And Terminator, of course.
Also in serial killer novels, if a potential victim is introduced late in the book and if the writer spends a lot of time with that character, that one will get away.
In any scene with a newscast in the background, any words of that newscast the audience can actually hear will be somehow relevant to the plot.
“I’m sorry. That is a terrible scene. It’s like, " Why was that in the movie?” Gee, you think maybe it’ll come back, later, maybe?" I hate that, a TV’s on, talking about the new power plant. Hmm wonder where the climax will happen? Or that shot of the cook in Hunt for Red October?"[right]–Harry Lockhart (narrating), *Kiss Kiss Bang Bang*[/right]
If for no other reason, this is a great movie because it lampoons all of the conventions of your standard action-thriller-buddy flick. The only time it does something predictable is when it deliberately skewers a standard plot development. Yeah, boo, hiss, I know. Look, I hate it too. In movies where the studio gets all paranoid about a downer ending so the guy shows up, he’s magically alive on crutches, I hate that. I mean shit, why not bring them all back. But the point is in this case, this time, it really happened. Perry, like, lived. Yeah, it’s a dumb movie thing, but what do you want me to do, lie about it?
There is also a disturbing and seemingly out of place subplot involving child molestation that the filmmaker ultimately uses to demonstrate how filmmakers push the emotional buttons of the audience which is nothing short of brilliant.
Unfortunately, Warner Brothers decided to market this like some obscure Eastern European film and after a cinema release so brief that it didn’t even have a chance to nosedive, it was pulled and vanished. Pity, because it’s arguably Shane Black’s best film. It sure beats the hell out of any Michael Bay crapfest of random exploding objects.
Stranger
If there is a timing device involved, of ANY sort, it will be shut off with 3 seconds or less before something bad happens.
If there is a snooty cute chick and a nerdy/otherwise loser-type guy…dude gonna get laid, gal wises up, they live happily ever after.
I often see authors and directors setting up things that will be used later, so much so that I can spot endings (e.g., the hats in The Prestige, as well as the assistant). There’s also Roger Ebert’s Law of Conservation of Characters, which says any character whose puspose doesn’t seem apparent is more important than he seems. The most obvious was Murder at 1600, where it’s easy to pick out the killer by noticing the screen time of its stars.
If a man and woman sleep together once, she will get pregnant. She will not realize she is pregnant or even late until a friend asks her about a dizzy spell or her vomiting, or during a routine physical. Apparently woman who have one night stands are to stupid to track their periods.
I would actually point that one out as evidence that big-name stars in minor roles are more important than they seem, but it’s a minor disagreement.
Law of Economy of Characters - if there’s one hanging around for no reason whatsoever, it’s the killer. Or the whatever. Everybody in a movie is there for a reason.
This is precisely why I dislike that rule of parsinomy in characters. Well, that and the fact that real life isn’t parsimonious, and so a movie seems more realistic if everyone isn’t there for a particular reason, but styill have good lines and aren’t merely background.
I didn;t particularly like Flatliners, but I thought it seemed more believable that one character didn’t get the “visions”
If the hero discovers the secret conspiracy and succeeds in telling it all to the trusted authority figure and the movie’s not in the last fifteen minutes, then you know that the trusted authority figure will either have to die soon afterwards or be revealed as part of the conspiracy.