Badmovies.org Forum

All my life, I've seen movies which have often broke the rules of science and reality.  Last year, I saw an episode of the Mythbusters that did myths from the movie Jaws.  In that they did an interview with Peter Benchley, author of Jaws.  While examining the myth of a scuba tank exploding when shot, they told that in the book, the shark was killed by a harpoon.  Peter Benchley himself said that Steven Spielberg had that scene changed.  He told of an argument between himself and Mr. Spielberg on this issue.  He said that Mr. Spielberg said something to the effect of "They will believe it because I present it to them."  That got me thinking.  Movie makers aren't stupid, they just think that we, the viewing public is stupid.  When Mr. Spielberg said that to Mr. Benchley, he was in essence saying "People are so stupid, they will accept whatever I present to them as factual."  Most of the time, I am amazed at the level of scientific flaws and flaws of reality that most films and TV Shows have.  But occasionally, one will amaze me with how plausible it is.

Some of my favorite movies are the most implausible,stupidist things imaginable. Thats why I like them.Thats why a web site called Bad Movies exists. The whole idea of a shark eating a boat is fairly unreal in itself, when you think about it. And cinematicly(did I spell that right?) blowing up is alot cooler than getting speared.

Well, in response to your question, it' s a two-way street. If we are willing to pay to see things we know are crap, then the bean counters will influence the execs to pressure studios to make films that sell more. The reason why DVD's are now the rage is because we the public buy them... sure, some have great extras and boast clearer images- but that has nothing to do with why so many things are being released on DVD... it's because it's an easy money-maker. The same goes with remakes- that and they seem safe & easy for studios to remake. There are exceptions of course (I don't think you'll ever see a remake of Todd Browning's FREAKS). But, yes, studios think we are clueless cattle waiting to be fleeced (to mix metaphors- I should be talking about sheep now).

Oh, and spielberg is a total idiot; a rich exploitive idiot, but still an idiot.

Well if I were the executive producer of Jaws, I'd have done things a lot differently.  I'd use the final scene in the novel, but I would make it more suspenseful.  I'd make it so that the hero and his team try to harpoon the shark.  The shark plays around with them, hitting the boat, knocking off a creman and eating him.   The hero would shoot the harpoon at the bloodspot on the water and miss.  I'd keep this up for a whileUntil the hero was all that was left on the boat.  The boat would be heavily damaged and barely afloat.  The hero would have the harpoon hun with him.  He'd scan the water surface for the shark's presence.  All of a sudden the shark would jump out of the water with its jaws locked on the hero.  The hero would take his one and only shot, firing the harpoon into the shark's mouth so that it penetrate's the shark's head and kills it.  That's how I would have done that scene.

In the novel, the shark doesn't get harpooned to death, per se.  It just finally dies from all the injuries inflicted upon it.

The movie's ending is much better.  Without that ending, Brody contributes little to the plot aside from being a generally ineffective sheriff and an actual hazard on Quint's boat.

The shark might explode if the air got forced down its gullet, though that would cause an abdominal rupture instead of blowing its head off.

Oh, well.

A compressed air tank would rupture if punctured but not to the degree presented.  Would it kill the shark?  Chunks of metal propelled into the brain by an compressed gas explosion would kill just about anything....

The ending for this movie was better than the book. At least I mean, it comes across in the movie much better than the way it would have if they followed the book. Movies don't need to be realistic. I watch movies for fun and I will pick things out from time to time and have fun doing so but I will not sit there and be p**sed because a movie isn't realistic...what fun would movies be if they followed the way things would really happen...pretty boring really.

"We'll poke this shark until he dies...or...we blow him up in a fantastic explosion."

"Oh...but that explosion couldn't happen like that."

"Damn it!...Ok...we'll poke him until he dies because we want to keep things real."

"Keep things real? We better not have him destroy the boat this way then...Oh yes, there are many other things we will need to change as well."

"Wow...this movie will suck...but at least it will all be real!"



Yeah...sweet.

That was my point also. It's much more enjoyable,realistic or not. Some of my favorite films are more fun because of the total disregard of realism...

Exactly.

