did anyone else noticed that Amanda Seyfried's character ..
.. changed outfits four times while they were on the run? and she wore heels each time too?
share..but you're okay with people living in a world where they stop aging at 25 and have to buy time in order to stay alive?
shareYes because this is an imagined future where things are quite different in many ways. I am sure a hundred years ago no one imagined that people would be carrying devices around which connects them to the world. But did fugitives a hundred years ago, (or any time) find the time to change into impractical outfits?
shareWell, if you can imagine a future where people live and die by having to purchase time into their arms, then you should be able to imagine a future where people can change clothes quickly.
shareYes but why would someone repeatedly change into a sexy and impractical outfit?
shareThe question here is why do you have a problem with that when you've already accepted so many far more unrealistic things in regards to this movie?
shareI don't find it difficult to accept that things can be very different in the future. It is not absurd to imagine that rich people would live longer if they could. They already have better health care and personal chefs and trainers and plastic surgeons.
shareAnd they also are better at changing clothes on the run and looking good doing it.
shareContinuity errors and the unrealisticness of a fictional setting are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS and should not be combined. It is one thing to set a fictional setting and your own rules for a fictional universe but it is quite another to have a scene that makes no sense due to improper continuity.
For example SUPERMAN is extremely unrealistic BUT if Clark is talking to Lois and a minute later she is wearing a different dress, maybe because there was a break in shooting and she changed clothes by mistake, that has absolutely nothing to do with the realisticness of the fictional world it takes place in.
A fictional world makes certain "rules" for it's setting, it does NOT mean that there cannot be continuity errors that need to be watched out for.
Dammit, you are such an idiot.
We accept the premise of "time = currency" because it's exactly that: The premise of the movie. It's the unrealistic thing that the movie is based on, so of course we don't have a problem with it.
But there's still no reason why mundane tasks, like changing clothes, that are not based on any premise of the movie world's differing rules, cannot be frowned upon when presented in an unrealistic way.
I always hate it when people are too stupid to make that distinction.
Sometimes films ask 'a bridge too far' for suspension of disbelief-you can get away with a lot but not everything before things are just silly.
"What is an Oprah?"-Teal'c.
Darvidd, there are different kinds of unrealisticness. I for example really liked MAN OF STEEL. I can suspend my disbelief all day about the powers and being from another planet and all the other stuff but as soon as Lois and everyone else who knows him cannot recognize him as soon as he puts glasses on I just get annoyed. Skipping past that bullcrap and having Lois immediately know who he was was much more refreshing.
Also, INTERNAL CONSISTENCY is needed in a fictional setting, once a fictional universe sets it's rules it needs to stick to them and explain it if an exception is made. For example the Chris Reeve Superman movies had the flaw of his powers changing on a whim based on whoever wrote any given scene.
Just to establish that I can use something other than Superman as an example the 1978 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers kept changing the rules of how long it takes for pods to develop or how close they have to be with a victim and the Blood Acid and incubation times kept changing in the alien and alien v predator movies.