. So, the song is wasted.

81

(431 replies, posted in Off Topic)

My name is John. I'm almost 40 and a Californian. I've been lurking for a while and listening for a couple years or so.

My favorite part of DIF, I mean, Friends in Your Head, is that I listen to the podcast and often suddenly want to watch the movie. Even if it's kind of bad.

I don't watch while listening. Unless there's a lot of comments in synch with the movie (ex Rifftrax), I don't see a need to have the movie on at the time. Plus, I think I'm a bit more informed when watching the movie later.

82

(29 replies, posted in Episodes)

Isaac wrote:

JP, would you like the desert version of this movie?  Take out the fridge logic issues but leave in Ryan Stone's story.  Is that a movie you would enjoy or does her lack of drive in the first half still kill it for you?

ABSOLUTELY could enjoy it. The story seems to be that she doesn't really care about herself at the start. But, she has other characters to push/nudge her. Clooney is carrying her through the initial problems and then points her in the direction that she follows to the end. If there is enough to let the audience know she is dealing with something and, later, time taken to show she is working through it, I think it can work. I was just partly turned off and partly thrown out of the movie ('the Chinese station is over there, see?'). It wasn't Shia swinging on vines with a personal monkey army, but it still broke my suspension of disbelief repeatedly.

I think 'All is Lost' is a fair comparison. I enjoyed that far more. Sadly, it is the story of a guy who did not prepare properly for a solo sea voyage, making me think he is a kind of 'ocean hobo'.  smile

83

(29 replies, posted in Episodes)

You guys had an awesome guest and kept the quality up (as always).

I, however, disliked the movie. Not because of the hype and everything. But, because I saw it on a tv instead of the theater. The technical achievements and 'amazing theater experience' is fine. But, listen to the podcast guys: you don't really compliment the story. And, you glazed over the 'fridge logic' that permeates most of the plot (I understand the reasons but the film would work better if she were a survivor of a desert plane crash). The Lost World deserved to be criticized for its flaws and Gravity deserves to take its lumps, also.

Lastly, I wasn't just taken out of the movie by the flaws. I was also DEEPLY disinterested in the fate of the woman who didn't want to be there. By the time she cared and wanted to live, I couldn't connect to her anymore and kind of wanted her to fail. For contrast, I'd have loved to see Clooney's character attempt the same thing (he had a sense of humor and was clearly a pretty driven guy). I also should point out I take medication for depression. I do not lack sympathy for grief. I just don't want to watch someone mope and whine for 90 minutes.

I think there is a new phenomenon you guys should watch for (if you haven't seen it already). You recall people coming out of Avatar and talking about how amazing and spiritual and world-changing it was? They had seen Dances with Blue Wolves and got brainwashed by 3D or something. The 3D gravity seems to have had a similar effect: if you watched it at home, maybe you liked it, maybe not; But, the 3D theater people went bananas! I'm curious to see if this keeps happening with 3D movies.

The fix for this movies BTW is to set it as a plane crash in a desert. That way, Sandra doesn't have any training and isn't expected to have been trained; There is no need to cheat distances/physics/logic. The problem is that Cuaron wanted to make a space movie and wanted to make a character survival movie and I don't think the mix as well as I would like.
***
Remember: See if you can get your guest back for the next space/sci-fi movie!

84

(26 replies, posted in Episodes)

Great job, as always, guys.

Regarding the Muppets, I believe the movies are meant to be movies produced by the characters of The Muppet Show. On the show, you see what happens backstage. The movies, though, feature different names and relationships (including Kermit and Fozzy being brothers). That's why each movie can have different themes and styles (Miss Piggy can be a damsel in one and an action heroine in another). And The Muppet Movie is my favorite.

85

(14 replies, posted in Episodes)

The washed-out color bugs the crap out of me. But, there may be a bit of a point. When Harry drinks the felix, the color is almost normal. I can easily imagine Harry walking in a hypercolor world under the felix influence. Maybe it's on purpose? (though I hate it)

86

(469 replies, posted in Episodes)

DIF - Dialogues Involving Film

or 

Downin' Front

87

(22 replies, posted in Episodes)

Great episode (as usual). Cudos on the Professor Xavier is a telekinetic comments. I once did the math and in the first 300 issues only about 5 years go by. So, he was long overdue for a psychotic break. The funniest part was his alter ego using telekinesis.

As for Jean Grey, her power in the movie is a departure from the comic. In the comic, she is possessed by the Phoenix Force while presumed dead at the bottom of the ocean. Prior to that, her powers are like in the first movie: levitating someone is very hard for her.

The more interesting trivia is Mr Sinister's plan, introduced in the 90's. Jean Grey is a very rare, unlimited telepath/telekinetic. She's weak as hell but has no limitations (Mystique, for example, can't mimic people while in shadows; Marvel comics considers mutant flight a limited telekinesis power). Scott Summers has a very, very specific power but it is nearly unlimited in strength. And recharges in sunlight. Mr Sinister supposedly was behind the scenes trying to make a pair like this so their kid would be hugely powerful and able to do nearly anything (see X-Man comic).

But, Mr Sinister does not exist in the movies. And Jean Grey is powerful all on her own so we won't see any starjammers.

But we CAN look forward to more Down in Front.

Thank you.