Incredible, you think the unreality and implausibility of films is fun?  Would you say that to people who have had family members lost or injured trying to replicate what they saw in movies?  I've heard many horror stories of mothers losing their sons when they tried to fly like Superman.  I remember that one movie (I forget its name) when come college jocks laid down in the middle of a busy highway and some college and high school kids have duplicated that very stunt.  You may see the unreality and implausibility of certain films as fun.  I see them as foolish and sometimes dangerous.

Wow! F**k me! You're right! Movies should be made realistic so the mentally deranged people don't try to copy them...that's bs.

Tell me though...if they were made realistic (we'll use Jaws as an example) then how would that stop these nuts from trying to copy them? The fact that they end Jaws with an oxygen tank blowing up the shark must make some freaks want to go out and blow up sharks. If they used a harpoon, nobody would want to copy that.

Sorry, but the majority of the film going public are stupid. That's why Hollywood keeps turning out so much inane crap, people are paying to see it.

As far as the ending of Jaws, the book ending would be very hard to make cinematic, so the movie ending is better in that regard. Remember this was made to be a thriller, not many thrills in watching a dead fish sink.

I personally think the air tank would have shot right through the shark and quite literally torn him a new ass.

odinn7 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow! F**k me! You're right! Movies should be made
> realistic so the mentally deranged people don't
> try to copy them...that's bs.
>
> Tell me though...if they were made realistic
> (we'll use Jaws as an example) then how would that
> stop these nuts from trying to copy them? The fact
> that they end Jaws with an oxygen tank blowing up
> the shark must make some freaks want to go out and
> blow up sharks. If they used a harpoon, nobody
> would want to copy that.

And its because of Jaws that people have gone on a shark-killing spree.  In the years since Jaws was released thousands of sharks were hunted and slaughtered, some to extinction.  Shark hunters may not be using the unrealistic and unworkable technique that Scheider used, but the end result is all the same: hundreds of thousands of slaughtered sharks.  The way I see it, Jaws has resulted in the destruction of completetly innocent animals.  Oh yeah sure, Jaws was an exciting movie for most, but for others all too real.  So you say the unreality of films has caused no harm?  Think again!

So we should have no movies then because everything could be caused by movies. You can't be for real...I am done with this.

How's about those Matrix fx, where bullets create shock waves as they travel?
It's my understanding that in order to produce shock waves, an object needs to be moving above seven hundred miles per hour, whereas your average bullet has a top speed of about four hundred miles per hour.

I have a headache.

lilcerberus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How's about those Matrix fx, where bullets create
> shock waves as they travel?
> It's my understanding that in order to produce
> shock waves, an object needs to be moving above
> seven hundred miles per hour, whereas your average
> bullet has a top speed of about four hundred miles
> per hour.
>

I'll field this one.  Any object traveling faster than the local speed of sound will produce a shock wave in that medium.  Virtually ALL rifle bullets, and many handgun bullets, are supersonic at the muzzle.

The speed of sound is about 1150 ft/s (or about 750 mph), which is not that fast in terms of modern small arms projectiles.  9mm Luger loads with 120 gr bullets are about 1300 ft/s, for example.  30-06 Springfield with 165 gr bullets run about 2800 ft/s; a LOT of rifle loads are over 3000 ft/s (in the Mach 3-ish range), and some even exceed 4000 ft/s.  The only common handgun that I know is almost always subsonic is a .38 Special, which is typically around 950 ft/s using the ordinary bullets.

And just for gee-whiz, I've done some research work on molecular beams cruising at a stately Mach 20 or so.  Detonation shocks move that fast or a bit faster, too.

Your question about shocks and bullets is an interesting one.  One of the most damaging aspects of being hit by a rifle bullet is NOT puncture trauma from the bullet itself, but rather a secondary effect from the shock called "cavitation."  Puncture trauma effects the harder tissue directly (bone, muscle), but the shock effects pulverize low density soft tissues such as the lungs.  This is why you often see a lot of soft tissue damage quite distant from the wound channel in rifle insults that you don't see in handgun injuries.

Deer hunting gives one a lot of opportunities to study these effects, as well.  If you've ever post mortem'd a deer shot by a rifle (at reasonably close range), you can see the shock effects in soft tissues very clearly.

