Badmovies.org Forum

What the **** is wrong with "over analyzing" a movie!? So what if I differentiate between "real world explainations" and "story world explanations." I watch a lot of movies and I see potential holes in the plot, direction, etc and I want to know if I'm right or wrong! I can't help it that's just the way I look at things.

GRRRRR!!! HULK SMASH!!!!

BTW, this rant was inspired by a topic I made on another board. It went like this:

Me: Why did they name the dog "Beethoven?"
Them: So it'd fit with the song "Roll Over Beethoven."
Me: No, that's why the FILMMAKERS named the dog Beethoven, but why did the FAMILY name the dog Beethoven? There is nothing to suggest the father was thinking about the rock song when he named the dog. The kid bangs the notes to Beethoven's fifth, the dog starts howling, and the dad goes "Beethoven."
Them: There's the answer right there, dumbass.
Me: THAT'S NOT AN EXPLANATION. Are we supposed to assume it was just haphazard like that?
Them: OMG shut up nerd.

I know exactly what you are talking about. That's why I tend to just be very selective about what I say about movies these days.

Sorry to be blunt, but if you are obsessing about why the dog was named Beethoven, you really need to get out more. (http://www.smileys.ws/smls/action/00000042.gif)

Don't want to read to much into it or over analyse this post, but if you calm down your more that welcome to write long friendly post here on this messageboard. : )

Pour yourself a bowl of soup or cereal and we'll talk about your movie Snesman64. How's that sound? Just don't take things to seriously is my only advice.

I do get the man's dilemma --
Movies . . . Ah, we love them, don't we?  Otherwise we wouldn't be on this board --
I just finished watched Werner Herzog's remake of Nosferatu.
How much in that was random?  How much was choice?  How much was happy circumstance?
Obviously, Isabelle Adjani was the only actor who made a conscious choice to replicate her character in the silent version -- Even Klaus Kinski added dimensions of menace and violence that weren't in evidence in the Murnau version.
How come?
I get the business of questioning films -- I think the objection comes from the fact that sometimes the answer is so pedestrian:  We shot it that way because the crew wanted lunch! . . . etc. etc.
But sometimes answers can illuminate -- so keep asking.
peter johnson/denny crane

Now I never saw the movie, but he has a good question there. Why did they make this movie and why did they name the dog Betoveen? What I mean is did the dog play the piano?

peter johnson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I get the business of questioning films -- I think
> the objection comes from the fact that sometimes
> the answer is so pedestrian:  We shot it that way
> because the crew wanted lunch! . . . etc. etc.
> But sometimes answers can illuminate -- so keep
> asking.
> peter johnson/denny crane

One of the lecturers at the summer film school I just did made a funny comment about how one day on set someone spilt some milk [somehow] on the table they were about to shoot, and it looked good so they shot it, and now all the film students/critics are going crazy saying things like 'that meant he is in love with his mother' or analysing the psychoanalytical subtext to the shot, when in actuality it's just a mistake that they just kept on screen.

I found that quite funny.


Also I understand why we need to ask questions, especially in movies which take themselves way way too seriously.  But Beethoven??  Even if the explanation was stupid [it was half-assed, sure, but it made some sort of sense] I really don't think we need to over analyse a film like that: it's pretty straightfoward, so I guess I'm with Menard on that.

Now try analysing and questioning some really terrible films and I'll be laughing/pulling out my hair in frustration, right along with ya!

What was the symbolism of the diving helmet in Robot Monster?
Did the waving gravestones in Plan 9 From Outer Space address the temporal nature of our mortality?
Did the use of ping-pong balls for eyes in Creature From the Haunted Sea make reference to the Jungian archetype mandala figure?
peter johnson/denny crane

Uh--you do realize that the dog was barking out the Beethoven song that the kid was playing right? His barks or yaps or whatever you wanna call e'm matched the notes of the keys the kid hit.

It now becomes clear. Case closed as far as I'm concerned. I will now be able to sleep tonight without this heavy question weighing on my mind.

pops_mcfly Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uh--you do realize that the dog was barking out
> the Beethoven song that the kid was playing right?
> His barks or yaps or whatever you wanna call e'm
> matched the notes of the keys the kid hit.


No... I don't think so.  I remember hearing that and thinking "The dog's barking along but he's not matching up."  Maybe we were supposed to THINK the dog was matching up with the song even though he really wasn't.

peter johnson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do get the man's dilemma --
> Movies . . . Ah, we love them, don't we?
> Otherwise we wouldn't be on this board --
> I just finished watched Werner Herzog's remake of
> Nosferatu.
> How much in that was random?  How much was choice?
>  How much was happy circumstance?
> Obviously, Isabelle Adjani was the only actor who
> made a conscious choice to replicate her character
> in the silent version -- Even Klaus Kinski added
> dimensions of menace and violence that weren't in
> evidence in the Murnau version.
> How come?
> I get the business of questioning films -- I think
> the objection comes from the fact that sometimes
> the answer is so pedestrian:  We shot it that way
> because the crew wanted lunch! . . . etc. etc.
> But sometimes answers can illuminate -- so keep
> asking.
> peter johnson/denny crane

Peter Johnson understands.... For the record I'm not putting too much brainpower into thinking about this.  I spent more time WRITING about this subject than I did thinking about it, and I only wrote about it because I was angry people couldn't just accept that sometimes little things in movies bug me and I want to talk about them.

