Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[silverspawn]

But to me, movies in general do that, because interesting events pretty much by definition have a low chance of happening.

I don't think that's really true, but it depends on what you think is interesting.

In any case, coincidences are not a polar thing. Some stories manage good plots with much fewer of them than others. Take Game of Thrones, and then take TFA.

And it also matters how and when they happen. Particularly, if you have one extremely unlikely event and then everything after that is believable, that's great. The one won't bother me, because it makes sense: the movie shows this particular person because something super unlikely happened to exactly this person. But if that unlikely thing is followed up by another string of unlikely things, then that's bad.

[Witherweaver]

I still never get the "coincidence" argument for why a movie is bad.  I always wonder if people have the same criticism for a novel like Great Expectations.

I don't know Great Expectations.

A plot with too many coincidences is bad because it's not believable. Lack of believability means lack of immersion and, if it's too much, lack of me caring. Real life is not an alignment of 1/10000 odds that all come true. It also makes the plot predictable.

I don't really agree with this.  Why should a movie be believable?  Maybe you want to watch something believable, that's fine.  But that's not relating to quality.  Maybe they film makers are going for a particular general/feel/immersion where adherence to reality is important, okay.   But generally the events that take place don't have to be believable.  I mean, watch a David Lynch film.  It's not believable, but it represents something real about life.  The immersion is not lost.  In fact, the surrealism enhances the immersion.  Or many other films.  Old Boy was entirely unbelievable.  It was immensely immersive.

I also do not understand the criticism of predictability.  I could easily make a movie with an unpredictable plot.  I will simply string together five-minute clips from a random selection of movies.  Predictability and nonpredictability is about stylistic choices.  Narrative is inherently predictable; that's why we do things like foreshadowing and have Checkov's gun.  If the sequel does not follow logically from the beginning, then people will complain that the beginning was a waste of time.

Watching movies isn't about plot.  The plot is simply a backdrop for you to experience storytelling.   

[Witherweaver]

But to me, movies in general do that, because interesting events pretty much by definition have a low chance of happening.

I don't think that's really true, but it depends on what you think is interesting.

In any case, coincidences are not a polar thing. Some stories manage good plots with much fewer of them than others. Take Game of Thrones, and then take TFA.

And it also matters how and when they happen. Particularly, if you have one extremely unlikely event and then everything after that is believable, that's great. The one won't bother me, because it makes sense: the movie shows this particular person because something super unlikely happened to exactly this person. But if that unlikely thing is followed up by another string of unlikely things, then that's bad.

If you want a story that doesn't rely on any kind of coincidence, watch Mad Men.  Well, that's a TV show so in a sense it's a collection of stories, but it still applies.  Game of Thrones is not the best example.  There are quite a few chance encounters on roads there.

[KingZog3]

It's hard to explain the coincidence thing. Of course crazy things happen in movies, but it's about suspension of disbelief. The plot in the new star wars movies happens all in like 3 hours in the characters time. So stormtrooper guy crash lands on a planet and HAPPENS to be within walking distance of the droid he's looking for, which also HAPPENS to be where the millenium  falcon is blah blah blah. It goes on with crazy things and after a while I just think "Wow, this would never happen even in their world." And it's not like Clockwork Orange where the coincidence is for dramatic effect. In Star Wars it's jut because they could be bothered to write a good plot. It's just "Hey, we need this to happen so let's make it dumb luck."

EDIT: I think it's this. The characters in the movie have plans. But their plans are so dumb because they rely on the craziest coincidences to happen. Fin had to find the droid at the start of the movie, but that should logically take months because a planet is HUGE! But it takes all of 20 minutes. But the rest of the story relies on him doing that, and meeting Rey. As opposed to a coincidence happening and the characters deal with the consequences of it. Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels is mostly coincidences, but none of the chracters planned on them. They happen and then the characters deal with the aftermath. They don't make dumb plans that require these improbable things to happen.

Also, when you see a lot of movies, you start to want something more than just the whatever story thrown together. When I can guess the dialogue, I wonder why I'm paying to see the movie and not being paid to make movies. It doesn't need to be some crazy story, or super weird, but at least put some effort into the writing. Movies like Drive have a super normal story. Nothing special about it, but you can't guess each line of dialogue like it was coming out of a computer program. Man, even John Wick had better dialogue than the Star Wars movie, and that's saying something.

