MovieChat Forums > Costumer > Replies
Costumer's Replies
The following is attributed to various individuals:
The difference between non-fiction and fiction is that fiction has to make sense.
There are various versions and different phrasing for this truism. The point is that if fiction has to self consistent. It can violate physical law or play havoc with social convention. But within itself, it must be consistent. So debating the internal logic of this scene is perfectly appropriate and is not simply the domain of "nerds" (And, I might say, one shouldn't look down at nerds.)
This whole scene comes directly from the comics. Superman flies faster than light in a counter clockwise direction to go back in time. He flies faster than light in a clockwise direction to go forward in time.
This is what he's doing. He is going back in time; as is clear from the scenes on earth: the dam repairs itself for example.
Now some point to him reversing himself to "get the earth rotating again." This is little more than a visual trope for the watcher; very similar to the sound tie fighters and x-wings make in Star Wars. There is no sound is space, but the sound added helps the watcher perceive speed in the fighters.
I posted this in another topic:
Both mother and daughter had black hair. That is a dominant. Dwayne Johnson is black and Samoan. His coloring is more white than black, though certainly not cliche white.
A black and white parent are more likely to have children with a mixture of characteristics from both parents; skin likely brown, hair dark, eyes dark. Features can run the gamut. However, it is entirely possible for a child to appear completely black or completely white.
The classic experiment (which is simplistic, but illustrates the point) is a black mouse and a white mouse. (by which we are referring to their hair color). If they have 4 offspring, the probabilities (which are not definitively what will happen) is one completely white mouse, one completely black mouse and two mottled black and white.
As I noted above, both mother and daughter had black hair. I believe their eyes were dark, though it has been awhile since I've seen the movie. So, this is a likely scenario.
If the daughter had blonde hair, that would be a genetic issue. (though if Dwayne's character had any blonde haired ancestors, even one, the recessives could combine to blonde hair.)
You don't actually understand genetics. Both mother and daughter had black hair. That is a dominant. Dwayne Johnson is black and Samoan. His coloring is more white than black, though certainly not cliche white.
A black and white parent are more likely to have children with a mixture of characteristics from both parents; skin likely brown, hair dark, eyes dark. Features can run the gamut. However, it is entirely possible for a child to appear completely black or completely white.
The classic experiment (which is simplistic, but illustrates the point) is a black mouse and a white mouse. (by which we are referring to their hair color). If they have 4 offspring, the probabilities (which are not definitively what will happen) is one completely white mouse, one completely black mouse and two mottled black and white.
As I noted above, both mother and daughter had black hair. I believe their eyes were dark, though it has been awhile since I've seen the movie. So, this is a likely scenario.
If the daughter had blonde hair, that would be a genetic issue. (though if Dwayne's character had any blonde haired ancestors, even one, the recessives could combine to blonde hair.)
Or, as has been the practice throughout film, the only thing of importance was the actors. I hate to break it to you, but casting directors really don't look at the actor's resumes and say, "Oh, this character is supposed to be 46. You're only 40. So sorry. Next!"
Carla and Dwayne looked like they could easily be parents to Alexandra.
Why? They demonstrate that Data's father is also an inventor whose inventions often go wrong. Recall he had the camera on a spring around his waist. When he took the picture the camera lid pops off and the film comes out.
So, Data is just like his father.
And to try to finish:
11) In the original timeline, JUDY wears a ponytail and then pigtails. In the new timeline, she wears her hair down with a couple of accessories. I think it was to show that now she was much happier.
Possibly. Or perhaps she just wears her hair differently from time to time.
12) I don't remember JUDY or PETER telling ALAN or SARAH how their parents died. Yet, they knew about it in the new timeline. They also never told them their last names. Without them, how did ALAN or SARAH knew to expect to meet JUDY & PETER again? And hy did they wait until 1995? They could've met them when they were born and maybe be close enough for their parents to consider them as godparents.
I would have to rewatch the film, but I thought they did tell them. Even if they didn't, I'm sure they mentioned their last name. And they told Alan that their father was in advertising. Given all that, it probably wouldn't have been hard to find out who they were. As to why wait, they would want to be sure to prevent the skiing trip. Bringing them in then would help that. (And its possible you are right and they didn't mention anything except the advertising. But even that, given that Alan and Sarah are wealthy, could probably be found out.)
13) The credits reveal that young SARAH was played by Laura Bell Bundy. What?! The country singer?! The actress from LEGALLY BLONDE: THE MUSICAL and ANGER MANAGEMENT)?! She looks so different!
People change as they grow. While it is likely that you can see the child in the adult, some people's faces change radically. And there is a tendency for people to "see" children and adults differently.
Sorry, for some reason MovieChat wouldn't let me continue. from where I left off.
6) Just because ALAN spent 26 years in the jungle it doesn't explain how he's an fauna expert (e.g. he explains the difference between an alligator and a crocodile). Did VAN PELT have text books and he stole them? Is that the real reason why he wanted to kill him?
