Although Paladin did indeed like the 2009 Star Trek, and didn't mind the idea of "red matter" as a storytelling device, he frequently rolls his eyes during J.J. Abrams' sci-fi films as the man seems to have no understanding of cosmic distances. A supernova that "threatens the galaxy?" Even if a supernova could be large enough to do that (and the biggest one possible wouldn't come remotely close), it would expand at rates far, far below that of light, which would give a warp-capable civilization quite a lot of time to get out of the way. A supernova somehow "sneaking up" on Romulus is ridiculous. Paladin also cringes when he sees that Delta Vega is apparently not only in the same solar system as Vulcan, but is so close that Vulcan's surface features are clearly identifiable for someone standing on Delta Vega's surface. Another eye-rolling moment for Paladin is in Star Wars: The Force Awakens, where the Starkiller Base's laser crosses interstellar distances in mere seconds. I could forgive this by imagining it's some kind beam moving through hyperspace, but the scenes of the Hosnian system being destroyed show the beams moving far slower than light. Also, the beam crossing the space between Starkiller Base and the Hosnian system is visible on Takodana, many light years away as it happens.
Paladin shouldn't harbour the slightest smidgeon of hope for even the weeniest bit of real-universe accuracy from Hollywood. Ever.
Well, yes and no. Do I expect fantasy movies to be realistic? No. Again, I enjoyed Star Trek and Star Wars: The Force Awakens despite the glaring scientific inaccuracies. But when fantasy movies deal with real-life, understood phenomena (like supernovas or interstellar distances), I kinda expect the filmmakers to get that right. Otherwise, people in the audience who understand these things are left rolling their eyes. I guess they can still get away with certain things in movies set in space because people are generally pretty ignorant of the subject. By the way, my favorite sci-fi movie error is in Armageddon. When the two shuttles arrive at the Russian space station, the space station is put into a spin to create artificial gravity. So far, so good because that would actually work. But when you see the astronauts aboard the station, the artificial gravity is oriented in the wrong direction. Watch 2001: A Space Odyssey for a film that gets it right.
Man, I don't. Too jaded, I guess. Which is what I do. And it shatters that suspension of disbelief. Which is a real pain in the ass. Remember the "dogfight" scene in the original Star Wars film? The fighters had little wings and banked in their turns. That ruined the film for me right there. I think Kubrick was a stickler for detail. At least actors say he was hell to work for. Whereas in a B-grade 1950s horror film there's a shot of a windy night in a graveyard. You can actually see the tombstones bending as the off-screen fans blew. Cuz they were made of cardboard.
I'm certainly more forgiving of fantasy films than I am sci-fi films. If it's sci-fi, they have to get science right. Despite a few scientific fumbles and implausibilities, films like Gravity, Interstellar, and The Martian do very well in regards to science. And about fighters banking in space, yes, that's ridiculous. However, it does look good and it sits okay with our intuition. The TV show Babylon 5 actually got it right, with fighters turning around all axes as spacecraft--but not aircraft!--actually do.
And yet, he forgets that images of Kong swatting aircraft out of the sky has been a trope since the very beginning.
Yes, but just because a trope is old doesn't make it more believable. I mean, take a look at Kong there...why would a plane need to fly so close to him that it was actually within his reach? He's literally grabbed one by the fuselage, so that dumb bastard pilot must've been flying within less than a wingspan's distance from Kong. Another pet peeve: when helicopters make strafing runs in the movies. Are the people who write these things unaware that helicopters are capable of hovering? "He's coming around for another pass!" "Another pass? Why doesn't he just hover above us and pick us off?" "He missed that day in helicopter school!"
But at least those things have the benefit of looking cool. Unlike, say, somebody who's never handled a gun in his life successfully managing to shoot giant grasshoppers off of people with a tommy gun (as happened in Peter Jackson's version).
A stationary helicopter is a target. Plus, if you're talking Huey gunships in Vietnam, they were loaded up with as much guns, ammo, and rockets as they could carry. Having spent a few hundred hours in a Jet Ranger that was overloaded with television equipment, hovering is difficult at best. In his book Chickenhawk, Robert Mason talks about how difficult it was to hover in the air of South Vietnam and he only flew slicks.
