Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chain Lightning" data-source="post: 2381507" data-attributes="member: 6791">DonTadow, there's a lot of things you've brought up that I totally agree with. However, right now I'm gonna discuss things you're going bonkers over.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Okay, did you read an article or know someone who worked on the movie and gave you the info that it was 'rushed'? Or are you just assuming it was because it has so many mistakes?Are you talking about the scene when Tom Cruise's character Ray goes back home and starts asking the kids to pack? Where he grabs a flashlight and some batteries? What's wrong with that scene? I would grab a flashlight and some batteries too. Oh, and not everything has to be brought up again later in the movie. The ketchup and the mustard in the box never played an important role afterward either.  Its not the writer's fault that you assumed that he was grabbing the batteries to do something clever with it later. I agree. When certain sloppy movies come out, I sometimes hear fans explain away mistakes by saying "It was probably....blah blah blah". A good movie doesn't need you to fix its own mistakes on your end. Even though I agree with your statements, some of the points you are bringing up aren't mistakes at all. If a character goes to bed at the end of a day in one scene, then we cut to show him walking out of his apartment on the next morning, and he's wearing different clothes . . . it is okay to let the audience assume the man has a change of clothes. I mean, no sane audience member would complain that the director was sloppy because he didn't previously establish that the character had owned the different set of clothes.With that example in mind. I think it was okay to assume the news van (at the plane crash scene) was not effected by the EMP because they news crew was lucky enough to not be near one of the lightning storms when they occured. The only info they gave as to where they recently were was that they were last filming a battle between the national guard and some tripods. The movie never tells us the journey of the van. It never showed the van at any of the lightning storms.  Are you assuming that it was in the EMP lightning storm that went over the wife's house? The one that we assume brought done the plane?Nothing in the movie shows that the van was in that storm. Or even in the one Ray was in either. It's perfectly okay to assume that the news crew was driving away from the failed battle earlier, they were on some road between that location and Ray's wife's house. The lightning went off and brought down the plan and it crashed into that neighborhood. Hours later they arrive in that suburb and see the crash. One of the crew obvious has the idea to scavenge through the wreckage for food & water. So they stop to do so. After getting food and water, they talk to Ray, then move on. I don't see anything wrong with this.Your beef with the gas and needing at least a scene where the issue of refueling is brought up is legit though.  It indeed would've been nice if at least something was shown.Whether it was:Version One: Robbie asks Ray, "Do we enough gas?" And Ray glances down at the gas meter and reponds with, "Should be just enough to get us there."or Version Two: You see them stop somewhere at steal some gas from an abandon car in the country side. Or whatever.Again, Speilberg did not write this. Josh Friedman and David Koepp wrote this script. It is possible that Speilberg asked those guys to write it into the movie, but we really don't know now do we? Unless you have some insider info that I'm not aware of.What part of any of my replies makes me seem like a mindless zombie easily distracted by special effects? Please, point them out to me. Also, you have yet to respond to any of my explanations to your points. Are you reading the replies or just only some of them? Or reading some...and just skimming others? I admit I've done that a few times myself.Anyways...I say once again (like above), you make a few valid points, but some of your other ones are kinda out of there. With my friends and I, we love sitting around talking back and forth about movies. Our opinions vary greatly lots of times. But its good fun debating back and forth on different aspects. One of the things we notice happens sometimes is something I term as "hate vision". Hate vision is when a person hates something (or several things) in a movie so much, (because it ruins the movie for him), that the emotion spills over to everything else. As he is watching the movie his 'eyes' are filled with disgust so much that he can't see clearly the other perfectly okay things going on. I'm wondering if you may be suffering from "hate vision" my friend. Not saying your are...but I'm saying you MIGHT be. This happened with a few friends of mine who hated the Star Wars prequels. Actually, I don't like them either. But one time we were talking about the space ships. One guy said, "I hate the new space ships. They don't have that industrial charm that the original trilogy had. Everything is new, shiny, and smooth."  But it wasn't. There were plenty of old republic ships that matched the style of the original trilogy. Phantom Menace starts out with a precursor to the Blockade Runner. It's design is nearly the same. Really, only Naboo ships were sleek and clean. But that's because they're from Naboo and that's how their culture built ships back then. Yeah, I hated the dumb things in Phantom Menace too , but it doesn't keep me from appreciated any of the other small things that were kinda cool. I thought Ep. III was a turd, but I liked the Arc Fighter.</blockquote>

Verification