Movies that undercut their own key moments

Cafe Society
41

[QUOTE=Robot Arm]
The special edition of Star Wars does this, although it’s a very minor scene that’s spoiled. In the original, when Luke and Ben walk in to the hangar in Mos Eisley and see the Millenium Falcon for the first time, we’re seeing it for the first time, too. Try to remember how primative special effects had been, and what a revelation that movie was. Everyone in the audience is looking up at that big screen, mouths hanging open, and thinking “A spaceship. Cool.”

Then Luke says “what a piece of junk,” and it just instantly tells you a lot about their world. Space travel is common, some spacecraft are jalopies, and their pilots are like the truckers you see at a diner just off the interstate. It’s a good moment. By putting in the scene with Han and Jabba, we get a long look at the Falcon. We have a chance to take it in, and by the time Luke comes in and says his line, the magic has worn off and the moment is ruined.
[/QUOTE]
The “these aren’t the droids you’re looking for” scene is ruined in the new version as well. In the original when we see the stormtroopers pulling over the landspeeder our immediate reaction is “Uh-oh, they’re in trouble now! How are they going to get out of this?” Then as the dialog between Ben and the trooper unfolds we realize that this old man has powers we never dreamed of. It’s thrilling, and funny too as the trooper mindlessly parrots Ben’s suggestions.

In the new version Lucas threw in a bunch of CG aliens when Luke and Ben arrive in Mos Eisley. So immediately we’re distracted. Instead of being focused on the main characters were paying attention to all these interesting and strange creatures in the background. Then, just when the stormtroopers are pulling over the speeder, a huge CG beast of some sort walks between the action and the camera! The entire set-up for the scene is wrecked. We never get that little “oh crap” moment – by the time the creature is gone Ben and the trooper have already started their exchange … which now plays completely flat.

And, of course, showing all the aliens wandering around town also destroys the thrill of entering the cantina … .

42

[QUOTE=CalMeacham]
As the entry above observes, however, the toys consciously violate this prohibition when they freak out Sid. So obviously they are participating. Besides, they are shown lying down and running into position in preparation for Andy’s coming into the room, so clearly it’s of their own volition.

I never really thought about how Buzz Lightyear’s behavior conflicted with this before,m though. I can live with it, for the sake of the movie, but it IS an inconsistency.
[/QUOTE]

Don’t bother me with facts. :slight_smile:

Ok, I’ll happily admit to (a) not reading the first Toy Story post closely, and never having watched the first TS movie all the way through at all.

43

[QUOTE=Ronald C. Semone]
As I have pointed out before in similar threads, the prologue to the Humphrey Bogart version of “The Maltese Falcon”, gives away one of the big mysteries of the movie: why is everyone after “the bird”? Charles Laughton’s explanation mid-way through the movie…
[/QUOTE]
:cough:SydneyGreenstreet:cough:

44

[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy]
:cough:SydneyGreenstreet:cough:
[/QUOTE]

You are right, of course. I know better. A stupid error on my part.

45

[QUOTE=Eonwe]
I don’t think that this was meant to be a shocker.

Certainly when we get to the last scene in the beach house (or wherever that was), all white and heavenly, it’s more than obvious that he’s going to die there.
[/QUOTE]

I got the impression it was meant to come as a surprise. The audience were supposed to think he’d got away safely to a happy ending, then sudden disaster falls. But it failed to shock only because it had been telegraphed beforehand.

46

[QUOTE=Red Barchetta]
Identity revealed its twist ending far too soon
[/QUOTE]

Yes, indeed. No movie should reveal its twist ending during the opening credits.

47

[QUOTE=KneadToKnow]
Yes, indeed. No movie should reveal its twist ending during the opening credits.
[/QUOTE]

Did it? I guess I can see how some would be able to derive meaning out of those seemingly random scenes involving crazy-guy, but I (and many others, evidently), remained oblivious until they explicitly revealed that point during the course of the film.

48

I won’t pretend that after the opening credits ended I said to myself,

I bet all the characters we meet will be aspects of the killer’s fractured psyche.

But I was mightily clued in to the notion that they were not real people involved in a real situation in any normal sense of the word. I haven’t watched the movie in a couple of years, so I can’t tell you exactly what it was that gave it away for me.

49

Constantine, which isn’t a half bad movie.

I think John’s voice over at the end screwed it up.

Would have been much better for him to just pop the gum in his mouth and walk off without us hearing him thinking. That would have said everything.

50

No mention yet of the psychiatrist scene at the end of Psycho?

51

[QUOTE=Robot Arm]
Toy Story is a case of a later scene undercutting lots of earlier ones. Why can’t the toys talk to kids? I mean, I assumed it was some sort of outside force, magic or metaphysics or whatever, and I was cool with that. But then, when it’s convenient for them, they talk to Sid. What the fuck, they’re doing it by choice? You telling me that Andy wouldn’t rather have a walking, talking, living Woody and Buzz? But no, someone said “whenever a kid comes in, play dead.” What a bunch of sadistic little plastic bastards!
[/QUOTE]
I know I shouldn’t be overthinking a children’s movie, but the thing that always bothered me about Toy Story is Buzz Lightyear following the other toys’ lead and playing dead, in the beginning of the movie, even though he’s convinced that he’s not a toy!

second edit: (note to self: read the whole thread before adding your comment )

52

Don’t think of Buzz’s behavior as acting like a toy. Think of it as wisely mimicking the survival tactics of the locals when faced with a potentially hostile giant. :smiley:

53

Boy, the ending of The Illusionist sure rubbed me the wrong way.