Oh, God, don't get me started on gun-related mistakes in movies. I thought I had a list of these here, but I can't find it...so, my top 10 favorite gun mistakes in movies. 10. Anachronistic guns. I saw the John Wayne movie 'The Comancheros' a few years back, and, though it takes place before the Civil War, the characters have 1873 Winchesters and are using metallic cartridges. 9. Whole cartridges (not bullets) flying through the air. Apparently, some filmmakers don't realize that the bullet is the only part that flies out the barrel. The spent case is left behind and, in semi- and full-automatic guns, is immediately ejected. 8. Bullets making cars explode. Doesn't happen. Gasoline isn't explosive unless it's aerosolized. It just burns when it's a liquid (which is a desirable property in a fuel for people's everyday transportation). You shoot someone's gas tank with a gun? You get a big puddle of gasoline on the ground. 7. Silencers that make guns truly silent. Although it is possible to make a gunshot almost silent, a little can screwed onto an AR-15 is not going to make it go pfew! pfew! My favorite? Anton Chigurh's (Javier Bardem) silence shotgun in No Country for Old Men. 6. Dropped guns firing. Ugh. Guns built for the last half-century at least have mechanisms that prevent this very thing from occurring. Worst offender? The episode of Beverly Hills 90210 where some douchebag kid is playing with his dad's Glock, drops it, and fatally wounds himself. One of Glock's earliest selling points was it's safe-action system that required a finger on the trigger in order to let the striker operate. Favorite offender? Jamie Lee Curtis dropping a MAC-10 and inadvertently mowing down a whole bunch of bad guys in True Lies. 5. No reloading required. Indiana Jones fires about 14 shots from his Webley revolver. In True Lies, the bad guy puts about 100 holes in the doors of bathroom stalls with a gun that has, at most, a 30 round magazine. Automatic bursts that would empty a magazine in less than a second go on for 5-10 seconds. 4. Gunshots lifting people off their feet/knocking them through walls, windows, etc. Nope, because physics. The worst offender is Desperado where a bad guy leaps at Antonio Banderas, who blasts him with a couple of Ruger .45s, stopping him mid-air, and then flinging him backwards. 3. Impossible accuracy. Some movies show skilled shooters shooting with impossible accuracy. In Suicide Squad, Deadshot (Will Smith) fires several guns he's never handled before, and is able to put round after round after round through a single hole in multiple targets. A gun can't do that even if you lock it down mechanically. 2. Unbelievable inaccuracy. The good guy is running 50 feet away. A bad guy has a rifle and fires multiple shots...all of which hit the ground near the good guy's feet. Not impossible, but unbelievable. Even a cheap rifle will put 5 bullets in a 3" circle at 100 yards. A torso-sized target at 50 feet? Toast. 1. Automatic pistols surprising the shooter by going click when they're empty. Automatic pistols don't do this, they lock open on the last round fired to facilitate reloading. A shooter is never surprised when it's empty because he will see that it is locked open. I cringe every time I see this in a movie.
8b. Bullets creating "sparks" when they strike sheet metal on automobiles. Even something as small as a .22 can puncture the sheet metal covering a car. Plus, because it's a soft metal, lead doesn't create sparks even when it strikes a hard steel target. Related: a couple of nights ago I rewatched We Were Soldiers. At one point during the battle, Greg Kinnear's Huey takes fire and the bullets "spark" off the plexiglass windscreen, leaving it intact without even a scratch.
It fires the whole bullet so there's 70% more bullet per bullet. Seriously, though, what movie(s) did this?
If you drop a big rock on another big rock, you'll probably get a spark or two, because the kinetic energy of the collision is transformed into heat and a few little very hot bits break off and fly away. Isn't this analogous? Even if very soft, super-heated lead just splattered, I can still imagine sparks flying.
Doubtful but certainly not in the case of bullets hitting the thin sheet metal of a car. The projectiles would puncture it, which is another movie mistake because even after the "sparks", there's never a hole left behind.
Two words for all of it. Lethal Weapon. On a side note, I was watching Air Force One the other day and I'm watching all of the guys shooting up the plane, not a good idea.
Favorite offender? Jamie Lee Curtis dropping a MAC-10 and inadvertently mowing down a whole bunch of bad guys in True Lies. Ummm.......with a title like True LIES we should have seen that coming!
#4 just got done watching The Quick and the Dead Gene Hackman gets shot in the head and does a flying back flip.
He wasn't hit by a .45, he was hit by a truck! Equally hilarious is the sun shining through the bullet wound in Hackman's chest leaving a bright spot on his shadow. Geometrically, optically, and physiologically impossible.
In regards Kong: Skull Island... Meh. Don't make a special trip to the theater for it. The last Kong fight is pretty good and John C. Reilly's character is surprisingly effective, but you've gotta wade through a lot of action movie cliches and stupid character syndrome to get 'em. 5/10.
I could be wrong on this one. It's running 79%/Certified Fresh on RottenTomatoes. If it interests you, check it out.
If you ever find yourself in a squadron of helicopters that are being swatted out of the air by a giant gorilla, simply climb out of his reach.
HA! Pretty good. You can use my iconic movie critic Gene Shalit picture to make it even funnier. You're welcome!
