You can't get into a prestigious (or any other) gallery by doing realistic drawings in graphite! Any art student can do that and it is not interesting to the art world in the leastest. If you know anything about art (unlike the person who wrote this who has a know-nothings perspective) you only see that as a way of learning the craft and training the eye.
The rest of the movie was alright I suppose but that really bugged the crap out of me.
It's a shame that a small detail like that would have ruined a good movie for you.
shareMeh, what that usually means is that the rest of the film wasn't really that good. If one detail brings down the whole thing for you, then it's more a case of the last straw, than some absurd trivia ruining "a good movie". If the rest of the thing is so profoundly good, you let the little things go. We let our eyes slip past the camera crew that accidentally got in a frame of Empire Strikes Back, we try to ignore the cotton balls in Marlon Brando's Godfather, the dumb science in nearly every movie, and the cars that explode in even the best of them. But some mediocre, luke-warm plot like this film comes along, and yeah, something like getting a spontaneous showing at an influential gallery with a bunch of crap a dedicated 7th grader could put together just might be the "Defoliating Trojan Worms" of Hackers.
shareIt just means that people tend to be more annoyed when someone messes up with their particular expertise (in this case art) than with other aspects of a movie.
Personally, I get far more annoyed by the dumb science you mentioned than with an error like the one mentioned in the OP. But hey, I've always been a science geek so what do you expect?!
My, how pseudo profound. Dedicated 7th grader? Not anyone I went to art school with. Why don't you stick to spouting this stuff at Starbucks where I'm sure you hold court.
shareOh buy yourself a punching bag, and try not to show yourself in public again until you learn to manage your anger issues. I was drawing at about this level of quality in 7th grade, and there were a few kids better than me at my middle school. I don't know what kind of "art school" you went to, but where I went, we didn't show off our juvenilia, and I doubt anyone even had any left from childhood. That stuff belongs in an attic, at best.
shareIt also seemed unlikely he would have even looked at the drawings. I would think someone in that position would have already heard every sad made up story from aggressive young artists. Even then I don't think they'd go for an entire show of one girl he has the hots for. It did remind me of this gallery in St. Augustine where every piece from this one guy was all semi-erotic paintings of the same girl. We found it rather comical after the 5th or 6th one.
>>> It did remind me of this gallery in St. Augustine where every piece from this one guy was all semi-erotic paintings of the same girl.
Then it goes to demonstrate it is possible to have a gallery like that... just saying...
'leastest'?
shareyeh exactly what i was thinking. He should spend less time with art and more with English.
shareBut Ben putting coins into the vending machine and it giving him a drink while time was frozen was just A-OK with you? My God, man!
shareLOL, that was obviously intentional. Next time think before you post.
-------------------------------------
Victims, aren't we all?
You're taking a little flak. But, I get what you mean. I've gotten annoyed when a film has messed with stuff I'm expert in. Sometimes it's hard to figure out why I can suspend disbelief on all sorts of big stuff but, then be totally taken out of a movie by something that is not that important. It usually is that the small thing is important to me and I don't like it to be misrepresented. I know it's just a movie but, people get a lot of their "knowledge" from what they see in films. So, I'll ask myself "why couldn't the filmmakers just do a tiny, tiny bit of research". So, ya I'm in agreement.
shareThe whole movie was filled with silly writing mistakes like this. Who was the other guy who could freeze time? Why introduce him into the movie only to never see him again? Why was Sharon so angry at the main character because she saw him kiss his ex for two seconds? They were on their second date, they had kissed once before. Why is she screaming, swearing mad at him, not even letting him explain, because of it? Is this how real people, or even her character, would act in a similar situation? Would the main character even be attracted to such a person? Not only that, but did anyone else find his boring still life gallery show incredibly creepy? If I was Sharon, I would find the whole gallery show restraining-order style creepy. Why was his gallery show all charcoal drawings or photographs? I thought Ben dreamed of being a painter. Why was his work so incredibly boring and unimpressive anyway? If Ben's dream is being a painter, then why is he seen drawing first year art school charcoal drawings the entire movie? Isn't he supposed to be a fourth year art student? Why are none of his works abstract or modern at all? What kind of art school doesn't teach 20th century art?
shareAnd how the hell can a person go for four weeks without ANY sleep and not wind up completely psychotic in the psych ER? Is the film supposed to be his hallucination? That would certainly explain all the gaping holes throughout. The seven day writing process certainly shows through. Sheer laziness that.
shareI don't think that's necessarily laziness. I've suffered from insomnia many times before, and in fact suffer from it currently, and you'd be surprised by the amount of people that simply think they're awake 24/7 when they actually do catch some sleep from time to time. If you're not constantly engaged in some sort of activity or another, you could easily be sleeping without even realising it. We don't track Ben's life through every second of the day, so he could be one of those people I'm talking about, in which case it would be quite easy to stand at the precipice of insomnia without actually being a true insomniac.
--
'I was very shocked when my son told me his boyfriend was a homosexual.'
The film makes sense just fine if you don't take it literally as a sci-fi mystery about a guy who can stop time, but as a subjective story told through the point of view of a character who is going through something emotional, is an insomniac, and consequently has a very vivid imagination and a weird sense of time - normal things when you're sleep-deprived, as anyone who has experienced it will know.
Who was the other guy who could freeze time?
Why was Sharon so angry at the main character because she saw him kiss his ex for two seconds?...Is this how real people, or even her character, would act in a similar situation?
Not only that, but did anyone else find his boring still life gallery show incredibly creepy? If I was Sharon, I would find the whole gallery show restraining-order style creepy.
Why was his gallery show all charcoal drawings or photographs? I thought Ben dreamed of being a painter.
Why was his work so incredibly boring and unimpressive anyway?
If Ben's dream is being a painter, then why is he seen drawing first year art school charcoal drawings the entire movie?
Why are none of his works abstract or modern at all?
What kind of art school doesn't teach 20th century art?
Why why why. Please vacate the soapbox. There are more idiots waiting in line on this thread.
share
Yeap. 100% spot on; the previous users' analysis. I get that such a critical flaw would bring down the movie for you and ruin it. I also want you to try to understand something you already know; not every creator in the movie knows each and every point it covers as well as many experts do.
If that ruined the movie for you, consider this;
I captain the pistol team at the University of Texas. 99.99% of movies that have guns in them are unrealistic in how their guns work; the actors do not hold they correctly, wheel guns shoot more rounds than a semi-auto, every time an actor moves, the sound of the gun being chambered or the safety on/off is heard, .50 calibers have no muzzle rise, incorrect terminology is used, the same user chambers the gun 3 times in a row with no unfired round being ejected, etc etc etc.
Think of how many action movies we all see and have seen. That's how many I laugh at in how stupid they look and the pathetic grasp of SIMPLE gun logic that fails the creators in their making of the movie.
But I get past that and realize that there is so much more going on.
This movie is on my Top 10 list. No doubt. Along with Firefly series/movie, and most likely Equilibrium. Small budget, amazing movie.
[deleted]
Wait, you mean that the unbelievable part of the movie was that any art student can do realistic drawings in graphite and NOT that he can freeze time?
Right......
I don't think you're right. I think you've just experienced the ordinary rather than the extraordinary. It's whoever catches the zeitgeist.
share