Now *that * would have been cool.
That’s EXACTLY what I thought it was going to be. I was disappointed that it was only her head .
I liked it much better that way, since he looked right at her dead severed head. It could have been anybody’s fetus.
That’s true. Plus, he didn’t know that She was pregnant.
He would’ve just been like “WTF”?
Why should we listen to you?! YOU’RE HITLER!
Anyway, I remember my favourite suspense building twist:
Oh my God, that is shocking! :eek:
What conference is this? I ask as a fellow Buffy/Angel fan, but I’ve also been compiling some semi-academic information on pop culture myself.
Same here. I took it a bit further - I thought the audience was supposed to know it all along, and only the characters would be in the dark.
In Broadcast News…
…there’s a scene early in the movie where Tom (William Hurt) has interviewed a rape victim. Everyone is watching as it’s broadcast, and in the middle is a reaction shot of him with a tear rolling down his cheek. I’ve seen TV news interviews, and they’re done with only one camera. During that scene I was thinking “oh, there’s a reaction shot of him that was taken at the end and edited into place.” But everyone else is moved that he could have such compassion to tear up during her story. Whatever.
Well, later in the movie, that turns out to be the big plot point. Aaron (Albert Brooks) is mad at Jane (Holly Hunter) and asks her how the news report could show Tom crying when there was only one camera and it was pointed at the woman he was interviewing. She goes and looks at the raw footage, and sees that he made himself cry at the end and spliced the shot into the saddest part of the interview. What the hell? If I knew what was happening, there’s no way a network news producer wouldn’t have realized it.
Speaking of which, when Jane lashes into Tom, she’s not just personally angry about being deceived, but she said that what he did was unethical. Does it really violate any sort of standard of journalism to do what he did?
Still a very good movie, though; worth seeing just for Albert Brooks’ character.
Interesting thought, but I think there’s a simpler explanation - Angel, so long as he has his soul, has a basically normal human mind. And normal people find it very hard to kill other people, even when they really “want” to. Oh, you may want to beat the crap out of someone, and think you want to kill them, and succeed in giving them a hell of a beating - but it’s a rare person who’s going to use all of the strength at his disposal to make damn sure the person they’re attacking is dead. That’s a psychologically tricky thing to do.
My point is - I don’t think Angel was thinking of how best to inflict some nuanced, soul-eating punishment on Wesley. I think he genuinely believed he wanted Wesley dead, and would honestly say “Yah, I wanted to kill Wesley - and I would have, too, if I hadn’t been dragged off the bastard”.
Michael Crichton’s Airframe (not a movie yet, AFAIK) has a twist that seemed telegraphed from way off.
A team is investigating a near-crash that involved a Taiwanese airliner bound for the US bouncing around wildly, killing a few people and injuring dozens more. The pilot is in a coma, and the airline has quickly hustled the rest of the crew out of the US, so the team only has the plane to search for evidence of what happened.
At multiple points in the book, the engineers state that everything on the plane is in working order, but as soon as someone brings up pilot error, everyone immediately jumps to the defense of the pilot, who is a known veteran. So you have:
A. There was no mechanical failure on the plane. Ergo, pilot error.
B. “If Pilot Lee were at the controls, there’s no way this accident could have happened.” (that’s almost exactly how it’s phrased multiple times)
[spoiler]Now, I’m not a master logician, but if A and B are both true, wouldn’t the next question be: Was pilot Lee at the controls when the accident happened? Nobody ever brings it up.
This, of course, was the big twist ending. The navigator (or some other member of the crew) was Lee’s son, who was also a pilot but not rated for that aircraft (their relationship didn’t stand out on the manifest because of the commonness of the name). Dad Lee lets Son Lee take the helm, and the rest of the crew don’t dare question the veteran. While Dad goes to the toilet, Son manages to get himself in trouble that a rated pilot would know to fix by doing something very simple, but counter-intuitive. Son instead does the intuitive (but wrong) thing, causing all hell to break loose.[/spoiler]
Yeah, it does. It’s the film equivalent of manipulating a photo for release in print journalism, which is a fairly big no-no. Instead of showing it as it happened, he’s showing an idealized version and one that makes him look good, which isn’t exactly impartial reporting of the facts.
Every episode of Columbo. I always figured out the murderer before the end.
Turns out it’s Man.
That show’s being going downhill since the third season. 
Is it wrong of me to wish there actually was a Scary Door show that took the piss out of The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits? 
Independence Day. The entire movie.
However, if you insist…
[spoiler]I was shocked, SHOCKED, that the ex-fighter jock President of the US of A would actually get into a plane in the final section of the film to take on alien bad-guys - and survive to tell the tale.
Whoda thunk that the drunk “crazy” ex-fighter jock who ranted about alien probes was actually right? And that he’d save the day (and the world in the process)?[/spoiler]
Actually, the only plot twist that was surprising in that movie was Goldblum’s ability to drive from NYC to DC in about 4 hours, not encountering a single traffic jam along the way. 
I’m not sure why I’m spoilering my reply because these aren’t spoilers. The movie was about an alien invasion. We all knew that going in. I don’t think it particularly shocked anyone to find out the “lunatic” raving about alien abductions turned out to be right.
They sort of tried to alleviate that by saying that Hurt actually did tear up while she was talking, but that didn’t have another camera to catch it. You can her the crew saying this when Hunter watches the raw footage.
Still a bit of a moot point. As Robot Arm said, ENG interviews like that are never, ever, shot with more than one camera. Worked for the film because so few people knew that Hunter’s character would know this.
Also:
I figured out pretty much right away that the fingerprints at the “Greed” scene were not the perp’s, and they were going to find a dead guy with severed hands at the next scene (that he wasn’t quite dead is irrelevant).
You know, I really like that explanation. As effective as that scene was, it always bothered me on a few levels. How do a mere two non-superpowered orderlies pull an enraged Angel off? Why doesn’t Angel just snap Wesley’s neck–particularly since he knows Gunn is right outside and will presumably try to intervene? (Yeah, I know that he’s just one guy, but he’s CHARLES GUNN, whom Angel does not take likely. If there’s a non-super-powered human being able to take down Angel single-handedly, it is he.) And why the outburst of rage, anyway, when heretofore Angel has been shown to get quiet when he’s most furious? (Remember how he abetted the massacre of the W & H lawyers. Remember his quiet fury when Kate Lockley’s father was killed in front of him.)
The more I think on it, the more I agree. Angel never intended to kill Wes–at least, not at that moment–for reasons similar to Angelus not wanted to kill Buffy right away. He wanted Wesley to suffer, and for Wesley to know the spokesman for redemption considered him irredeemable was classic cold revenge.