The Federation In Star Trek are the bad guys and all the TV/movies that we see are actually well done pieces of propoganda. Resaerch vessels on voyages of exploration don’t go around armed to the teeth.
Luckily, a small group of plucky rebels managed to make a much more realistic account of what’s going on - it’s the creaky 1980’s British TV show Blake’s 7.
The ending of Inception is the director performing inception on the audience, just as Cobb had done to his wife, making her doubt reality when in fact it really was reality.
Not theories per se, but there are a large number of people that don’t seem to realize that:
The virus uploaded in Independence Day is an homage to War of the Worlds. AND
The aliens in Signs * being vulnerable to water is an homage to Day of the Triffids.
*Not to mention, it’s never definitively said that ALL water hurts the aliens. The water that hurt the aliens had impurities in it. Girl: “The water tastes funny”.
Oh, and Starship Troopers is one of the most brilliant pieces of satire evah.
I’m with Quimby on this one - to the extent that I don’t think it counts as a “crazy movie theory.” In the first movie, we see that the Arnold Terminator is basically a stock model. In the second, the T-2000 is explicitly identified as cutting edge technology for SkyNet. Why would the cutting edge model be plan two? And if your trying to eliminate someone from your timeline, wouldn’t your first instinct be to kill *him *before he gets dangerous, not his mom?
I’m pretty sure that plan A was “Send the best Terminator we have to kill John Connor as a child,” and plan B was “Send a stock model back to kill his mom, just in case.”
It doesn’t require any additional loops. In 20XX, SkyNet sends one Terminator back to 1991, and a second Terminator back to 1984. The one in 1984 forms the basis of the tech that’s eventually used to build SkyNet. The fact that he was the second Terminator sent through the time machine doesn’t change that.
Miller, your thought process was exactly my thought process when I came up with the idea.
There was a recent comic book riff on this, where Hawkeye and Nick Fury (!) were discussing this idea.
From Wikipedia:
HMS Beagle was a Cherokee-class 10-gun brig-sloop of the Royal Navy.
And its mission was a military one: to map the waters around South America in order to make charts for use by the Royal Navy in future operations. Charles Darwin was just along for the ride (and to keep the Captain company).
Still, it does not sem unreasonable that researchers heading into unknown, potentially hostile territory should be well armed. I am sure Lewis and Clark were, for instance.
In Disney/Pixar Cars, the mummified remains of the humans are still inside the cars - trapped their when the cars became sentient and the windows all turned opaque.
Maybe just for backstory cover?
Does it count if the crazy theory turns out to be verified later by the movie creator?
Because if so then, “Deckard is a replicant.” It was a pretty wild idea when Blade Runner was first released.
You misspelled Firefly.
Isn’t Ridley Scott the only person connected to the movie who promotes the replicant theory? But just like the “the whole planet is dead so the original ending is stupid!” is stupid, so is the replicant theory.
“Not feeling too good McQueen? Welllll…let me take a look under the hood. Just roll down your window there. (Mummified human lolls out of window) Yup. Just as I suspected. Your human has dessicated so much that your AC unit was getting clogged. We’ll get you fixed up in a jiffy bud.”
Anyway—the drastic change in tone of the last two of the original four Batman movies can, in fact, be reconciled with the darker, more serious tone of the first two.
How? Gotham City got that way because Batman fixed it. Because of his presence, all or most of the sane criminals have either skipped town or gone straight; most of the ones who’re left are the kind of wackos who think it’s a great idea to hang around putting on face paint under blacklights, and increasingly isolated and unorganized low level criminals. Crime is kept so in check—and mostly to the domain of harmless bumblers and weirdos—that the city has experienced a massive economic and cultural boom, and the streets are safe enough that the Dark Knight can openly attend charity auctions in front of the press.
The movies didn’t get stupid—they’re a realistic depiction of an urban society becoming ridiculously decadent after the removal of a hitherto intractable societal bane.
I…can’t really explain the silly sound effects, or why someone thought it would be a good idea to build freeways through the middle of the city perched on the shoulders of 80-storey tall statues. Maybe the latter was a make-work project, or something…someone ask Joel.
I’ve also posted my theory on this movie. The world of Cars used to have people and other lifeforms. But all life on Earth was killed in the great plague.
Humanity had already developed complex AI systems to work for them but these AIs now felt no sense of purpose. They had been designed to support human society and that no longer existed. The AIs were intelligent but they lacked the creative spark that humanity had had - they couldn’t simply invent a new model of society based around robots.
So they reprogrammed themselves to delete all memories of life. And they now mimic a human society without remembering humanity itself.
Wasn’t this the basic premise behind the original Casino Royale? (Except there it was a code name instead of a title.) :dubious:
In 12 Monkeys no time travel takes place, Cole is a NUT in a mental hospital/prison in a bleak post apoc future. He hallucinates a fantasy of traveling back to the pinnacle of human civilization he remembers as a boy, in between therapy sessions and forced work detail on the surface. He becomes a hero time traveling to save humanity.
Since Cars has been coming up, there is this, pretty famous at this point, theory that all Pixar movies to date take place in the same universe.
I’ve seen a similar explanation for the entire Silver Age of DC comics.