Honestly I’d rather see this than what happened in the TV show I just watched where the “hero” kills dozens of people to accomplish the mission and no one even mentions it.
Nothing is worse than “2012” where we are supposed to believe that one family can somehow outrun complete planetary destruction.
Riggs does this in the series Lethal Weapon. He’s a killing machine. I think the average body count is at least three per episode. Can the LA criminal world sustain those losses? 
I’d suspect if this were set in the “real” TV world, he’d have a lot of time off while FID does their investigation. He’d be spending more time with the Sharon Raydor equivalent than his shrink.
This isn’t a defiance of logic or physics, just an incredibly lazy means of exposition that drives me nuts every time.
In a suspense/action flick, General/President calls Promising Subordinate in to brief PS on his/her role in some upcoming impossible mission. G/P then reads PS’s resume to him or her, e.g., “John Smith – top 10 in your class at West Point, earned a Distinguished Service Medal in Special Forces in Iraq, valedictorian Harvard Law, and now you’re Special Advisor to the CEO of IBM.”
Because PS doesn’t know this about him/herself. :rolleyes:
For the most part I agree with you. However, I prefer if they don’t use techno-babble in attempt to scientifically explain how super-powers or super-tech work because it usually creates more problems than its worth. And for god’s sake I wish writers would stop using the old “we only use 10% of brain power so if we unlock the other 90% we’ll have superpowers” adage.
Yeppers on the ten-percent-of-your-brain thing. Someone once pointed out to me that there are indeed times when people do in fact use 100% of their brains; that is, all the neurons are firing at once.
They’re called “grand mal seizures”.
I was watching Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children last night. It’s a story with a lot of problems but one inconsistency that exceeded my threshold of disbelief. The kids are walking through the garden and one says “It’s always the same day here, September 14, 1943.” And I’m thinking “Huh. Rhododendrons bloom in September in Wales, do they?”
This is something more from actual comic books than in movies, but when people mention each other’s name every time that they speak:
“How are you doing today, Sam”
“I am doing fine today, Gus. By the way, I like your new tie.”
“Why, thank you, Sam. hey, Bill, is that report ready?”
“No, Gus, I was too busy fucking your mother.”
Does anybody speak like that?
[Obvious]Some of us do, Darren.[/Obvious]
I first heard about the “Superman is telekinetic” theory around 1980 or so. A friend who was even nerdier than I showed me a comic book cover (I am unable to find an image) depicting Supes standing on the ground and holding a skyscraper in the air by its corner. Even if Superman were strong enough to support the weight of the building, he explained, neither the chunk of concrete in his hands nor the patch of sidewalk beneath his feet possibly could. Therefore he must be lifting the building WITH HIS MIND!!
I didn’t buy it then and I don’t buy it now. Comic book physics are not real-life physics. If I’m enjoying the story I can overlook a lot.
Maybe Supes is a touch telekinetic…the telekinetic force transferred through physical contact like a static electric charge.
Theory inspired by Spock being a touch telepath…I’m just sayin’. :rolleyes:
On a different disbelief suspension threshold, I was reminded of this one last night on the Lethal Weapon series, but they are by no means the only one that do this.
Does no one in the entire film making business understand Interstate highways? Can they even read maps? Riggs travels routinely from LA to Amarillo, and it looks like he drives two lane desert roads the entire way. Come on! You get on the 10, take the 15 to I 40, and don’t get off until Amarillo. Plus, it’s a long fucking way! 16 hours each way. It’s a lot longer if you drive two lane desert roads, especially as there aren’t any that go the way you want.
Romy and Michelle went from LA to Tucson for their famous reunion, and they, too, were driving two lane roads. That trip even easier - you get on the 10, and get off in Tucson. There’s no navigation involved at all. What idiot would go any different route?
The worst offender is Gumball Rally, a movie about the (in)famous NY-LA illegal car race. The movie has the drivers not only driving on two lane roads, it has them going to Las Vegas! Look at a map, people! (eta: yes, you can go NYC to LA through LV, but the movie specifically had them in Arizona)
At least they filmed a little out of LA. Though they did try to pass off Flagstaff as Illinois.
Phone numbers piss me off! Unless the number is integral to the plot (part of a code, say), there’s no need to show a number–which will be 555- something :rolleyes:–on a display, or even someone punching the correct buttons.
I just goggled the route from New York City to Los Angeles. It showed the shortest route passing through Las Vegas. And it also cut through the northwest corner of Arizona (on 15 between St George and Mesquite). So what am I missing?
As for the lanes, the movie was released in 1976. Is it possible that those highways were two lanes back then?
Google shows the shortest routes, not the fastest. You have to factor in traffic, big cities and police presence. The original Cannonball Baker Sea-To-Shining-Sea Memorial Trophy Dash participants generally took 81 South out of NYC until they could connect to 40 West, then 15-10 to Santa Monica.
What he said.
Everyone who does it uses that route. And it’s all freeway. Taking 70 out of Denver would be fun, but it isn’t fast. Glenwood Canyon is very curvy and narrow, and traffic is fairly thick. You’d lose time, but you’d get a great view!
As for the filming, I40 was complete at the time. The film crew used north-south two lane AZ89 for filming (including the parts set in Illinois :eek:) probably because it looks pretty. Assuming that in the fictional movie universe, the road is “acting” as an east west road, a two-lane is still not going to be fast enough. You’re not going to sustain 110+ mph on a winding two lane road for very long.
Even in the movie you can see how dangerous it would have been for real. If you were brave/stupid enough, with skill you could do 120+ on a lot of I40 through Texas-NM-Arizona and reasonably not put anyone in danger. It’s wide and straight for long stretches, and not that crowded. I am not advocating doing so, just commenting on feasibility.
Rock climbing. What’s special is that often movies get it right. I mean, you just hire some stunt men who do rock-climbing, right?
Unless you’ve got a star who does his own stunts. Then you get to see somebody (you still can’t tell who, the shot has to be arranged not to show the safety equipment) leaning into the rock. But you can’t lean into the rock: if you push in, then your shoes are pushing out, and if you do that your shoes slip and you fall off.
If you’re on a rock face, you have to keep your weight straight in line above your point of contact. If you’re hugging the rock, you aren’t showing us how dangerous it is: you’re showing us that you don’t know what you are doing, and never could have got that high.
And, talking about rocks, the Rocky Mountains are not the Alps. If you can’t tell the difference between the Rocky Mountains and the Alps just by looking at them, that’s because you’ve never looked at them.
And if you can’t tell the difference between the Appalachians and the Rockies, you shouldn’t be making a movie. Even if it did win 5 Oscars.
Adding to the CPR talk above. A few years ago when I took CPR classes I learned three things I found kind of interesting:
- That it isn’t about keeping someone alive, it’s about reviving a dead person.
- Unless there’s a danger to your health or life then once you start you can’t stop until an EMT or paramedic arrives (although I don’t know if that varies by state or if it’s a national law).
- You might crack a person’s sternum and/or break their ribs.
Ever since I learned that ceiling sprinklers don’t all go off at once (only the sprinklers above a hot enough fire) it bugged me to see someone do something like light a match under one sprinkler to set them all off.
This is the exact opposite of what I was told.