This dude is performing magic tricks that are so awe-inspiring that the only explanation to any sane person is that there’s some kind of supernatural element to it, which I was quite willing to accept. But as it turns out, there isn’t. He’s just a very, very good magician who can make 3-dimensional holograms that interact with the audience…in a movie set a hundred years ago. Then the entire story is basically negated by the stupid fuckin goddamn twist ending. Ebert defined this kind of bullshit as a “jerk-around” movie. Can’t say I don’t agree.

54

[QUOTE=ChessPieceFace]
Not to mention that the punch-in-the-gut reveal at the end of Empire is now rendered completely toothless because of the prequels. Someone watching the six movies “in order” would say “Yes, of course he’s Luke’s father. And…?”
[/QUOTE]

Ruining the “Luke, I am your father” in the prequels was pretty much inevidable. What pissed me off was that they could’ve kept Leia’s parentage a secret to new comers to the series fairly easily by not revealing that Padme had had twins.

55

The 13th Floor was a really interesting movie about virtual reality that would have had a great twist, had the trailers not had Vince D’Onofrio shouting that

Their world, where the main characters have created a perfect interactive VR simulation of a city, is itself a VR simulation that can be entered by its creators. In turns out that the creators are taking an interest in this world because, of all the simulations they made, this was the only whose inhabitants went ahead, of their own volition, to create their own simulations.

56

Oh, I thought of one that bugged me: Contact.

Throughout the movie, we’re shown that Jodie Foster is a hardcore scientist who only believes in what she can prove. They even toss in Matthew McConawhoahey as a religious man who directly states that she needs to learn to take things on faith. Then, we see her go through the stargate or whatever, visit “Pensacola,” and come home… where we find out she just fell straight through in an instant. But, she insists that it happened, it was real, and she’s going to ignore all the scientific evidence and take something on faith. And we’re right there with her. Her character arc is complete, she’s changed as a person just like she needed to, we the audience learned something, and the movie’s over.

…Except then Corporal Exposition says that there was “18 hours of static on the flight recorder.” So we now have scientific evidence for her trip, she KNOWS she’s right because she has proof, and her entire character arc is completely invalidated. Plus, we (or, at least, I) feel insulted because we were willing to accept the same thing on faith, and the movie spoon-fed us The Truth.

I mean, it wasn’t a great movie either way, but that just completely ruined it for me.

57

[QUOTE=Malodorous]
Ruining the “Luke, I am your father” in the prequels was pretty much inevidable.
[/QUOTE]

I disagree, and have done so for years.

Shortly after Clones came out, I outlined (alas, over beers and nachos and not on these boards) an extremely plausible and (if I do say so myself) far superior three-part plot for the prequel trilogy which ended with Anakin raping Padme before going off on a quest to wipe out the Jedi. It had, in my opinion, the advantage of leaving the Stuff We All Know Happened (the Jedi extermination, the lightsaber dual over the volcano, the birth of the twins) to the viewer’s imagination as well as not ruining various portions of the established back story (Leia remembering her birth mother, Yoda being Obi Wan’s master). Granted, it didn’t have Jar-Jar, but hey, I’m not perfect.

58

Sorry, I was just reviewing that very abbreviated summary and realized that I left out the critical information that in my version of the prequel trilogy, a naive viewer (one who has not seen the Original Trilogy) would only have suspicions that Vader and Anakin are the same person, and it is in fact in the persona of Vader that Anakin rapes Padme.

59

Just recently in a Star Wars thread I outlined how it could have been done. In my story you build up the rivalry between Dooku and Anakin. They are competing for Sidious’ favor. The end of the third movie is a three-way light saber battle between Anakin, Dooku and Obiwan at the lava pit. Anakin and Dooku both end up in the lava. Obiwan leaves. Sidious fishes one of them out of the fire and gives them the Vader suit and the name. You don’t know which one it was until the end of Empire.

60

[QUOTE=ChessPieceFace]
Oh, I thought of one that bugged me: Contact.

Throughout the movie, we’re shown that Jodie Foster is a hardcore scientist who only believes in what she can prove. They even toss in Matthew McConawhoahey as a religious man who directly states that she needs to learn to take things on faith. Then, we see her go through the stargate or whatever, visit “Pensacola,” and come home… where we find out she just fell straight through in an instant. But, she insists that it happened, it was real, and she’s going to ignore all the scientific evidence and take something on faith. And we’re right there with her. Her character arc is complete, she’s changed as a person just like she needed to, we the audience learned something, and the movie’s over.

…Except then Corporal Exposition says that there was “18 hours of static on the flight recorder.” So we now have scientific evidence for her trip, she KNOWS she’s right because she has proof, and her entire character arc is completely invalidated. Plus, we (or, at least, I) feel insulted because we were willing to accept the same thing on faith, and the movie spoon-fed us The Truth.

I mean, it wasn’t a great movie either way, but that just completely ruined it for me.
[/QUOTE]

The fact that she accepted something on faith completely ruined the movie for me and completely and totally destroyed the central message in the original book, which was that one should not take things on faith. I mean, the entire course of her life was to find evidence for Gods existence… the “growth” as you defined it above, meant that she gave up her search. Giving up is “growing”?

The character arc was invalidated because it was the wrong character arc. Eleanor Arroway would’ve never told Congress “Well, yuck-yuck, I guess y’all are jest gonna hafta believe me!” and it didn’t happen that way in the novel: she was like “I’m right, but I can’t prove it. However, when I can prove it… watch out”.

Which is what happened.

Until Zemeckis f-ed it all up and dumbed the story down for the audience by tacking on that “faith” message.

Sorry… but no movie’s ending has ever pissed me off more than Contact’s. Carl Sagan must still be spinning in his grave.