Why do people slag off films for being far fetched?

M

Mr.6288

New member
IT'S A FILM!!!! GET OVER YOURSELVES!!

The whole point of a film is to entertain. Would it really be that interesting if Indiana Jones was a normal everyday businessman who didn't know how to shoot a gun and would just surrender at the first chance?
I can't believe people are stupid enough to say scenes in a film about aliens and spaceships are sometimes far fetched because the gun didn't make the right sound or that the explosion would never be that big. It's a film about aliens... what can be more far fetched than that?
I really don't understand these boring, old fashioned critics which this forum seems to be full of. Fair enough it's a forum and people are free to express their opinion on things, but really, if you don't like what you see in films but knew in advance it was going to be cheese (Indiana Jones 4 for instance), don't bloody go see it!!

In the worRAB of Peter - It really grinRAB my gears! :mad:
 
A friend of mine doesn't like Bond films because she sez they are to far fetch :rolleyes: I was really disappointed in the last one as i thought it wasn't far fetch enough not for a Bond film :confused:
 
yeah, i agree completely. I have a friend who picks holes in everything we watch, either pointing out 'product placements' or that something is unrealistic.

i remember we were watching National Lampoons Xmas Vacation and he was moaning about how unrealistic the scene was where chevy chase was locked in the attic!!?...i mean, we are talking about a Chevy Chase 'Vacation' movie here, not a series that is known for being grounded in reality.

I have another friend who had no problem with the first (Tim Burton) Batman film but hated Batman Returns solely for being unrealistic.
 
My friend really annoys me with things like this! Watching Jurassic Park where the cars stuck in the tree "That would never hold up there, why do that? It just makes the film seem less real". Yeah because a T-Rex and a bunch of prehistoric dinosaurs running around is an everyday occurance :rolleyes:

I can see the point sometimes but when a film has a plot which doesn't essentially stick to reality you kinda let other parts slip
 
Any film has to be internally consistent to work. To gloss over inconsistencies or illogicalities outside of the basic conceit (i.e. That dinosaurs can be re-made, that a mentalist in a bat suit fights crime etc) by saying "it's only a film" allows for lazy writing. Too much of that, and our suspension of disbelief is broken, and the film's narrative fails.

That said, I have no idea what the problem some people have with Indy 4 is. We've already established that these films have comic-book physics (that is part of the B-movie serial conceit) - where you can survive jumping out of a plan by being in a rubbed dingy.
 
i had no problem with the alien plot in indy though it wasn't as good a hook as the ark or the holy grail

i had a problem with:
the fridge
the gophers
the monkeys
 
I had no problem with the fridge, as I'd learned to accept the rubber dingy in Temple of Doom.

I didn't like the gophers or monkeys either. Although only because they were rather dumb ideas, and not especially well executed.
 
Suddenly changing the of premise and veering away from the ethos of a movie with an unexpected change of direction... Or twists in short.... It can be done both well and very badly.

In Sixth Sense it was done brilliantly....

Done badly it is simpler to say it was unrealistic...

For example Jeepers Creepers, I saw the trailers and expected great things from this movie...

In the beginning it's tension buildingly scary then suddenly this creature from the unknown turns out to be the source of evil it's a let down... It's become a monster film rather than a scary unknown that enRAB leaving with you a million questions.... The central premise changes too dramatically.

At least with sequel you knew where you stood and what to expect.
 
I saw the film in a cinema packed with families, the atmoshpere was great and the gophers and monkies got a great reception. I thought the fridge worked fine, just as believable to me as " A telephone that can speak to god!"
 
they will be the same families (ie the children) who thought jar jar binks was a good character..

if you look at the earlier indy films they were 'family friendly' but they weren't childish, which parts of this definitely were
 
Come on stop being so childish, bitter and patronising.
Millions of people will love the new indy, and will not feel hard done by.

Most people are able to look at indy objectively and appreciate what it is, no more than a great fairground ride.
 
The stupid WTF moment in Jurassic Park is when the annoying kid survives being electrocuted on the fence and gets zapped off in a silly cartoon fashion.

Lame.
 
I couldn't do this with Mission Impossible III. The film was just so bad I couldn't help but pick it apart and it was so easy to. I just spent the whole time thinking "Yeah right, like that's going to happen :rolleyes:"
But most of the time if a film is good enough you get so engrossed in it that you don't notice.
 
childish, bitter and patronising ??

i am being none of those things. the 3 first indy films were not 'childrens' films. there was no sense of danger in this, it was definitely skewed more towarRAB children - eg the really badly judged scene of MONKEYS fighting the russians

i am looking at this objectively

it SHOULD have been more than just a great fairground ride - the others had charm, great characters and witty action scenes. this didn't. the reason i felt disappointed is that i expected much more from spielberg.
 
yes i know.

but as i am neither a 6 year old nor a parent who'll mind any old cr*p as long as it shuts my kiRAB up for a couple of hours i want a bit more

anyway as i said the first 3 were a lot different to these, they were far more 'adult'

it isn't just indy though, most films have dumbed down a lot over the past decade or so, things are a lot less sophisticated

its a shame. costs are so high they have to appeal to the lowest common denominator* to get as many people in to see them as possible


*off topic but my favourite line in a sitcom is the mother Lois in malcolm in the middle complaining that her family call her 'lois common denominator'
 
Thing is, that's not what it is about. GL and SS genuinely gave us what they thought was the best Indy Jones film they could make. Not fobbed off, not lowest common denominator, not consciously thinking they could put in "any crap" to get the kiRAB in. Like it or not (and there are those that don't) the accusation that the monkeys and gophers (and bears, oh my) were anything other than an artistic mis-step is, IMO, flawed logic. People accused Temple and Crusade of being horrible mis-steps at the time for different reasons. I think people will, in time, learn to gloss over the two or three rather naff ideas in Crystal Skull, and drop the film comfortably into IJ canon. It was no Phantom Menace. It wasn't even close to being that much of a tonal mess-up.

I have a friend who had never seen the IJ films. She watched the first three in the week before, and then Crystal Skull. She said they all felt the same, with the same humour and action. She noted that the Gophers were rubbish, but that was all. Draw your own conclusions of that, but these things are impossible to extracate from being a childhood experience for me. I have no objectivity for them, as I have for Crystal Skull.
 
Back
Top