And on a related topic, the Third Annual Congress of Higher Nerdology Today announced, that it would no longer allow questions that address realy important issues, Such as Life, the Universe, and Everything, and will be more strict in its adheriance to the need for more obscure minuita.

Group spokeman Ottway Lemmingwood said "The realy intresting parts of the universe can only be seen by focusing on the seemingly unimportant details of life. Such as how did the Castaways on Gilligan's Island stay well dressed, even when they were stranded beyond the normal duration of most clothing. And don't get me started about the implications of  Carl Kolchak's hat size!"

Back to you, dan...

To Flangepart: Don't let them get to you... it doesn't make you a nerd because you have a mind that asks questions. And don't let them label you either. Only you can decide if you're a nerd or not. Keep telling them to go f**k themselves... or watch American Idol, or whatever the hell they do with their spare time...

To "Them": f**k you. Now go stick your heads back up your asses..... (there was more, but it was muffled and drowned out)

Welcome to the club, Snesman64. I'm glad I'm not the only one who has been accused of over-analyzing films.

My argument is that we don't enough analysis. That's why we get crap films like "Titanic."

As I said, welcome to the club. I hope you post some of your questions here. I probably won't have an answer for any of them, but I'm sure I'll enjoy reading them.

Who needs to worry about the crumbling state of affairs all over the world (or any of that other life related stuff for that matter), when I have important stuff to do like pondering why in  the series finale of ST:TNG "All Good Things", Lt. Commander Data is wearing Ltjg pips on his uniform.

trek_geezer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who needs to worry about the crumbling state of
> affairs all over the world (or any of that other
> life related stuff for that matter), when I have
> important stuff to do like pondering why in  the
> series finale of ST:TNG "All Good Things", Lt.
> Commander Data is wearing Ltjg pips on his
> uniform.
>
> --------------------------------
>
>

Good point Trek. Now, why would Data be wearing that on his uniform?

odinn7 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> trek_geezer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Who needs to worry about the crumbling state
> of
> > affairs all over the world (or any of that
> other
> > life related stuff for that matter), when I
> have
> > important stuff to do like pondering why in
> the
> > series finale of ST:TNG "All Good Things",
> Lt.
> > Commander Data is wearing Ltjg pips on his
> > uniform.
> >
> > --------------------------------
> >
> >
>
> Good point Trek. Now, why would Data be wearing
> that on his uniform?
>
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - -
>
> You're not the Devil...You're practice.


Maybe he felt that Gladys Knight and the Pips would have been a bit much. (http://www.smileys.ws/smls/laughing/00000004.gif)

I've got a better question, why did they put in a scene in the second film implying a guy was going to sexually assualt a teenage girl in a film that's supposed to be a FREAKING FAMILY film?

I have contemplated this since 1994 and have come to no rational conclusion other than the producers get a kick out of starting stupid fan boy discussions about such minutiae.

Hey, it worked!

"Hey, it worked!"

Bastards!

That's probably true.  I few years ago, I dillied around a Simpson's Trivia chat room on AOL.  Man, those folks knew some obscure, totally pointless, stuff about The Simpson's.  Since then, I've watched a lot of shows looking for things the producers probably added just to add to mankind's database of useless information.

On a side note, have you ever read the "Goofs" section for any popular movie on IMDB?  Some of it is pretty cool (I especially like when folks point out anacronisms in historical or period films), but some of it is just nuts.  Like "crew or equipment visible for one frame on the very edge of the screen."  If it's there for only one frame

(a) I'll never see it, since I don't make a habit of watching movies frame by frame (though I do occasionally frame through some animated scenes to 'study' the art).  Therefore, I don't care.

and

(b) who in their right mind frames through a film looking for crap like this?  It cannot be anyone with either kids or a job.  *I* certainly don't have time for that; I have a hard enough time finding time to watch an occasional movie at regular speed.

And getting myself back on-topic:  I'm all for questioning stuff in movies as a point of discussion, but I don't think every little point is intentional, symbolic or meaningful.  I've read/heard a number of director's comments to the contrary about things people went on-and-on about.

Sometimes, you just have to let art flow over you.  (What movie is THAT from??)

Sorry to say, but I have an eye for catching stuff that is a pet peeve of mine. Like anything to do with the military and their procedures. Like the other night I was watching the show "Without a Trace" and a marine private is being interrogated by a Gunnery Sergeant and he kept calling the "Gunny" sir. The common response would be "don't call me sir, I work for a living".

I was a radioman in the Navy, so anytime someone uses the term "over and out" I want to scream. They have basically asked the person on the other end to go ahead and shut up! Don't get me started about they way they handle security clearances in movies and tv shows.

Ah, but ain't it a maintstay of so many movies, especially war movies?
Put red circles on a F-4 Wildcat and you have a "Zero" --
Put Prussian crosses on a Patton tank & you have a Panzer --
etc. etc.
This is one case where the modern CGI is a great boon -- It's very easy to type in accurate looking clunky period pieces instead of forcing some modern or inappropriate modern thang to take its place
peter johnson/denny crane

My father who was in the army at one time(three billion centuries ago) agrees with you.

It's either over or it's out, but not both.

Over means "back to you"

Out means " End of transmisson"