OMG, that was so contrived! (Open Spoilers)

[Superdude]

Ba-Zing!

[YogSothoth]

Every season of 24. I love the show, but there’s no way in hell people can predict the future that much to set up so many backup plans

[DrDeth]

@CalMeacham

This might be a whoosh, but it’s Tom Godwin’s The Cold Equations. And the idea’s not original with him, as a look at the Wikipedia page shows. It was first used decades before Godwin was even born (again, with a girl having to be thrown out) in Robert Cromie’s A Plunge into Space.
And I don’t find this a contrivance – under the appropriate conditions, it’s a strong possibility. You might as well fault Arthur C. Clarke for not having enough oxygen aboard in his story Breaking Strain

Well, it’s still contrived as hell. First of all, there’s the young girl crap- because of course if it’s some skuzzy male, then of course- toss em out the airlock. Then there’s the bit about the silly rule and the absolute lack of precautiosn taken to enforce it:
http://home.tiac.net/~cri_d/cri/1999/coldeq.html

“The important point is that no serious effort is made to keep stowaways out. It is official policy that stowaways be killed, a term that the story avoids. Paragraph L, Section 8 of Interstellar Regulations:
Any stowaway discovered in an EDS shall be jettisoned immediately following discovery.
To enforce this policy the pilot is issued a blaster with which to execute any hapless stowaway in the event that said stowaway does not voluntarily jettison themselves.
This is serious business. The very existence of the regulation implies that stowaways are not an unheard of problem. You might suppose that a serious effort is made to avoid the possibility of people stowing away. You would be wrong. The pilot does not make a routine check for stowaways and feels no remorse for not having done so. No effort is made to keep stowaways out except for an uninformative sign. Nothing stops the young woman from just wandering on board.”

No lock. No guards, not even a suitably scary sign. So IF fuel was all that closely rationed, and stowaways were fairly common, then anyone half-competent would at least put a fucking lock on the damn door. Or, of course, have a pre-flight checklist, something that has been done sine Wilbur & Orville.

[Tarwater]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Minus that one little detail, I’d probably have suspended disbelief: okay, I’d think, he wants it back, even if I don’t know the reason why; he tasked her with recovering it, that’s all I know, it’s all I need to know. But since the guy has no problem with it being destroyed – and will, in fact, pay through the nose for that privilege – then why the heck is it still in one piece when the movie starts?

It makes the whole plot go – and all we know is, the guy who could’ve destroyed it that morning (or last month, or back in the '90s) doesn’t actually want it back, to the point of “doesn’t want it to exist any more, thanks very much, and here’s a great deal of money if you’ll get rid of it.”

How is this a contrivance? It’s an important aspect of his character; he keeps the evidence in a hidden safe deposit box because he’s still nursing the guilt and regret that came with collaborating with the Nazis. The movie tells this to the audience over and over again, and the character implies the same thing on numerous occasions. It’s the locus around which the film revolves, thematically.

And it’s not like that type of behavior is literally incredible, or whatever. I keep old love-letters that would be (slightly) emotionally damaging were I to read them, and that would damage me publicly if they were, for whatever reason, the target of an elaborate heist designed to extort me. But they’re an important part of my personal history, too, so I’m loathe to part with them. That’s only one example; and I doubt I’m the first and only person to have keepsakes that refer to a less than perfect moment of my life.

[JThunder]

I’m currently watching a DVD of Giligan’s Island. Where do you want me to start?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Tarwater

How is this a contrivance? It’s an important aspect of his character; he keeps the evidence in a hidden safe deposit box because he’s still nursing the guilt and regret that came with collaborating with the Nazis. The movie tells this to the audience over and over again, and the character implies the same thing on numerous occasions. It’s the locus around which the film revolves, thematically.

Except he’s perfectly willing to obliterate the evidence; he makes clear that he genuinely does not give a crap whether she returns it to him or destroys it.

I keep old love-letters that would be (slightly) emotionally damaging were I to read them, and that would damage me publicly if they were, for whatever reason, the target of an elaborate heist designed to extort me. But they’re an important part of my personal history, too, so I’m loathe to part with them. That’s only one example; and I doubt I’m the first and only person to have keepsakes that refer to a less than perfect moment of my life.