[silverspawn]

I don't really agree with this.  Why should a movie be believable?  Maybe you want to watch something believable, that's fine.  But that's not relating to quality.

What I said was more meant as 'this is why I don't like unlikely coincidences' not as 'they are bad'.

If you talk about 'quality', it touches on the issue of whether or not you believe in objectivity. I think (like I said in the starwars thread) that the terminology isn't defined, so whether or not it relates to quality just depends on how you would define quality. Since I think that, I also think that every reaction you have to a movie is equally valid. So I'm not saying you have to be bothered by it.

For me, it really depends on what the story is going for. A hijackers guide to the galaxy, for example, isn't trying to construct a believable story, it's trying to be funny and thought provoking. Coincidences there aren't a bad thing.

TFA awakens, though, is trying to construct a believable story (or, I guess you could argue that it's not, but if it's not, then it's not really doing anything). The plot just feels like really lazy and poorly written to me.

I also do not understand the criticism of predictability.  I could easily make a movie with an unpredictable plot.  I will simply string together five-minute clips from a random selection of movies.  Predictability and nonpredictability is about stylistic choices.  Narrative is inherently predictable; that's why we do things like foreshadowing and have Checkov's gun.  If the sequel does not follow logically from the beginning, then people will complain that the beginning was a waste of time.

That's again depending on what the movie is going for.

If the plot is predictable, then there is no suspense. If the movie never tried to get me to feel suspense but does other things instead, that could be fine. Let's take, uh... Kung Fury is the best example that comes to mind. There is zero suspense in that movie, but it's hilarious and fun.

Back to TFA, I really feel like the movies tries to make you feel suspense. But it totally fails. And if it doesn't try that, well the movie isn't funny, it's not thought provoking, it's not scary, so what is it?

Narrative is inherently predictable

That's not true. Game of Thrones isn't predictable. Being John Malkovich isn't predictable either. Both have narratives.

[Asper]

One of five tanks surviving or rolling a 4 on a 10-sided die are not coincidences, they are just incidents. That's legitimate. Although there ARE movies where the main character dies a few minutes in and perspective is switched after that. It's one of the things that make Psycho, although not perfect, a remarkable movie.

But if coincidence meets coincidence, things become implausible. American cinema gives us total heroism in the face of total hopelessness, and then total triumph over total villains. In it, all is perfect. A good example is Han Solo shooting first - it was edited out because it's not perfect enough. Coincidences in american cinema too often serve the purpose of allowing the heroes to perfectly win in a perfectly desperate situation. That's what i dislike about it in movies.

In Great Expectations, yes, the coincidence is totally possible. It just doesn't make much sense in my eyes to tell a story about someone getting rich because he got lucky. It's not a story about him, but about a coincidence/incident. You could just as well tell a story about somebody winning the lottery. Or about rolling a 4.

[Teproc]

Any time a plot bothers you, it's either because :
a) the film isn't holding your interest
b) you care too much about dumb things like plot

Often a combination of the two (plot isn't always dumb, but it is by far the most overrated/overdiscussed/whateveryouwanttocallit aspect of film). Obviously if something takes you out of the movie, then that's a problem, and obviously it's likely going to lead to you not liking the film very much.

And then we get to the fact that people need every movie they don't like to be bad and every movie they like to be good. There's no such thing as a good or bad movie, that's like saying there's a good or bad fruit. Just because you like oranges doesn't mean they're a good fruit. It just means you like oranges. Good for you !

Now I do get that fruits actually have some qualities that make them good or bad, in that they can be healthy or not. And in fact a similar thing can be said for movies : some films are "good" because they have a positive impact on society, some are bad because the reverse is true. But that's another aspect entirely that has nothing to do with the film itself and your experience with it.

[Teproc]

To be clear, my point isn't just that everything is subjective, it's more that we spend way too much time worrying about what makes a "quality" film or not, when that doesn't matter. All that matters is what makes a film work for you or doesn't. That's where you get interesting discussions : if you can explain what reaction a movie (true of any work of art really but this is a film thread) you had and why, then it's interesting to see why other people had a similar reaction or not. Trying to find what's good and what isn't... it's not that interesting, to me at least.

