The top of the silver “table” looks concave (best view at 4:49). I’m betting ashtray.
Agreed. I have always thought the scene would have been better if he’d just shot no one. And when he’s asked why he didn’t he explains why he didn’t shoot the aliens, but then says [pointing to the girl] “but she’s up to something” and explained why.
Putting someone under pressure to conform by appearing to be displeased by their non-conformity (when actually that is what you want from them) would seem a good test.
But then it would have come across as if he were bullshitting them - he hesitated, didn’t shoot, and now he’s making up some stupid excuse. Plus, he still has to show off his marksmanship.
Yeah, I’d agree with that. It says something about the genius of the scene that we’re still chewing it over!
Bryan Ekers said:
I just watched that scene, and his finger is not in the trigger guard. Look at 6:38 in the clip posted by muldoonthief. His finger is along the barrel.
Sigmagirl said:
Just watching the scene, no, he moved the table. But why he picked the table vs the chair is a matter of personal preference. The table isn’t large, so it shouldn’t be that heavy. Looks like a coffee table. I might go for moving the table in that scenario. 'specially since there’s a window that is clearly for monitoring them.
drastic_quench said:
I know that’s how they wrote the scene, but it’s really unfair. “Super soldiers” in elite units like Delta Forces, Navy SEALs, etc, are trained to use judgment and innovation to evaluate the circumstances as they adapt to real time situations. They have to be able to think outside the box - their lives often depend upon it.
ftg said:
It did demonstrate that he was more willing to admit his lack of information. The thing is, no one answered the actual question. They were there to be interviewed and tested for a selection for a team that was never explained what the team was or did. That is what Edwards was asking - what is this team, what does it do, why do you need one of us? The other guy blurted out an answer to “Why are we the people being tested, as opposed to 7 other schlubs?” But that clearly wasn’t Edwards’ question at all. So that soldier dude not only came off like an overactious, need-to-be right type, but also as a maroon for not even answering the correct question. So yeah, Edwards laughed. Maybe that showed a lack of respect for discipline, but I wouldn’t have taken it that way.
No, he had the right “find the solution” and critical evaluation skills, and demonstrated them. Zed was playing the scene at the shooting range on purpose. The whole point was to see if any of them would actually assess the situation, rather than immediately see “aliens” and think hostile. Which Edwards did with flying colors. Perhaps shooting Tiffany was good or bad, can’t tell what Zed intended for that, though he did get a slight smirk at Edwards’ explanation, meaning Edwards was right. Zed was just playing that scene to see if Edwards could defend his actions, or was just freezing up and making a bad shot. He comes in with a disapproving and curious tone so that Edwards has to be confident with his answer.
I’ll concede the placement of his finger, but I also note that at this moment, he’s pointing the gun directly at Zed’s stomach. It’s a big target that fills a good-sized chunk of the room, but even so…
I’da stood up and leaned on top of the egg.
I’m convinced it was the right answer. Zed’s expression during Edwards’ explanation was clearly “I’ll be damned, he saw right through it.”
Then Edwards got snippy, and Zed went “wat.”:dubious:
“Or do I owe her an apology?” 
And I really don’t see the film as more than a mildly clever comedy/action movie.
As you pointed out, there was no need to shoot the girl just because she was puzzling.
And on the written test, why did Will Smith keep trying to put his broken pencil back together? No bright person would really do that. It’s farce.
In both cases the movie was trying to be clever or amusing, but violated its internal logic in doing so. Smith is supposed to be street smart and practical? Then why is he a doofus? Shooting Tiffany would have been funnier if it really made sense. Dragging the table over is funnier if he’s perfectly happy working with a snapped pencil.
Well, it is in the context of a shooting gallery. I don’t think that in the real world, he’d shoot an eight year old just for carrying a college text book, but in this situation, he’s essentially being told: “There’s at least one bad guy here - shoot him.” And Tiffany was the most dangerous looking thing (by his logic) in the exercise, so he shot her.
Haven’t you ever played “One of These Things is Not Like the Others”?
You see ten monsters and one little girl, it makes just as much the little girl doesn’t belong.
It works as an easy laugh, but it doesn’t make for classic comedy. I would have preferred more (again) internal logic, so that the explanation for shooting the kid would be obvious in discussions like this one.
Because really, is a fanged monster holding a white cloth really less threatening than a child being forced to return her junkie parents’ books to the library book slot so they don’t get hit with a late fee?
It’s an easy laugh that you’re not supposed to think about after the next cut. I liked MIB, thought it was about a B plus movie, but the test was not great comedy writing.
But discussions like this are thought provoking because rules of internal logic are so hard to pin down. One of my favorite things about Princess Bride is how the character bypass logic without making their actions seem fraudulent.
–Inigo Montoya is about to duel to the death with a stranger and casually passes over his sword for inspection.
–Vizzini pulls the most obvious distract-and-switch-drinks maneuver in cinema history against one of the sharpest heroes and I’ll swallow it right down.
Right, because that’s so much funnier?
(I can’t believe I’m making another post to this thread.)
I thought it was clear why I thought J did two bad things at first. (Laughing and the paper test stuff.)
He was drawing attention to himself. For MiB this is a very bad thing. “… You’ll not stand out in any way. Your entire image is crafted to leave no lasting memory with anyone you encounter. You’re a rumor, recognizable only as deja vu and dismissed just as quickly. You don’t exist; you were never even born. Anonymity is your name. Silence your native tongue. … We are the Men in Black.”
Mocking “Captain America” and sliding the table tends to make one stand out.
And since Wesley knew that he would be fine and Vizzini would die no matter what Vizzini chose, he let the Sicilian think he had fooled the Dread Pirate Roberts.
They can learn anonymity. Learning unorthodoxity is tougher.
Well, I’m not going to tell someone that what they think is funny isn’t. My judgment is just that. I’m giving my take, and if someone agrees with it that’s rewarding in some fashion.
Or if someone wants to make an observation on internal logic in fantasy, that might make for an interesting discussion.
My opinion on the ha-ha factor in the MIB test sequence is that that it would have been funnier if Will Smith’s actions were more real-world logical. It wouldn’t have hurt the humor at all, and would have added a dose of nutritious, amusing puzzle logic.
I thought the egg-shaped chairs were funny for that very reason. Someone had clearly thought hard about creating an unusual chair that almost offered a place to write… but didn’t quite. Nutritious, amusing puzzle logic.
What the writers could have done differently to make the shooting gallery aliens authentically harmless, and the girl unambiguously menacing I don’t know. But for a hefty salary and a percentage of gross I could come up with something.
That would have defeated the whole purpose of the shooting test.
Something had to be a menace and the trick was to spot the small hints that the aliens weren’t it.
Yeah, if the aliens were obviously harmless and the girl menacing, it would have been ridiculous for the ultra elite military / West Point guys to have screwed up. This would have made them look like buffoons. Dumbing down the lead’s opposition is way too easy in either a drama or a comedy.
I agree with those who say it’s better writing (and, not coincidentally, funnier) to make the others’ decisions appear pretty justified, and Edwards’ instinct seem like a mistake, after the fact.
Do you really think a set designer came up with those? It’s one of the most famous chair designs in history. Look up Eero Aarnio.
And how do those examples from The Princess Bride show anybody bypassing logic? They show just the opposite.
Do you usually have trouble seeing subtleties and subtext?