Sorry.

lilcerberus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How's about those Matrix fx, where bullets create
> shock waves as they travel?
> It's my understanding that in order to produce
> shock waves, an object needs to be moving above
> seven hundred miles per hour, whereas your average
> bullet has a top speed of about four hundred miles
> per hour.
>
> I have a headache.


Those aren't shockwaves.  Those ripples do not look like shockwaves at all.  They look to me like the slipstreams created by the bullets as they travel.

The next time I try to fight a cyclops,I'll be sure to do it scientificly,unlike those idiots in the Sinbad movies. Or to shoot at Atomic supermen-they might go up in an atomic fireball.Oh yeah,that can't happen...it's unreal...If somebody is so stupid as to believe what goes on in a FANTASY is based on reality, well,they derserve what they get. And as far as a kid thinking he was Superman-C'mon! Maybe what they needed were more attentive parents.

But RCMerchant...you have overlooked the shark killing spree that was egged on by the movie Jaws...



ulthar wrote:
"Your question about shocks and bullets is an interesting one. One of the most damaging aspects of being hit by a rifle bullet is NOT puncture trauma from the bullet itself, but rather a secondary effect from the shock called "cavitation." Puncture trauma effects the harder tissue directly (bone, muscle), but the shock effects pulverize low density soft tissues such as the lungs. This is why you often see a lot of soft tissue damage quite distant from the wound channel in rifle insults that you don't see in handgun injuries."

He has a point about this. This whole shock thing is what makes the relatively small 5.56mm round so deadly. It flies at such high speed that when it hits, it causes this cavitation that ulthar talks about. Without this effect, the small round would basically leave a pencil size hole in you that could most likely be patched up.

I dunno...this is all kinda anal retentive. Stupid dumbasses killing sharks because a movie scared them.Half wits will do stupid things-check out all the idiots on those Spike TV home video shows breaking each others necks because they take WWF as real. "Stupid is as stupid does." Should we blame the Bible for the Crusades?

I rather enjoy the Darwin Awards.  If movies are providing the means for idiots to do their bit in cleaning up the gene pool...so be it.

As for holding movies to a factual standard: there is such a thing as the 'suspension of disbelief' when dealing with fiction/entertainment.

My standards do differ for documentaries.  That is where I expect to find 'reality' and I can get quite annoyed when I find it to be lacking.

To answer some questions and to possibly shed some light into the dark and murky past of the fictional cinema, let's jump into our wayback machine and travel to 1896:

-Plessy v. Ferguson was settled and asserted that distinctions based on race ran afoul of neither the Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendments
-Utah was admitted as the 45th United State
-Opening ceremonies of the 1896 Summer Olympics, the first modern Olympic Games were held, and
-George Melies made The Haunted Castle

The Haunted Castle is a "trick" film that used in camera editing to move actors while the camera was off to give the appearance that an actor had been teleported to a different place. This was still a newly discovered technique developed by Melies himself during the "Cinema of Attractions of pre-sound, Vaudeville accompanying cinema." In The Haunted Castle, a bat appears to fly into screen and transforms into Mephistopheles. Ol' Meph produces a cauldron which he uses to conjure up a young girl and various supernatural creatures.

Okay, so in 1896, only one year after the unofficial invention of the motion picture camera patented by Edison himself, the cinema is already being used to create fictional work.

This film and the other "trick films" of George Melies can be considered some of the first narrative films ever made. Before his work was only the travelpics created by Edison, Lumiere, and the American Biograph and Mutoscope Company. These pictures were merely 30-second to 1-minute long locked down tripod shots of various landscapes or people of particular interest... Images of Niagra Falls, Rough seas at Dover, busy streets in New York and Paris, the Grand Canyon, etc, etc...

And so when these travel pics lost their novelty, around 1896 when George Melies made The Haunted Castle, the fictional narrative became the dominant form of cinema. I refer you to the first truly popular film, Birth of A Nation by D. W. Griffith. The story is about a non-fictional time in history told in a terribly fictional way. I refer you to the popularity of Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, and Harold Lloyd and their fictional slapstick. I refer you to the unofficially accepted first fictional movie ever made, The Great Train Robbery (1903). I ask you to pay attention to the first unofficially accepted 'talkie,' The Jazz Singer. I refer you to the first three-color color film, La Cucaracha (1934). I don't see in any of these ranks a single non-fictional story.

