 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 25, 2015 - 11:18 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
CinemaScope
(Member)
|
On the other hand . . . there's no way to duck a bullet. It's moving too fast. When there are bullets flying everywhere, it's just as safe to stroll confidently as it is to duck and jerk around -- there's no greater likelihood that a bullet will hit you while you're cowering than while you're not cowering, and obstacles like cars and walls and doors aren't going to stop the bullets. So why not just go about your business? 
Yup, in westerns you're better off standing still. You have the un-rifled bullet clanging down the colt barrel, it could leave the barrel at a 45 degree angle (that scene in The magnificent Seven where James Coburn, holding the gun in both hands, shoots someone riding a horse way off in the distance is just ridiculous - "That was a terrible shot, I was aiming at the horse").
And it's no good crouching behind a car, unless you're behind the engine block, but then the shooter could just bend down & shoot you under the car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 25, 2015 - 6:43 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
CinemaScope
(Member)
|
I was watching a war film in the weekend & it struck me that when a bomb hits a building & it explodes into flame...you never see the bomb falling...ever! I suppose it's too much like hard work to rig a dummy bomb high up & have it drop & the building explode in the same shot. It would be easy to do now with CGI.
I hate explosions in films, fire explosions even more. Blowing up stuff doesn't amuse me.
Many if not most times an explosion is 99% dust and clouds and very little fire because it's about the shock not about the burn. In films the parties involved always seem use incendiary explosives.
D.S.
I was watching a program on the telly where they were telling you how they did explosions next to an actor. A fireflash thingy (a lot of flash but no power, you could stand quite close safely) a bag of flour, a slight bit of slow motion & a big explosion sound effect. In the seventies I saw an explosion, an IRA bomb in Oxford Street, I wasn't that far away, & 1/ It's out of sync, you see the flash & then hear the bang. 2/ A very unimpressive bang at that, flat like a paper bag, movie explosions are far more impressive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This one started with RETURN OF THE JEDI & reused in PHANTOM MENACE (& CLONES?):
The bad guys are using weapon or robots that do not have a self-cOntained power source. Instead, STUPIDLY, the bad guys control the entire army from a remote location . So, all the good guys have to do to win is destroy the power source!!!!!
I JUST watched a repeat of this ridiculous plot device in the season 6 final of STS-9
totlally lame!
brm
|
|
|
|
|
|
hey i got one.
where detectives - usually in cop shows- are interviewing murder victims relatives.
first platitude out...
"We are sorry for your loss..."
and this scandalously-feigned sympathy is usually followed by "Can you tell us where you were on the night of the murder"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 11, 2015 - 8:03 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mr. Jack
(Member)
|
...trains don't stop when they hit something on the tracks? Back To The Future III is a good example (SPOILERS for the three people who haven't seen this)...the Delorean has just arrived back in the present and suddenly a train comes barreling through, and Marty bails out right before the car gets creamed and reduced to a pile of twisted junk...and yet the train just keeps going. In my experience, even if there's just a discarded car tire on the tracks, it'll cause the conductor to stop the train and clear the tracks before proceeding, and yet in most movies, no matter what a train actually hits, it'll just blithely keep on going, tooting its horn being the only indication that the conductor was aware that he actually hit something. Eraser was another film like that...Schwarzenegger has the car with the bad guys locked in the back parked across the train tracks, and the train plows through it (with the gas tank going up in a LARGE EXPLOSION), and just keeps going.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 11, 2015 - 8:19 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mr. Jack
(Member)
|
When a main characters friend, or family member are killed or die, there's a few minutes of mourning then the show goes on without much afterthought for their loss. This is especially bad in family films where they feel they have to move right along into a happy scene so not to traumatize the kiddies.
The Lion King has a particularly jarring use of this (SPOILERS)...after Mufasa dies, Simba is being pursued by the hyenas, one of whom gets knocked into a patch of thorns, and there's a badly-timed bit of "comic" relief where the other hyenas laugh hysterically while referring to him as "cactus butt"...this all barely thirty seconds after Simba was crying over his dead dad and believing himself to be responsible for his death! What's especially bad about this is that the film's comic relief sidekicks, Timon and Pumbaa, are introduced just a minute or so later, so why couldn't the filmmakers have held off on the comic schtick until then? Lion King is a great film, but this was a spectacularly misjudged tonal mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