[silverspawn]

Do we disagree on anything? @Teproc

[Awaclus]

And then we get to the fact that people need every movie they don't like to be bad and every movie they like to be good. There's no such thing as a good or bad movie, that's like saying there's a good or bad fruit. Just because you like oranges doesn't mean they're a good fruit. It just means you like oranges. Good for you !

But there is such a thing as a good movie and bad movie. Oranges are a good fruit, I just don't like them.

[Witherweaver]

It's hard to explain the coincidence thing. Of course crazy things happen in movies, but it's about suspension of disbelief. The plot in the new star wars movies happens all in like 3 hours in the characters time. So stormtrooper guy crash lands on a planet and HAPPENS to be within walking distance of the droid he's looking for, which also HAPPENS to be where the millenium  falcon is blah blah blah. It goes on with crazy things and after a while I just think "Wow, this would never happen even in their world." And it's not like Clockwork Orange where the coincidence is for dramatic effect. In Star Wars it's jut because they could be bothered to write a good plot. It's just "Hey, we need this to happen so let's make it dumb luck."

Man, but that's the point of fantasy/imagination.  It's adventure, it's excitement, and really you want these kinds of things to happen. Them stumbling across the Millennium Falcon makes for better story telling than if they had found some random ship.  There is something alluring about destiny, fate, amazing things, etc... it's the kind of stuff you imagine as a kid.   Would it really be any better if coincidence/luck wasn't involved?  I don't think so. 

I see the point about dialogue.  You want that to be interesting and engrossing. 

[Witherweaver]

I don't really agree with this.  Why should a movie be believable?  Maybe you want to watch something believable, that's fine.  But that's not relating to quality.

What I said was more meant as 'this is why I don't like unlikely coincidences' not as 'they are bad'.

If you talk about 'quality', it touches on the issue of whether or not you believe in objectivity. I think (like I said in the starwars thread) that the terminology isn't defined, so whether or not it relates to quality just depends on how you would define quality. Since I think that, I also think that every reaction you have to a movie is equally valid. So I'm not saying you have to be bothered by it.

For me, it really depends on what the story is going for. A hijackers guide to the galaxy, for example, isn't trying to construct a believable story, it's trying to be funny and thought provoking. Coincidences there aren't a bad thing.

And, obviously perfectly rationally explained, because you have an improbability drive.

[Awaclus]

In other news, I've been watching /x/'s favorite horror movies lately. Kairo was disappointing, Banshee Chapter was excellent.

[enfynet]

Did I just miss a discussion about the believability of Star Wars?

[Teproc]

Do we disagree on anything? @Teproc

I quite like The Force Awakens !

[Witherweaver]

Not sure I'm making my point clear regarding predictability.  A narrative inherently has sequel follow from premise, so is inherently "predictable".   There is of course misdirection, twists, etc., put those are simply utilizing this.  In the sense that something is "predictable" because you've seen the same thing unfold so many times before, then the criticism is probably better expressed as "unoriginal" or "not innovative".  But originality and innovation in regards to plot is not the most important thing.. as Teproc said, plot is not what storytelling is about; it's just like a medium. 

[Teproc]

In the particular case of TFA re: predictability : history repeating itself is actually a major theme in Star Wars. Does TFA push it a little further than it should ? Probably. But it's not an accident, and works with the general idea of this being a new generation dealing with the past generation's mistakes and/or achievments.

As far as believability goes... Star Wars was never really concerned with believability, shaping itself more like a fantasy story than a sci-fi one : the fact that it takes place "a long long time ago" pretty much tells you everything you need to know there.

[GendoIkari]

Movies in general just got worse, with the passing of Alan Rickman.  I've always looked forward to seeing his performances.

[Kuildeous]

Movies in general just got worse, with the passing of Alan Rickman.  I've always looked forward to seeing his performances.

Yeah, I envisioned him making movies all through old age—like Ian McKellan. Rickman really knew how to command the screen. I bet his stage performances were awesome too.

[pacovf]

Watched Hateful Eight. Definitely not the best Tarantino movie, but it had its moments. Tim Roth was channeling Christoph Waltz hard, wasn't he?

[GendoIkari]

Just watched The Judge. Wow, so good. Duvall, Downey, and D'Onofrio all give amazing performances.

