I usually hate making that kind of meta-deduction, because far more often it is just a case of lazy filmmaking, not a deliberate clue placed by the filmmakers, and I’ve been wrong so often about that that I now typically tend to conclude that it was just a case of (flipping your example) the costuming dept. just going with what they had in stock, and nothing more.
The worst case for me was the end of Matrix II, when Neo seemed to affect the real world, so I (and a lot of other people) were all “Aha, Zion is simply the next higher simmed level!”, only to find out in movie III that it was essentially something the Wachowskis pulled out of their collective asses.
Ever make such a deduction, only to find that the filmmakers simply were being lazy and the bright and shiny obvious clue was just a casual oversight or stock effect or cliched plot element that had no deeper significance?
Interesting you should mention The Matrix. In the original, the idea that the machines were enslaving humans to use as batteries was scoffed at in some circles, because we really don’t make very good energy sources. I thought, it would have been better to say that the machines were using humans as massive parallel processors, similar to how people volunteered en masse to give a portion of their computer bandwidth to the SETI project.
I’m pretty sure I later read somewhere that the Wachowskis had considered that very idea, but thought that the average movie watcher wouldn’t grok that.
Oh, sure. I had a whole clever conspiracy idea worked up in True Detective, and it turns out that he just threw a bunch of shit in that had no significance toward solving the case.
Sometimes the recognisable casting is my obvious clue that they’re the bad guy, and then it’s really unexpected when it turns out they are not, they’re just a single-scene character who needed a job.
What usually bothers me is when a filmmaker puts a deliberate “wink” at the audience or fourth-wall break or an “I’ll be back”-ism into a movie. If it’s well done, I can forgive, if hackneyed, death to you, Mr. Auteur.
The prime example is the assassin out to get Hooker (in The Sting): s/he wears gloves so you can’t tell its gender , then, later that night when the whole world is bedding down, the assassin is seen turning off the lamp still wearing its gloves, like they’re sleeping in them. That’s not just a , it’s an “I got you, smartypants,” and it’s so well done, I’m laughing instead of being POed.
BTW, in my (Dad’s) quote in the OP, I forgot to mention the FBI office is in an abandoned warehouse with a few charts on the wall. Well, it fooled Snyder.
In the pilot episode of Will Trent, there is a break-in at a house, and you can clearly see the glass is outside the door, not inside. I was sure a “genius detective” show would make something out of this, but nope! The show did draw attention to the fact that the broken window was too far from the door handle to unlock it, but this, too, was forgotten.
I’m not sure what they were doing, but being smart wasn’t it.
I get fooled a lot because I don’t usually try to figure out what’s going to happen in a good movie while I’m watching it. If the movie holds my attention, if watching it is enjoyable, then I want to be immersed in it, not fighting it. In a bad movie I’ll figure it out a lot of times, and other times I’ll be satisfied with surmising the ending and never watching it all the way through. An example is the 6th Sense, good movie, and someone had already told me the secret but I had no idea what the movie was about so with no context I didn’t remember it at all. I even noticed the use of the color red was supposed to mean something but had no clue what, I thought the lack of presence of Bruce Willis at some points meant something, but I was still totally surprised at the end. And pleased too. Other M. Knight movies have not surprised me at all.
So it was the same with The Sting. Obviously a lot of conning going on, I must have assumed the FBI guys were real. I was still pretty young at the time, but I every con job movie has to end with a twist now, and usually more than one so the audience will be satisfied.
Oh yeah, Sleuth almost had me, but it quickly became tedious and the gimmick was then obvious. S
I guessed the main twist to the first Knives Out film as it was happening on screen. Didn’t spoil it for me as it was a really enjoyable watch, but I did have to wait about 90 minutes for my theory to be confirmed.
It’s not a big thing, but in Passenger 57, the baddie is holding a Glock to a passenger’s head, threatening to kill him (her?) if the titular heroic passenger doesn’t back off. But you can clearly see the trigger is back, meaning the weapon cannot be fired. You have to cycle the action to get the trigger in firing position. (It’s a Glock safety mechanism) I’m like “shoot him! He can’t fire! Shoot! With your gun!”, but alas, no, and we have another hour of pointless heroic action, instead of resolving the movie right then and there.
Apparently, it was just the movie armorer’s decision, not a clue.
In A Beautiful Mind (2001) about the mathematician John Nash. The story takes place over a number of years, but they used the same child actor in many scenes. I thought that was a lapse by the movie to reduce costs by not hiring multiple children for a single role. But it turns out the title character was imagining the child and the single actor was a deliberate choice to indicate that.
So I was clever enough to see the movie’s gimmick, but assumed they were too stupid to intend it. That’s the price of watching too many poorly made movies. :doh!:
This happens all the time but probably due to Dirty Harry if there’s a big fight and somebody has a revolver and is audibly firing only six rounds, I instantly think “Okay here comes the swerve the director will do where somebody will point the revolver at someone, smile, pull the trigger and then the gun clicks empty”.
Of course most of the time the director forgets the vast majority of revolvers have only six rounds and someone gets shot with a 7th round.
I noticed one of the biggest hidden plot holes in cinematic history:
In ‘Hot Tub Time Machine’ 3 middle-aged friends, played by John Cusack, Craig Robinson and Rob Corddry, are all miserable in 2010 due to poor life choices. But the titular magical hot tub transports them back to 1986 in their younger selves, giving them the chance to make better choices.
After they set their lives on a better path, it’s time to use the tub again to travel back to the future. Which Cusack’s and Robinson’s characters do, but Corddry’s character decides to stay behind.
When John and Craig get back to 2010, they find out that they have indeed become successful and are with the women of their dreams. Success! But Corddry, who’s character name is Lou, is a billionaire, having used his knowledge of the future to found the search engine ‘Lougle dot com’. He also started a band called Mötley Loü. He basically had a fine old time in the gap between 1986 and 2010.
It dawned on me that, other than for plot reveal reasons, there was absolutely no upside for John and Craig to travel back to the future. If they had stayed in the past, they would have gotten 24 extra years of youth, in which they actually lived their improved lives instead of finding out that they had better lives they didn’t actually experience- they effectively lost 24 great years by going back to the future. Also, there’s no guarantee that their dumb younger selves wouldn’t have screwed things back up in the past, after they went back to 2010.
For the next 24 years you don’t experience anything new. Every movie, book, song or game that comes out - you’ve already seen, read, heard and played. Sure you could look for obscure stuff that you missed the first time, but everything that’s part of mainstream culture is on repeat for you.
You would have basically Groundhog Day’d yourself.
Pshaw. As I said, the ‘Lou’ character used his knowledge of the future to beat Google to the punch and found a billion-dollar search engine company. He also started a band. He was living his best life. Who cares if the media is the same? There is plenty of fun to be had when you’re making good, informed choices in the prime of your life that have nothing to do with movies, books or music.
Plus, I’ve been on a nostalgia binge rewatching 80s movies on streaming channels the past few years, and I still listen to the music of my youth, so I’ve “Groundhog Day’d” myself anyway
, then, later that night when the whole world is bedding down, the assassin is seen turning off the lamp still wearing its gloves, like they’re sleeping in them. That’s not just a 