How do you know he didn't know the difference before he went? I knew the difference when I was 7 years old. Yes, I was a science nerd. I absorbed that sort of thing. I was spout off dinosaur names to my kindergarten teacher. A lot of kids learn that sort of thing.
7) All the animals are sucked into the game. Would it have been possible for a human to be sucked by accident?
It is made pretty clear in the game that only things that come from the game go back when the game is finished.
8) VAN PELT got his gun in our world. Why was it sucked into the game too?
No. If you watch carefully the gun and the bullet start to "disintegrate" and are traveling away from Van Pelt. The gun and bullet went back to the store where they came from.
9) ALAN's dad sees that his son invited a girl over to his house without asking for permission and he's OK with that? Enough to think "Maybe we should have this conversation tomorrow so that you can go back to hanging out with her"? Actually, she arrived minutes after his parents left. Isn't that suspicious?
Why? These kids are young. I doubt his father thinks they have any "adult" interest in each other. As to her arrival, he likely assumed Alan had invited her over and she had shown up after he had left.
10) ALAN & SARAH grow up again as adults in teenagers' bodies. I think this could bring some consequences.
They were not adults. Yes, they had all their memories from the lives before. But Saran herself says, when they are throwing away the game, "Before I feel like a kid again." So, while they have the memories, they went back to being kids.
An older post, but:
1) I know that NORA is new to parenting, but does she really think it's a good idea to leave the kids alone with the exterminator? Do you think I'm exagerating? Well, he tells them about the myth surrounding ALAN's disappearance. The only reason to do it seems to be to scare the kids.
People weren't as uptight that sort of thing then.
2) The beginning stablished ALAN as a boy scared of many things... and we're supposed to believe he learned to survive in the jungle on his own?!
3) When ALAN returns to our world, he seems to think that time in our world stood still. Why?
I doubt he really knew how many years had passed. He probably should have, since he had grown an impressive beard. But he was back and his hope that his parents were there waiting for him overwhelmed him.
4) The pieces in the game stay in their place like fridge magnets, but the dices don't. How come they never fall down by accident. Also, the game isn't inside a box and doesn't have a lock. How come it never opens by accident despite the many times it's moved around?
Given its other properties its not surprising everything stays together.
5) I thought it was odd to have a pelican in the movie. Then I researched and it turns out that they can be found in Africa. Still, it's not an animal you associate with Africa (unlike lions, elephants, etc.).
No, but so what? The monkeys seemed to have prehensile tails, and monkeys from Africa do not. Only American species have prehensile tails.
Why not? It didn't say he was stupid. He did what he had to do to survive, as anyone would.
6) Just because ALAN spent 26 years in the jungle it doesn't explain how he's an fauna expert (e.g. he explains the difference between an alligator and a crocodile). Did VAN PELT have text books and he stole them? Is that the real reason why he wanted to kill him?
How do you know he didn't know before? I certainly knew the difference when I was 7 years old. Yes, I was a science nerd and collect
I'm interested that you seem to think that horror novels don't have sex in them. In my experience, and I've read a lot of them, they often do. Many surrender to the sex leads to death trope common in slasher flicks. In others its just that teen and adult characters often engage in sexual conduct.
Late reply, but the entire premise of Ironside was that he was confined to a wheel chair. It was shown, on the pilot episode.
Large parts of California are deserts. It is likely the only reason Hill Valley has greenery is that is was planted as the town grew.
I think he might mean Klingons and Romulans.
Just a point, the many Star Trek novels have never been considered canon. They often contradict information from the shows and each other. They are entertaining, but should always be considered non-canon pastiches.
Actually I would call his costume a bit of a mish-mash of Russian styles with a dash of fantasy Arabic.
My apologies. I misinterpreted your comment. My error.
I have no opinion on the movie since I haven't seen it yet. I was only commenting on some reviewers (and people on these boards) who equate "adult" with good and "childish" with bad. Those who believe that no "adult" should like, or even want to see, a movie they believe to "be made for children."
Let me add, from C.S. Lewis
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
..... including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”
Those who are adult and childish both are the happiest, and often the most well read people around.
Old post, but ...
As to 1, kids do that sort of thing all the time. My two younger brothers went to Europe in their early twenties (that was around 35 years ago). They wondered from place to place. Found Hostels when they needed them and camped out when they didn't. They started in France and the only goal, to happen sometime on the trip, was to go to Lindini in Sicily where our family is from. So this didn't surprise me at all.
Old post, but ...
The human body is fragile and little things can kill us.
And the human body is very tough and things that should kill us we recover from.
There are so many factors involved that it is impossible to predict how a particular person will react to a particular injury.
No, I am not the OP under another account. I think the OP's post is complete and utter nonsense written by someone convinced of their own intellectual superiority.
I am well educated. I am NOT more educated than many. I don't believe intellect or education is a indicator of a person's worth.
Does that clarify it for you?