[Kuildeous]

So the TV happened to be on a station that was showing Southland Tales. My friend and I missed the first 52 minutes, but the movie was weird enough to draw us in.

It had weird elements, much like Crimewave, the Big Lebowski, and Repo Man, that were enough to draw me in but not overly interesting. After watching it through to the end, we felt like it was worth watching, but we had no interest in watching it from the beginning. It was like there was an unspoken requirement to watch the film, and now that we did that, we were under no obligation to deal with the film again. I did rewind to the part where the Baron was making a deal with the Prime Minister of Japan because that scene was awesome and bad, especially since the Baron was played by the Sicilian from Princess Bride.

And that's another weird thing about this movie. It had a huge cast. Dwayne Johnson, Sarah Michelle Gellar, John Larroquette, Christopher Lambert, Jon Lovitz, Seann William Scott, and a bunch of other people I have surely forgotten. Yet despite such a cast, I was not familiar with this movie. How could this have slipped under my radar for the past 10 years?

The timing of the movie is appropriate. It was filmed in 2006, five years after the World Trade Center attack. This movie has biting commentary on the War on Terror and American chauvinism. It also makes some jabs at hyper-consumerism. You can tell this is an intelligent piece of work, but the pacing was off.

I'll still need time to digest it. It was on Encore, and I recently sent my cancellation, so I don't know if I'll have another chance to watch it. I could set it to record and see if watching the first 52 minutes makes a little more sense. I suspect not.

[Asper]

A long time ago i watched 12 Angry Men. I always thought it was a well-made, but incredibly questionable movie. You have one person, who talks 11 other jury members into changing their mind on a decision in court (the suspect is implied to have all evidence against them - the crime in question is murder). A few of the points he makes work, but in the end the last jury member standing against him still thinks the suspect is guilty - because a woman made an oath that she saw him.

In the movie, our "hero" actually manages to convince that last jury member that it's "reasonable" to assume the woman lied about having seen the suspect, because she might be short-sighted, because she might actually be wearing glasses, because she rubbed over her nose in court, and those glasses might be so strong she couldn't have seen something, and she might not have told the court about the glasses because she might be vain. It's a parody. If you can't trust a person that has no reason to lie when they are on oath (and there is NO evidence saying your suspect is not guilty), the whole concept of court and justice flies out of the window.

[Teproc]

It's called reasonable doubt. That's what the film is about. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not on the defense.

In 12 Angry Men, the guy is still most likely guilty, if only because there's no other alternative. If he didn't do it, who did ?

But that's not how justice works : again, the burden of the proof in on the accuser. 12 Angry Men is a more morally/ethically complex film than appears at first glance. There wouldn't be a need to glorify values such as the rule of law if they were instinctively easy to follow, and the case perfectly exemplifies that.

[Asper]

It's called reasonable doubt. That's what the film is about. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not on the defense.

In 12 Angry Men, the guy is still most likely guilty, if only because there's no other alternative. If he didn't do it, who did ?

But that's not how justice works : again, the burden of the proof in on the accuser. 12 Angry Men is a more morally/ethically complex film than appears at first glance. There wouldn't be a need to glorify values such as the rule of law if they were instinctively easy to follow, and the case perfectly exemplifies that.

So, if you go to court, and swear an oath that you saw Mister X murder a person, it wouldn't trouble you at all if a jury member talked the others into discarding your observation? Why even go there at all?

What if you went to court, told people you saw some guy murder another man and then somebody in the jury chamber said: "Did you see how tired he looked, and confused, i bet he's a druggie, he probably dreamt that." And if another responded "He didn't look confused or tired to me.", that guy would say: "Well, isn't it possible you just missed it? Isn't there reasonable doubt? And if we can't absolutely exclude that he was tired and confused, how can we say for certain he didn't do drugs and just dream all of it? How can we know 10000000% sure the murder even happened? How can we know things fall down because of gravity? How is there no reasonable doubt i'm not a space monkey from venus?"

No, i stand with my claim the movie is a parody. The guy in it abuses his position as a jury member to take law into his own hands, and he does it well enough to get a murderer free. The fact that you can never know something with 100% certainity is a philosophical issue - using it as an argument in court is unethical.