Your single most annoying thing/mistake in a movie!

[Clockwork Cupcake]

talksthetorque said:

Not a Movie but I've been watching Nit Y Dia on Walter Presents.
Main character woman was chained up by the wrist for five days in her stepfather's basement/operating theatre/paedo palace
Ends up cutting off her thumb to escape
One link above her hand is a screw in link join like you see on shackles

In fairness, though, if you do one of those up with a marlin spike (or equivalent) then it can't be undone by hand. It would be like be trying to undo a wheel nut with your fingers.

(I've not seen the film and I don't know what, if any, tools she had available)

[talksthetorque]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

In fairness, though, if you do one of those up with a marlin spike (or equivalent) then it can't be opened by hand. It would be like be trying to undo a wheel nut with your fingers.

(I've not seen the film and I don't know what, if any, tools she had available)

She had a belt so the prongy thing would work I guess.
Anyway, I digress, she won't be auditioning to be a kranie for a while

[yellowjack]

Fast and Spurious said:

The film Fury. The whole fking film.

There seems to be a distinct split of opinion on this film. There don't seem to be many "meh, it was so-so" opinions, more those that love every minute of it and believe that it's a treatise on American tank tactics and doctrine closely adapted for film, and others, who correctly see it as a couple of hours of Hollywood nonsense. It's a Brad Pitt 'star vehicle' dressed up as a war film. And it bears no resemblance whatsoever to any tank tactics I've ever studied. To have "fought" an immobilised Sherman for as long as they did was nigh-on impossible. Far too little ammunition, and far too vulnerable. The crew would almost certainly have been under orders to "bail out" at the first opportunity, too. After all, boatloads of the effing things were arriving from the USA on an almost daily basis, but trained, experienced crews can only be forged in the crucible of battle, and they were therefore considered far more valuable than a lump of metal that could be readily replaced, especially at that point in the war. So yes, I'm with you - it's absolute dirge. Speaking to a few people at the Tank Museum, too, reveals some interesting (off script, off the record) opinions about the content of the film. But supplying Tiger 131 for the filming brought in money to enable the museum's work to continue so, or at least so I'm told, they officially choose to toe the party line and bite their collective tongues over the Hollywood fantasy version of tank warfare.

[i4got]

Olympus Has Fallen

The terrorist need three passwords to get into Cerebus system.

He gets the passwords out of the three people in the room. But between each one he waits while lots of other action happens. If the aim was to get the three passwords and self destruct the US missiles then surely he would have aimed to get each password immediately he got the last one instead of hanging around after each one.

Also the president was OK with the first two people giving up their password as he would never give up his. In fact the only leverage on him the terrorist had (the presidents son) had already escaped. And yet once the first two password were achieved it seems the president gave his up without even getting threatened. (Unless I missed something)

[rider73]

Avengers ENDGAME

So Thanos in the past learns that he will find all the stones, beat the avengers, perform his "Snap" and succeed in everything he ever wanted to and end up with the ultimate power in the universe - yet for some reason, decides to go into the future where he doesnt have the glove and take on all the avengers, captain marvel without having all the stones/gauntlet

why did he not just think - nah, i'll leave it thanks, and when i perform the "Snap" i'll remember to erase all the avengers + captain marvel. job done.


i really liked Inifinity war and how for the first time, avangers failed - yet endgame just seemed a mess of inconsistencies and flawed logic throughout.

[A Winner Is You]

yellowjack said:

Fast and Spurious said:

The film Fury. The whole fking film.

There seems to be a distinct split of opinion on this film. There don't seem to be many "meh, it was so-so" opinions, more those that love every minute of it and believe that it's a treatise on American tank tactics and doctrine closely adapted for film, and others, who correctly see it as a couple of hours of Hollywood nonsense. It's a Brad Pitt 'star vehicle' dressed up as a war film. And it bears no resemblance whatsoever to any tank tactics I've ever studied. To have "fought" an immobilised Sherman for as long as they did was nigh-on impossible. Far too little ammunition, and far too vulnerable. The crew would almost certainly have been under orders to "bail out" at the first opportunity, too. After all, boatloads of the effing things were arriving from the USA on an almost daily basis, but trained, experienced crews can only be forged in the crucible of battle, and they were therefore considered far more valuable than a lump of metal that could be readily replaced, especially at that point in the war. So yes, I'm with you - it's absolute dirge. Speaking to a few people at the Tank Museum, too, reveals some interesting (off script, off the record) opinions about the content of the film. But supplying Tiger 131 for the filming brought in money to enable the museum's work to continue so, or at least so I'm told, they officially choose to toe the party line and bite their collective tongues over the Hollywood fantasy version of tank warfare.