We can even cross genres and tap into the most widely published book today, The Bible, and look at the fiction within it. It's historical information written in an elaborate and sometimes entertaining manner. Compare that to the operating manual of 1964 Chevy Corvair. Which is completely true down to the width of the timing belt? Now, which is more popular and possibly more entertaining to read?

I ask you this: can you recall how many times an innocent youth attempted to summon the devil in the form of a bat so that they could conjure young girls and supernatural spirits to Earth? None that you know of? Skip ahead ninety-eight years to 2004 when Hotel Rwanda was made. Can you recall how many people were very personally affected by the brutal reality of the fictional film about the atrocities occuring in Africa? If you can't, I can. Some of my friends later joined the Peace Corps or offered to participate in service trips to help people around the county in similar situations, and they cite Hotel Rwanda as one of the reasons they joined. So, what I'm trying to convey is that you cannot throw out an entire style of filmmaking because you didn't like Jaws. Humans have killed more humans than they have killed sharks in human existence. And the reason humans kill each other lies much deeper than because somebody made a film about it.

I basically ask you to pay attention to history to understand that unrealistic fiction is not a new fangled invention created by dope smoking commies trying to corrupt our youth. Fictional movies have been around almost as long as the cinema has been in existence and it will be around long after you and I are dead and decayed. So sit down so we can move the subject back to Robot Monsters in 3-D and how that kid that one time tried to communicate with outer space using a bubble making machine.

Sheesh.

Scottie,you have stated, and very well, I might add, the whole heart of fantastic cinema. IT IS FANTASY.(When I grow up, I wannna be smart too.)

Scottie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The Haunted Castle is a "trick" film that used in
> camera editing to move actors while the camera was
> off to give the appearance that an actor had been
> teleported to a different place. This was still a
> newly discovered technique developed by Melies
> himself during the "Cinema of Attractions of
> pre-sound, Vaudeville accompanying cinema."


Wow.  Just within the past week or so, I wondering who was the first to use this very technique with a motion picture camera!  I am impressed, sir.  And thank-you for the info.

(Incidentally, I'd like to know who was the first to use...various camera centric fx techniques...but that could be its own thread).

Great post Scottie...

I thought the book ending to Jaws was kind of lame.


**BOOK SPOILERS**




Not just because the shark simply bleeds to death and then sinks, but I thought it weak how Quint gets an incredibly obvious take on Ahab's death - the reason he asks for the knife in the book (same dialogue) is to cut ropes his legs are tangled in.  He gets pulled down with the shark and drowns.  I rolled my eyes at that when I read it....






**END**





By the way, in Mythbusters when they punctured the tank, it zoomed around and did do some damage...  If he hit the tank right, it certainly would have hurt the shark, even if it didn't kill it.

Well, If I were Mr. Spielberg, I would have thought more about my audience.  If the death scene in the novel was boring, I would not have used the scuba tank explosion.  To make that scene more exciting and plausible, instead of using a scuba tank, I would have used something with more punch, like a propane tank.  A propane tank would more likely explode when shot than a scuba tank because of the volatile nature of propane.  But I wonder, was propane available back then?

WyreWizard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, If I were Mr. Spielberg, I would have
> thought more about my audience.  If the death
> scene in the novel was boring, I would not have
> used the scuba tank explosion.  To make that scene
> more exciting and plausible, instead of using a
> scuba tank, I would have used something with more
> punch, like a propane tank.  A propane tank would
> more likely explode when shot than a scuba tank
> because of the volatile nature of propane.  But I
> wonder, was propane available back then?


I've been holding this back out of decency but...
Those twerps at Columbine tried shooting at propane tanks. It didn't work.