Yes, but, as I’d said, I’d have had no problem if – without even mentioning his reasons – he’d paid her to get the stuff back. But since he’s paying her a great deal of money to destroy the stuff, it’s by definition not that sort of a keepsake; he’s perfectly willing to part with it right from the word “go.”

[Smeghead]

@JThunder

I’m currently watching a DVD of Giligan’s Island. Where do you want me to start?

Season One?

[Tarwater]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Yes, but, as I’d said, I’d have had no problem if – without even mentioning his reasons – he’d paid her to get the stuff back. But since he’s paying her a great deal of money to destroy the stuff, it’s by definition not that sort of a keepsake; he’s perfectly willing to part with it right from the word “go.”

It became a liability. Nobody keeps a keepsake when there’s a significant possibility that it could ruin their life. He kept it assuming that he was the only person who knew of its significance to his past.

Are you trying to claim that there’s something internally inconsistent with his choosing to destroy the evidence rather than secret it away, hoping that nobody else tried to blackmail him again?

[Ponch8]

In one of the last episodes of Sex and the City (normally a good show), there was an episode with an obnoxious party girl at a party in someone’s high-rise apartment. She’s upset she can’t smoke in the apartment, so she opens a window so she can lean over and blow the smoke outside. As she does this, she makes a comment like “I’m so bored I could just die!” Two seconds later she accidentally falls to her death.

[digs]

@JThunder

I’m currently watching a DVD of Giligan’s Island. Where do you want me to start?

Well, there’s really only one thing that’s bothered me: in the episode where the Professor tries to mend the boat… wait, that’d be more of an improbable setup than a contrivance. Never mind.

[RealityChuck]

@Push_You_Down

At least once a week my wife yells from the shower for me to get her a towel because she forgot to grab one. We keep our towels in the hallway closet.

That kind of comedy works on the build up–the audience KNOWS what’s going to happen. It’s not shock, it’s reward for seeing the train coming. In the theater there were people going “OhnoOhnoOhno!” and getting the giggles.

Your solution is to have Ryan Reynolds just there naked..without explanation?

Reread what I said - Reynolds removes his clothes in the main room.

And no comedy works with the audience knowing what’s going to happen, especially when it takes forever to get to that point. The build up might have worked if, instead of crashing into each other, they wandered around the bedroom naked without noticing the other, and delaying the realization. But that would only have worked if they didn’t spend so much wasted effort setting it up (it also suffers from bad editing; it’s not made clear that there are no towels. The quick shot of Bullock with the washcloth isn’t enough - she need to react to the fact that there’s no towel and I get the feeling that shot was cut).

As for the crowd reaction, well people laughed at the Ritz Brothers in theaters, too. That didn’t mean they were funny.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Tarwater

It became a liability. Nobody keeps a keepsake when there’s a significant possibility that it could ruin their life. He kept it assuming that he was the only person who knew of its significance to his past.

Are you trying to claim that there’s something internally inconsistent with his choosing to destroy the evidence rather than secret it away, hoping that nobody else tried to blackmail him again?

I’m not saying it’s internally inconsistent; I’m saying it’s been contrived smack dab into the Goldilocks zone. If he’d been (a little or a lot) more foolish, he’d have wanted it back instead of ordering it destroyed; if he’d been (a little or a lot) less foolish, he would’ve destroyed it rather than secret it away. The plot hinges on him spending the better part of a century doing a half-assed job with evidence that could ruin his life before realizing one hour too late that, er, no, he should use his whole ass.

[jackdavinci]

@Odesio

Clearly you never had one order the sausage lovers.

Or the extra anchovies.

[Push_You_Down]

@RealityChuck

And no comedy works with the audience knowing what’s going to happen,

As a comedy writer…I respectfully disagree.

[Morbo]

I read Ebert’s review after watching Arlington Road (I usually read his reviews after seeing the movie). For all the times I disagree with him or marvel at how he gets details totally wrong, I gotta admit his discussion of the utterly absurd contrived ending is spot-on:

But leave the plot details aside for a second. What about the major physical details of the final thriller scenes? How can anyone, even skilled conspirators, predict with perfect accuracy the outcome of a car crash? How can they know in advance that a man will go to a certain pay phone at a certain time, so that he can see a particular truck he needs to see? How can the actions of security guards be accurately anticipated? Isn’t it risky to hinge an entire plan of action on the hope that the police won’t stop a car speeding recklessly through a downtown area? It’s here that the movie completely breaks down. Yes, there’s an ironic payoff, and, yes, the underlying insights of the movie will make you think. But wasn’t there a way to incorporate those insights and these well-drawn, well-acted characters into a movie that didn’t force the audience to squirm in disbelief? “Arlington Road” is a thriller that contains ideas. Any movie with ideas is likely to attract audiences who have ideas of their own, but to think for a second about the logic of this plot is fatal.