I felt the tank battle was well done, but the ending was beyond ridiculous and was like playing Call of Duty on easy mode. Somehow being killed by a grenade dropped through the hatch only leaves your body with minor injuries as well. The characters were all stunningly unlikeable as well - I get that in war people aren't going to spend their time signing and dancing, but you need something to make you root for them.

[singlecoil]

Diamonds Are Forever

The whole thing is an execrable, embarrassing mess. James Bond as outright unfunny comedy. Just as the series had reached a new, and high point with On Her Majesty's Secret Service this sorry excuse for a film was the followup, and the series never really recovered.

[vonuber]

The tank battle wasn't well done, the tiger would never have moved at all (assuming it hadn't broken down / run out of fuel first) and wouldn't have been on its own.

Main strength of the tiger was its gun, it would have stayed at 1km+ distance as much as it could.

Edited by vonuber on Friday 8th November 11:29

[Halb]

rider73 said:

Avengers ENDGAME

So Thanos in the past learns that he will find all the stones, beat the avengers, perform his "Snap" and succeed in everything he ever wanted to and end up with the ultimate power in the universe - yet for some reason, decides to go into the future where he doesnt have the glove and take on all the avengers, captain marvel without having all the stones/gauntlet

why did he not just think - nah, i'll leave it thanks, and when i perform the "Snap" i'll remember to erase all the avengers + captain marvel. job done.


i really liked Inifinity war and how for the first time, avangers failed - yet endgame just seemed a mess of inconsistencies and flawed logic throughout.

The THanos of 2014 was now a Thanos of the future events, due to the time travel.

[rider73]

Halb said:

rider73 said:

Avengers ENDGAME

So Thanos in the past learns that he will find all the stones, beat the avengers, perform his "Snap" and succeed in everything he ever wanted to and end up with the ultimate power in the universe - yet for some reason, decides to go into the future where he doesnt have the glove and take on all the avengers, captain marvel without having all the stones/gauntlet

why did he not just think - nah, i'll leave it thanks, and when i perform the "Snap" i'll remember to erase all the avengers + captain marvel. job done.


i really liked Inifinity war and how for the first time, avangers failed - yet endgame just seemed a mess of inconsistencies and flawed logic throughout.

The THanos of 2014 was now a Thanos of the future events, due to the time travel.

eh?

[Halb]

rider73 said:

eh?

So...forget any other film about timetravel, they have no power here. The rules of how it works in the MCU film are how they see things. WHen the whatsits went back in time via the quantum realm, that past then became their future (possibly crating the multiverse, they're being vague on this...most likely to leave themselves windows) but stuff will probably be further explained in Doc Strange 2. SO the Thanos of 2014 with new knowledge is not the THanos that has existed in the time we have been following.

[rider73]

Halb said:

rider73 said:

eh?

So...forget any other film about timetravel, they have no power here. The rules of how it works in the MCU film are how they see things. WHen the whatsits went back in time via the quantum realm, that past then became their future (possibly crating the multiverse, they're being vague on this...most likely to leave themselves windows) but stuff will probably be further explained in Doc Strange 2. SO the Thanos of 2014 with new knowledge is not the THanos that has existed in the time we have been following.

I'm not sure i follow because they are going into the past, but also coming back from the past into the present, i understand that the past then becomes thier present and they are not in fact changing their own past from their POV (otherwise all the stuff they did in that past they would remember and it would mess up thier past) they are in fact changing it as we see it , but then it totally contradicts itself because then they say the need to do it "secretly" which is what they actually try and do, and it still doesnt change the fact, that if "past" thannos had done nothing, his future in his 'verse from his POV would have been exactly the same and he would have all the stones and won but still know what would happen past that point and could alter it.
Also why go back into the past again to put all the stones back - a multiverse would not have needed that and also some of events of them taking the stones in the past could not also have been undone - hence why i hated the movie.