"If it's not going to be a book, it's going to be something else. Crazy is crazy."
- Stephen King

Scottie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I ask you this: can you recall how many times an
> innocent youth attempted to summon the devil in
> the form of a bat so that they could conjure young
> girls and supernatural spirits to Earth? None that
> you know of? Skip ahead ninety-eight years to 2004
> when Hotel Rwanda was made. Can you recall how
> many people were very personally affected by the
> brutal reality of the fictional film about the
> atrocities occuring in Africa? If you can't, I
> can. Some of my friends later joined the Peace
> Corps or offered to participate in service trips
> to help people around the county in similar
> situations, and they cite Hotel Rwanda as one of
> the reasons they joined. So, what I'm trying to
> convey is that you cannot throw out an entire
> style of filmmaking because you didn't like Jaws.
> Humans have killed more humans than they have
> killed sharks in human existence. And the reason
> humans kill each other lies much deeper than
> because somebody made a film about it.
>
> I basically ask you to pay attention to history to
> understand that unrealistic fiction is not a new
> fangled invention created by dope smoking commies
> trying to corrupt our youth. Fictional movies have
> been around almost as long as the cinema has been
> in existence and it will be around long after you
> and I are dead and decayed. So sit down so we can
> move the subject back to Robot Monsters in 3-D and
> how that kid that one time tried to communicate
> with outer space using a bubble making machine.
>
> Sheesh.


Wow, very well put, Scottie! I very much agree, but I am fascinated with the notion that the messages people use in their stories- not just films, but all forms of story-telling- have been used to influence the feeble-minded into going along with a particular mentality to suit the times. There is a school of thought that Truman's decision to make and drop the atom bomb on Japan had to do with his reading the works of HG Welles when he was a teen... science fiction stories of the time suggested the only way to keep America safe was in the invention of a superweapon.  People who wrote for pulp magazine were interested in sales, and thought little or nothing of the broader imppications of their actions. Could they predict how their work would influence politics? Probably not. Should they have been held accountable for the deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Absolutely not. What people needed to do was question how the politicians of the time planned to solve the problems their foolish pride would-and always does-create. People- the stupid, stupid masses- are more the deciding factor in what occurs in this/or any country than anything else. People need proper education to make informed decisions- which is a rare happenstance indeed. Most of the masses pretend to be satisfied in "just getting by" until next day or week or month or whatever. Having to learn beyond the incredibly limited scope their half-assed schooling has taught them takes time away from tehir own petty desires. What Hollywood produces, or what laws, bills and secret deals are made depends on how informed the people are and how they use this knoweledge.

I too feel there's nothing wrong with watching some silly, mindless distractions some of the time- or pontificating the effects ... but the concept behind blaming a group or an organization for all the problems in this world is lazy, "just getting by" thinking, and truly shows a lack of a genuine desire to change what the individual sees as a flaw, error (or injustice). Assuming we're all people here (I know, my name has a tendency to throw people off), we are all responsible for what goes on in our world while we are living in it. Will we be held accountable by some tribunal? Who's to say? But I do know we must deal with the consequences of our choices. We are currently dealing with the consequences of not paying attention to politicians and how little anybody gives a damn about anything beyond their petty needs. Are you tired of it as well? Then put forth some energy into changing that, otherwise it will remain for a much longer period of time... possbily long after we are all "dead and decayed". I don't know about others, but I'd be ashamed of myself if I did nothing to try to change that.

I don't remember whether this is brought up later on in this thread, but the film was "The Program" w/ James Caan. And when someone was killed duplicating that stunt in the film, I heard that scene in the film was immediately edited out of the film, even while the film was still playing in theaters.

I saw a video online of some people who shotgunned a propane tank.  It sort of exploded, but mostly caused a huge geyser of flame.  Propane wouldn't work underwater though.

This thread did remind me of something that I find utterly fascinating. If a successful film is a film that influences our behavior, then "Jaws" was a successful film, because it influenced people to go out and kill sharks. Unfortunately, like "Jaws" films seem to have a more negative influence, then a positive influence. We have already mentioned "The Program," here are some more films that influenced us.

"Billy Elliott"
An upsurge in British boys taking ballet lessons.

"Dark Voyager"
Lighting two cigarettes at one time. Women would actually come up to Paul Heinreid, who lit Bette Davis' cigarette in the film in this manner, and say: "Light me."

"Lair of the White Worm"
Couples started recreating the scenes with Lady Sylvia Marsh (Amanda Donohoe) and Kevin the Scout (Chris Pitt), from the time she picks him up, thumbing a ride, in the rain, till she drowns him in the tub.

