Your most pointless TV/movie/book nitpicks

Me too. I like its aspirations and how it pushed back the boundaries of the setting in interesting ways. There are some dumb things that people justifiably hate, but a lot of the hate towards it is based on stuff people are reading into the movie and then getting mad about, rather than things that are actually on the screen.
I think you have to death of the author (misusing, I know) the movie pretty hard because everything Scott has ever said about the movie basically doubles-down on the dumb, including that NASA agrees with Erich von Däniken (!!!). So I don't think it's really reading into it. It's a profoundly stupid movie.

Re: expanding the setting - yes, it does do that, but pretty much in exactly the same ways as a bunch of 1980s and 1990s Alien/Aliens comics did (most of them with terrible art sadly), and they did it because Ridley Scott himself had outlined his vision of what Alien's backstory was (contrary to the intentional ambiguity of the script/screenplay), and those comics based themselves off that. So to me, having been a huge "Anything Alien/Aliens"-related fan in the 1990s, it felt extremely predictable and staid in the ways it was doing that, because apparently the only update to his ideas from the 1980s Scott had had was to add in even worse ancient aliens stuff (you want to wind me up, tell me humans didn't - or worse, couldn't have - evolve) than he originally had.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

As George Lucas will tell you, if ain't on the screen, it ain't canon. I liked Prometheus raising (but not answering, contrary to a common complaint) questions about where humans came from, raising (but not answering) what the xenos actually are, etc.

It is definitely a movie that would have benefitted from Ridley Scott handing it off to someone else instead of doing it himself. But he's obviously become very focused on his legacy after his brother's death and has gotten very aggressive about this franchise, even at a time when his skills are in obvious decline.
 

I really, really, WANTED to like Prometheus. I wanted to love it, more accurately. Alien and Aliens are two of my favorite movies of all time. I think Alien 3 is underrated and has a lot of good in it. I've defended Resurrection (except the ending) countless times.

And I liked a few things about Prometheus (like the visuals, and some of the cast, especially Fassbender, Rapace, and Elba), but so much about it was SO dumb.
Once of the neat things about Alien is they treated the audience as if they were intelligent. There are a lot of unanswered questions. What did the Company know about the LV-426? Who was responsible for sending Nostromo to investigate? Why was the Space Jockey carrying all those eggs? While it's fun to talk about these kinds of things, none of those questions need to be answered for us to enjoy Alien. From my point of view, Prometheus wasn't a movie that needed to be made, but I could have forgiven that if it had at least been good. Which it wasn't.

As far as Coventant goes, I had a choice to go to the theater to see it or Wonder Woman. I choose poorly.
 


As far as Coventant goes, I had a choice to go to the theater to see it or Wonder Woman. I choose poorly.
When I was 10 my dad gave me the choice between seeing Roger Rabbit and Mac and Me, I think you can guess which I chose. I regret this still 35 years later.

I will say this - Mac and Me truly opened my eyes to what a "bad movie" looked like and allowed me to see, unprompted, how gross product placement could be. Really set me up for life in a way there!
 

When I was 10 my dad gave me the choice between seeing Roger Rabbit and Mac and Me, I think you can guess which I chose. I regret this still 35 years later.

I will say this - Mac and Me truly opened my eyes to what a "bad movie" looked like and allowed me to see, unprompted, how gross product placement could be. Really set me up for life in a way there!
We learn little from our successes, but our mistakes...?
 

Okay I watched a TV series called Red Eye, which is a thriller mostly set on an aeroplane flying non-stop from London to Beijing, and I have to bring this thread back. There will be spoilers for the show but I don't think they matter much.

It gets a lot of little technical stuff right, including some of the medical stuff (not all of it), but there are some truly demented unforced errors:

1) The plane is told to turn around and fly aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllll the way back to London 8 hours into the 11.5 hour flight. The writers have a character ask if they have enough fuel for that, and we are assured that the plane "has a 17 hour fuel capacity" so it's fine.

NO! Stop it! That's not how planes work. They're not your car, mate. You don't just fill up the gas tank to full every now and then. You carry enough fuel to get to your destination, and then some for problems, like 30-60 minutes more - on a long flight I could easily see 60 minutes. But that's it! They do not have enough fuel to turn around from near the end of their journey and go back! Or really any distance much beyond half-way! Instead they would have diverted to another airport.

And this is a bad myth to spread too, because people have literally been killed over delusions about how much fuel planes carry (c.f. a hijacking in Africa where the hijackers insisted because the plane could technically fly to Australia, and had just taken off, it must have enough fuel to fly to Australia, even though it was doing a 3 hour domestic flight - obviously it did not have that much, and even though the pilot patiently explained this and showed them how the fuel gauges worked and so on, the hijackers resolutely stuck to this same dumb idea. Most of the people on board were killed when it crashed as a result).

2) The aeroplane, which appears to be like a 777 or something similar (it's never specified) has an insanely cavernous sort of "underbelly" which is accessed through a hatch in the cockpit (?!?!). I feel like you could get away with this if it was a 747/A380-type deal, but this is a twin-engine widebody, not some chonker like those. But maybe we allow that as artistic licence?

3) BUT then we have the wild issue where the pilot and co-pilot regularly leave the cockpit, at one point whilst there's an emergency, the co-pilot gets up, climbs down a ladder into the underbelly, and flips switches, and it's like... what?! What is supposed to be even happening? Do you really think one of the pilots might just leave during an emergency? Anything that can be dealt with, will be dealt with in the cockpit, this isn't like 1949 or something. Often the pilot is just sort of wandering around the cabin being a nuisance! I feel like they got their understanding of how planes work from the admittedly very fun 1997 Ray Liotta vehicle, Turbulence.

This is all stuff you could Google very quickly too. And like, this is the tip of the iceberg, there's a lot of other demented stuff, including people seemingly just be able to wander in to Thames House (where MI5 is based).
 

Remove ads

Top