[warch]

I thought the characters in Fury were one of the strongest aspects of the film. I completely bought them being unpleasant and dislikable. It is a common trope that soldiers are heroes who behave heroically especially in American films. The truth was often scared, emotionally scarred individuals who have just had enough especially in veteran units like the Desert Rats who performed poorly in the late war.

[HD Adam]

warch said:

I thought the characters in Fury were one of the strongest aspects of the film. I completely bought them being unpleasant and dislikable. It is a common trope that soldiers are heroes who behave heroically especially in American films. The truth was often scared, emotionally scarred individuals who have just had enough especially in veteran units like the Desert Rats who performed poorly in the late war.

It's an ok film if you take it for what it is.

The retelling of Moby Dick set during a war.

[silverfoxcc]

Saleen836 said:

Along with a lot of Americans have no idea on geography

O/T long story short
Flew to Detroit 2 weeks after 11/9. Was sheltering from rain at the Ford museum. party of teacher and schoolkids overheard us talking. Curiousity got the better of her and she asked where we came from. Now Bracknell isnt the most famous of places ,so I said Near London, in Fact we live near Windsor Castle, you know Windsor ,where our Queen lives? She nodded and went back to group. Rain stops we walk of, she suddenly chases us and asks

Her Did you say you lived near Windsor
Me Yes
H Did you have trouble coming through the tunnel?

slight pause before i asked?
M What do you teach?

H Geography

M God help your pupils

Back to topic

Continuity with trains ,mentioned earlier in thread. I did ring one company up to ask if they had a vacancy for that job as the present encumbent was totally U/S and got the reply Well it is onlt a film , people wont notice
Well i frigging did, they must make their money easy if thats the best they can do
Cars and buses esp in BBC productions

The best one that makes my teeth itch is Elizabethan express. Excellent throughout, BUT the train ran from Kings Cross to Edinburgh..So WTF is the opening shots of Waterloo????

Indepenence Day

When the pres and Co take off in the 747,and the explosion doesn't quite catch it up

I know its a film BUT FFS give us some credit

And blowing up digital images to pin sharp perfection to get fine detail, even Hitchcock used it in Call Northside 777 on a early fax machine!!!

Telephone calls in the good old Strowger days, and this is in most films both US and UK

Guy dials as soon as he finishes the last dial operation the other person answers, however if the shot is of the one he is dialling the phone rings 2/3 times before they pick it up

Unlike nowadays there was a distinct time gap as the relays chuntered their way through the system before activating the ring machine in the distnt exchange

Real teeth itching moments

[Halb]

rider73 said:

I'm not sure i follow because they are going into the past, but also coming back from the past into the present, i understand that the past then becomes thier present and they are not in fact changing their own past from their POV (otherwise all the stuff they did in that past they would remember and it would mess up thier past) they are in fact changing it as we see it , but then it totally contradicts itself because then they say the need to do it "secretly" which is what they actually try and do, and it still doesnt change the fact, that if "past" thannos had done nothing, his future in his 'verse from his POV would have been exactly the same and he would have all the stones and won but still know what would happen past that point and could alter it.
Also why go back into the past again to put all the stones back - a multiverse would not have needed that and also some of events of them taking the stones in the past could not also have been undone - hence why i hated the movie.

Coming back from that past they went into back into the present they were originally in, yes, because that's what they were tethered to, thanks to the gizmo's in Stark's time compass. It is still possible that it is their past, I mean, they acted wisely enough to keep a low profile so as to not recall anything, of course some cock-ups occurred; the Loki thing for one. Possibly others. There is no reason to think that that didn't happen in the story we have already seen, there is no contradiction, however as the ancient one said...or maybe it was Paul Rudd, can't quite recall, the past becomes a new future. I'll probably have to rewatch it. I think you're using logic from other films. The way the Ancient one talked about time-lines seemed to be logical to me at the time. A question arises as to how the thing with Cap worked at the end. I recall reading about it, there were windows left open in previous films (the marriage) as to make it allowable. And after rewatching Peggy's bed scene from Winter Soldier, what she says now makes more sense/has added layers. The ancient one also answered the question about 'why go back', it would be unfair/selfish for the stones to be 'stolen' as well as irresponsible to keep them active in present time seeing as what is possible with them. Time travel stuff has issues as it's all twaddle, but so long as they create the rules they want and stick to then, there's no issues.