"Lastt Year at Maranbad"
The match game. People started playing the match game after seeing it in the film.

"Natural Born Killers"
At least one couple went on a robbery and killing spree, after seeing the one in the film.

"Saturday Night Fever"
It had a major influence on disco dancing and disco music.

"Thelma and Louise"
When committing suicide, for the most part, people did not commit suicide by driving their car off a cliff into a canyon. But, when Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon did it in the film, people started doing it that way, too.

"This Is Spinal Tap"
Influenced Black Sabbath's 1984 Born Again tour's Stonehenge stage set.

Of course, there are many others, and this does not include the many films that have influenced male and female fashion design and hairstyles.

I'd like to make one small but vital addition to this argument that comes from the mind of filmmaker Carl Th. Dreyer:

"Film isn't supposed to be reality. If it is reality, then it is not art."

WyreWizard, if you think film is supposed to represent reality, perhaps you have chosen the wrong medium. Instead, try jumping on the next boat to Nantucket to see a shark being harpooned instead of blowing up. I think that will satisfy your desire for accuracy in the world.

Scottie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd like to make one small but vital addition to
> this argument that comes from the mind of
> filmmaker Carl Th. Dreyer:
>
> "Film isn't supposed to be reality. If it is
> reality, then it is not art."
>
> WyreWizard, if you think film is supposed to
> represent reality, perhaps you have chosen the
> wrong medium. Instead, try jumping on the next
> boat to Nantucket to see a shark being harpooned
> instead of blowing up. I think that will satisfy
> your desire for accuracy in the world.


You miss the point of my analysis of the flaws of films.  I have seen many entertaining films that sometimes bend the rules of reality and science but a lot of them completely break it.  Some of these films with their flawed representation of reality have sometimes lead to problems with society and nature like Jaws.  Its because of Jaws that thousands of innocent Sharks were slaughtered.  The producers of that film take no responsibility for it.  The film I feel should have had a disclaimer to prevent the slaughter of sharks.  The disclaimer should have read something like.  "This film is a work of fiction and not a documentary.  It does not show the actual natural behavior of great white sharks.  All that happens in this film is for entertainment purposes only and is not meant to be a guide to proper behavior towards beaches and ocean fauna."  But since Jaws never had such a disclaimer thousands of Sharks were slaughtered, some driven to extinction.

I agree that works of FICTION influnce stupid dumbasses to commit crimes. But do you really think disclaimers are going to prevent said the same idiots are NOT going to do what they do because of a filmed "don't do this"? BULLSH&T! They do what they wanna do because,inside,they want justification  for it. If it comes from a film, a meglomaniac leader (ie-Hitler) or the Bible-people will find a reason to f*cksh*t up. Blaming films is a really easy,immature,way out.Like my daddy said-"If I told you to jump off a bridge-would you do it?"case CLOSED.

I agree that works of FICTION influnce stupid dumbasses to commit crimes. But do you really think disclaimers are going to prevent said the same idiots are NOT going to do what they do because of a filmed "don't do this"? BULLSH&T! They do what they wanna do because,inside,they want justification  for it. If it comes from a film, a meglomaniac leader (ie-Hitler) or the Bible-people will find a reason to f*cksh*t up. Blaming films is a really easy,immature,way out.Like my daddy said-"If I told you to jump off a bridge-would you do it?"case CLOSED.

In all truth, the bible has caused far more murder, rape, torture, molestation, abuse and violence than anything that ever came out of Hollywood... I mean, since we obviously aren't holding the dumbasses who commited the acts responsible....

Short answer : True. They do think we are dumb....but many of the audience give them reason to.

Anyone else see the Mythbusters JAWS special? The exploding air tank was put to rest by Jamie's M-1 Garand and a round of 30-06 hardball. Busted!

Been giving this some thought, and it seems Spielberg's insistance that the audience will believe his exploding air tank is not so much assuming they are stupid, but knowing what is common knowledge and what is specialized knowledge. Chances are, people who don't work with tanks of compressed gas (or simply accumulate weird scientific facts) will accept the possibility while a very small portion of the audience will spot the inaccuracy. From the opinions expressed here, most of those people won't really care, as long as it looks good.