[bup]

@Push_You_Down

@RealityChuck

And no comedy works with the audience knowing what’s going to happen,

As a comedy writer…I respectfully disagree.

Wow. Did not see that coming.

[RealityChuck]

@Push_You_Down

As a comedy writer…I respectfully disagree.

Well, it can be funny if things go as expected, but it’s always far funnier when they don’t.

The Ebert quote reminded me of the mass of internally inconsistent contrivances required to make Gattaca work. You thus have a world where there is a mass prejudice against a group due to their genetics, but which pretends it isn’t prejudiced even when it checks your genetic structure multiple time a day (why check if it doesn’t matter?). You have the in-Valids accepting the entire system – no protests, no mass action. You have detailed medical records available to check up on whether a person is in-Valid, but those medical records don’t record that you’re in a wheel chair. You have all the people working hard to keep up a system that they ultimately don’t believe in. You have a protagonist with an obvious heart condition who wants to go into space – which might kill him – but it’s the Gattaca Corporation that’s wrong for not letting him go. You have a murder committed by someone with perfect genetics, as though the genetics of the person determines if he’ll kill someone.

In order to make its point, the film lays this massive layer of internally inconsistent contrivance on everything.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Morbo

I read Ebert’s review after watching Arlington Road (I usually read his reviews after seeing the movie). For all the times I disagree with him or marvel at how he gets details totally wrong, I gotta admit his discussion of the utterly absurd contrived ending is spot-on:

As soon as I read the OP I immediately thought of Arlington Road. Absolutely fantastic movie up untill the very end which only works if the bad guys can predict a whole series of decisions that the protagonist will make that they couldn’t possibly have done.

I had similar issues with Seven and The Game.

[John_DiFool]

@cmyk

The entirety of the movie Flightplan.

It was a very unmemorable thriller to begin with, but all that I walked away with was thinking how everything that played out for the set up and resolution depended on a series of random variables and the actions of strangers, which were completely unpredictable, so the antagonists seemingly pulling the strings would have no back up plan if things did happen to occur just so.

It was like watching a bunch of Deus Ex Machinas stitched together in the guise of a taught mystery/thriller. Anyone can make a villain appear like a mastermind, if the story is so contrived that all his machinations depend on unlikely, unpredictable events and ridiculous scenarios. But your audience would have to be idiots to be impressed.

It was so vapid, I can’t even think of one example, now. Just the vague notion of what I described above.

The first one is enough to sink it. She and her daughter are the first ones to get aboard-yet there isn’t a single flight attendant on duty? :dubious: When they call for “those with special needs and small children” to board first, the flight attendants are always there waiting on the plane to help them (if necessary) to get settled in. If just one attendant sees the kid and chats with Jodie, the entire plot disintegrates.

[Kobal2]

There was one particularly bogus cliffhanger on *Dexter *that pissed me off enormously. Towards the end of season 3, having realized that for the umpteenth time in a row, the person he’d felt comfy enough to entrust with his serial killerdom secret turned out to be a complete psycho (duh), *Dex *cleans house. Problem: the psycho in question has, unbeknownst to Dexter, set *another *murdering psycho on his trail with orders to kill him.
As the episode ends, Dexter is attacked from behind, either tased or knocked unconscious IIRC then promptly shoved inside a car trunk. Credits. Dun dun DUN !

Next episode starts, turns out it wasn’t the killer who had attacked Dexter, oh no. It was his cop buddies. Who shoved him in a car trunk so they could drive him to his surprise bachelor party.
What the *CRAP *?!
This would already be stupendously asinine a plotline if the people involved were stone drunk teenagers, but these guys are cops. Don’t they know about them pesky assault, kidnapping, false imprisonment etc… laws ?

And past this suspension of disbelief issue, I mean, it was so obviously the cheapest cliffhanger tease copout I’d ever seen… pure rubbish.