edited for atrocious speelling and syntax

Edited by Halb on Saturday 9th November 11:32

[h0b0]

silverfoxcc said:

O/T long story short
Flew to Detroit 2 weeks after 11/9. Was sheltering from rain at the Ford museum. party of teacher and schoolkids overheard us talking. Curiousity got the better of her and she asked where we came from. Now Bracknell isnt the most famous of places ,so I said Near London, in Fact we live near Windsor Castle, you know Windsor ,where our Queen lives? She nodded and went back to group. Rain stops we walk of, she suddenly chases us and asks

Her Did you say you lived near Windsor
Me Yes
H Did you have trouble coming through the tunnel?

slight pause before i asked?
M What do you teach?

H Geography

M God help your pupils

[url]

Ermmmmmm. You don’t think she may have thought you meant Windsor ON in Canada which is only a couple of miles away? You pillock.

[talksthetorque]

h0b0 said:

[url]

Ermmmmmm. You don’t think she may have thought you meant Windsor ON in Canada which is only a couple of miles away? You pillock.

Our queen lives there now?

[h0b0]

talksthetorque said:

h0b0 said:

Ermmmmmm. You don’t think she may have thought you meant Windsor ON in Canada which is only a couple of miles away? You pillock.

Our queen lives there now?

The English think of themselves as learned word travelers but sometimes you are not far removed from colonial times. Local customs, "don't like them so will scoff and ignore". Local geography "boooooring! But woe betide those that don't know where Windsor UK is" (the museum is not in Detroit). When explaining to a foreign national where you live one would reasonably expect the locals in Detroit to have detailed knowledge of the Queen's many residences? I am English and the answer to "Where does the queen live?" would not be Windsor.

Simply the fact we have 2 people thinking that saying you come from Windsor would not cause some confusion when there is one 30 minutes away demonstrates my point.

Look at the map including the tunnel......



To most people in the world, England is not important and does not form majority of the School's curriculum.

[warch]

A Winner Is You said:

yellowjack said:

Fast and Spurious said:

The film Fury. The whole fking film.

There seems to be a distinct split of opinion on this film. There don't seem to be many "meh, it was so-so" opinions, more those that love every minute of it and believe that it's a treatise on American tank tactics and doctrine closely adapted for film, and others, who correctly see it as a couple of hours of Hollywood nonsense. It's a Brad Pitt 'star vehicle' dressed up as a war film. And it bears no resemblance whatsoever to any tank tactics I've ever studied. To have "fought" an immobilised Sherman for as long as they did was nigh-on impossible. Far too little ammunition, and far too vulnerable. The crew would almost certainly have been under orders to "bail out" at the first opportunity, too. After all, boatloads of the effing things were arriving from the USA on an almost daily basis, but trained, experienced crews can only be forged in the crucible of battle, and they were therefore considered far more valuable than a lump of metal that could be readily replaced, especially at that point in the war. So yes, I'm with you - it's absolute dirge. Speaking to a few people at the Tank Museum, too, reveals some interesting (off script, off the record) opinions about the content of the film. But supplying Tiger 131 for the filming brought in money to enable the museum's work to continue so, or at least so I'm told, they officially choose to toe the party line and bite their collective tongues over the Hollywood fantasy version of tank warfare.

I felt the tank battle was well done, but the ending was beyond ridiculous and was like playing Call of Duty on easy mode. Somehow being killed by a grenade dropped through the hatch only leaves your body with minor injuries as well. The characters were all stunningly unlikeable as well - I get that in war people aren't going to spend their time signing and dancing, but you need something to make you root for them.

I thought the Tiger vs Sherman battle was rather unrealistic, a lone tank would probably have sniped from cover until it's position was known then would have either retreated or been abandoned by it's crew (the Allies had air superiority throughout the late war in North-west Europe).

The 'beyond ridiculous' ending could have been based on an event in the career of a US infantry soldier called Audie Murphy. He was decorated for defending a position for about an hour using a 50 cal. machine gun mounted on an immobilised tank destroyer. Apparently he killed or injured 50 German soldiers in the process. He also survived the encounter.