Spielberg's comments seem less like arrogance and more like a storyteller knowing how far he can go in tweaking the facts.

Wow, this is a record. 28 responses to this post excluding my own.  I'd like to thank all who participated.  ::passes out Little Debbie Brownies.

Could I get aNutty Bar? They're my favorite.

28 responses?
Come on!  That's pitiful.

I was gonna say something else but nevermind.

RCMerchant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Could I get aNutty Bar? They're my favorite.


::Backs up an earthmover dump truck to an empty swimming pool and dumps hundreds of thousands of individually-wrapped Little Debbie Nutty bars for RCMerchant to swim in

There ya go, knock yourself out

Gee, thanks! Your My Hero!

I didn"t mean to be so hostile in my posts on this thread. Actually, its good to see a debate like this. Keeps things interesting and kicking. I mean no disrespect,and am always interested in hearing other opens.I tend to get biased once in a while...

I like King Kong but I don't believe that it is plausible he lives on some island where the  inhabitants give their virgins to him as sacrifice.  But the filmakers try to make the concept as pausible as possible.  

I mean reall, it's a movie that's what it is.  They don't have to be scientists to make a picture.  What rule says they have to be true to science?  Wouldn't be that fun if it were.  That's my opinion at least.  That's what the director is for...to get us to believe in the movie and make it rational WITHIN THE MOVIE...not with real life.  

Not about stupidity...about imagination, and entertaining, and creating, and well you get the picture.

Amen!

WyreWizard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Incredible, you think the unreality and
> implausibility of films is fun?  Would you say
> that to people who have had family members lost or
> injured trying to replicate what they saw in
> movies?  I've heard many horror stories of mothers
> losing their sons when they tried to fly like
> Superman.  I remember that one movie (I forget its
> name) when come college jocks laid down in the
> middle of a busy highway and some college and high
> school kids have duplicated that very stunt.  You
> may see the unreality and implausibility of
> certain films as fun.  I see them as foolish and
> sometimes dangerous.

Well if college jocks are lying in the middle of the highway because they saw it on a movie and didn't know the potential dangers of performing such a stunt in real life...then it certainly supports the notion that we ARE really that stupid!  Which argument are you trying to support?  That we are stupid and things should be real because we can't think for ourselves nor know the difference between fiction/reality?  Or do you TRULY believe that the majority ISN'T that stupid and understands that we can't fly like superman or get sucked in a tornado so we can go to Oz or lie down in highways?

These horror stories are horror stories for one reason...people actually BELIEVED this crap???  Oh and forget about books or any of the classics to...they should be banned by your mentality.  They are too dangerous for STUPID PEOPLE that the NORMAL halfway INTELLIGENT people have to suffer?  I don't think so.

Why are you even on this site?  Why do you even watch movies?  You are a hypocrite.  You are supporting one thing yet arguing for another.  Don't watch movies, don't read anything that isn't wholesome, realistic, or dangerous.  Even if Jaws was killed by the way you said it should be, do you think the shark killing spree wouldn't have happened?  do you honestly believe it was that minnor detail that made all the difference?  You are supporting movies by watching them...somewhere exchange of business and monies took place.  You are a supporter.

AND I REPEAT IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE THE CRAP YOU ARE SPOUTING THA+EN YOUR ORIGINAL POST MAKES NO SENSE BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING OUT OF YOUR WAY TO PROVE THAT PEOPLE ARE THAT STUPID AND SO ARE YOU!!!

I hear you...I can't get over the insanity...one minute he's all upset because film makers think we are stupid...and the next he's giving 100 different reasons as to why people ARE that stupid!   Just because a movie isn't realistic doesn't mean things can't happen because of it either from those freaky few...look at the movie Deliverence. It makes absolutely no sense.  I am beginning to think he is trying to get a rise out of people.

Wow, I am impressed, eloquent, intelligent and IMO...the debate is over! :)

While your at it, why don't you ask Jesus or the Disciples to put a disclaimer on the bible...would have saved a lot of war and bloodshed huh?

loyal1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AND I REPEAT IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE THE CRAP YOU ARE
> SPOUTING THA+EN YOUR ORIGINAL POST MAKES NO SENSE
> BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING OUT OF YOUR WAY TO PROVE
> THAT PEOPLE ARE THAT STUPID AND SO ARE YOU!!!

I don't answer people who talk all in caps as I will not answer anymore of your replies so don't bother wasting anymore keystrokes responding to my posts.

"Stupid is as stupid does, Sir."

loyal1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like King Kong but I don't believe that it is
> plausible he lives on some island where the
> inhabitants give their virgins to him as
> sacrifice.  But the filmakers try to make the
> concept as pausible as possible.  
>
> I mean reall, it's a movie that's what it is.
> They don't have to be scientists to make a
> picture.  What rule says they have to be true to
> science?  Wouldn't be that fun if it were.  That's
> my opinion at least.  That's what the director is
> for...to get us to believe in the movie and make
> it rational WITHIN THE MOVIE...not with real life.
>  
>
> Not about stupidity...about imagination, and
> entertaining, and creating, and well you get the
> picture.

Well on the History channel, I saw a documentary on the island that King Kong came from.  They tried to lend some plausibility to the film.

Also speaking about Giant apes, there really was a King Kong once.  It lived before the last major Ice Age in the Himalayas.  It was called Gigantopithecus.

No scuff off my shoes cool cat.  You make no sense anyway and your points and arguments are ALL OVER THE PLACE...lol.

Put in the caps just for you sugar bear!    Ah, don't let it get to you, that was yesterday and I am over it. heated discussions are good.  But I do need some structure or else I do get aggrivated...and you definately aggrivated me with your arguments going for one and the other and not really cutting to the point of the matter.

But all's fair in love and war right?

WyreWizard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Also speaking about Giant apes, there really was a
> King Kong once.  It lived before the last major
> Ice Age in the Himalayas.  It was called
> Gigantopithecus.

Good grief.  Gigantopithecus was nowhere near as big as King Kong.  About 9 ft tall and about 1100 lbs.  We have grizzley bears bigger than that nowadays.

Please.  Just Stop enlightening us with your 'facts.'

But don't you see?  Is arguing for scientific realism in movies...yet at the same time trying to see if we are really that stupid?  Is he a genius in disguise?  Or maybe, just maybe he was actually one of the victims who fell prey to the horrific consequences of imitating movies?  Does he have a limp for life because he almost fell to his death when he believed he could fly like superman?  Does he feel guilt in remorse for killing all those sharks for seeing Jaws?

I guess we will never know.  the mystery continues...

ulthar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Good grief.  Gigantopithecus was nowhere near as
> big as King Kong.  About 9 ft tall and about 1100
> lbs.  We have grizzley bears bigger than that
> nowadays.
>
> Please.  Just Stop enlightening us with your
> 'facts.'

Where do you get these figures?  Are those actual facts or speculations?  The only fossil evidence we have of Gigantopithecus we have are teeth.  No bones or skulls because certain animals destroyed them.  The teeth of Gigantopithecus are similar to the teeth of mountain Gorillas and Orangutans, except they are larger (2 to 3 times the size.)  And since the only fossil evidence we have is teeth, we can only speculate on Gigantopithecus's actual size.  Just like the only fossil evidence we have of Megalodon is teeth, not because animals destroyed its bones but because it didn't have bones.  Scientists speculate that Megalodon is slightly larger than the Whale Shark.
Incredible.  Could you imagine if Bruce (the shark in Jaws) was a Megalodon?  That would be one fearsome shark!

WyreWizard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Where do you get these figures?

Gigantopithecus at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus)

To wit:

"Gigantopithecus was likely about 3 metres tall and weighed from 300 to 500 kg — 2 to 3 times larger than gorillas, although its closest living relatives are the orangutans."

So, based on the fossil info, nowhere near as big as King Kong.  Check the link; there is a photo of life size mock-up of gigantopithecus standing next to a man.

Thanks for playing.

Hey do wooden stakes work on stupid posts that refuse to die?

*Snerk*

You guys enjoy playing with trolls as much as you like watching movies featuring them...apparently.

Sorry TG,  I should have let it die of starvation.  Pass the stake.