Badmovies.org Forum

Yes, I know I  will get a lot of flames for this from all you bad movie junkies.  But I am giving my opinion about a film that was bad with a capital B.  The reason this film was so bad was because the story was not only implausible, but very shallow.  The people that made this film obviously thought using high-budget special effects would cover that problem.  But it didn't fool me.  What is this film, you ask?  Very simple.  Its Michael Bay's 2005 flick, The Island.  When I first saw this film on DVD, I was shaking my head a lot.  That is my habit, I just shake my head at any flaws I see.  I'm not like those morons in the theater who stands up in the theater and yells "Hey, that's not possible!"  The trailers for this film really had me fooled.  I thought this would be some kind of post-doomsday flick like Aeon-Flux.  But I was wrong.  This film uses perhaps the most commonly misconstrued plot used by a lot of sci-fi authors and filmmmakers.  That plot, cloning.  Yes, cloning.  Virtually every film and book I saw about cloning always has the clones looking exactly like the person who donated the genetic material to create the clone.  That error is so wrong, its not funny.  If a clone really came out looking like the genetic donor, then every child that a couple has would look exactly the same, not just the same appearance, but same gender too.  But unfortunately, that doesn't happen every time.  The only way a couple has children that look mostly the same is by multiple births, as in the case of identical twins, triplets, etc.  But to say that a clone will always come out looking like the genetic donor is wrong.  You simply look the way you do because of the unique way your genetics combined.  Think of it like a million random number generators.  If they all came out with a numeric string, would they all duplicate that exact same numeric string?  Unlikely in the extreme.  In reality, if you made a human clone of yourself, it would not come out looking like you.  If you created a million clones of yourself, perhaps one of them may look remotely like you.  But they all would look different.  The only thing you'd have in common with each of those clones of yourself, is the same genetics.  If you were to say suffer blood loss, then these clones would be able to help you by donating blood.  But seeing as how human cloning is very far into the future, we'll never know.  Its not the technical limitations that are in the way, but the moral issues of it.

Another problem with The Island is this:  How could a large business get away with breaking the law for so long?  The business that creates these clones has been doing it for over 20 years.  The law of that time forbids them from allowing clones to walk about consciously.  They are required by law to create clones which are nothing more than comatose vegetables.  But they allow the clones to have consciousness, awareness, intelligence and be able to learn because these clones produce better quality organs.  The fact they got away with this for over 20 years I feel is unrealistic.  I mean, look at the Enron incident.  That company only got away with fooling the FTA about their true revenues and profit for less than 2 years.  The fact this company on the Island got away with it for 20 years is nearly impossible.  Because there can be a lot of things that happen that shut it all down.  For instance, they may get whistleblowers, federal inspectors may not like what they see, or some of their clones can escape as what happened in the movie.  I'm surprised it took over 20 years for this to happen.

You might want to put a Spoilers notice above your thread.
There are probably a few people here who haven't seen the film.

ASHTHECAT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You might want to put a Spoilers notice above your
> thread.
> There are probably a few people here who haven't
> seen the film.


HELLO!!  The Island is over a year old.  Everyone's seen it by now.

I haven't.  I'll get around to getting it on NetFlix someday but I have a lot of Vampire movies to work through...

Wy-re Wirard has
no sense of perspective for
bad movies dot org

Another haiku
No defense, I'm on a roll
Someone please stop me

WyreWizard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ASHTHECAT Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You might want to put a Spoilers notice above
> your
> > thread.
> > There are probably a few people here who
> haven't
> > seen the film.
>
>
> HELLO!!  The Island is over a year old.
> Everyone's seen it by now.

HELLO!
Not everybody has seen it...Ash is right (as much as I hate to say it)...you should include a spoilers notice to be fair to everyone. It seems though, that you don't give a s**t about that as long as you can argue with people here.

I haven't seen it, either.  Like Freep, I may someday, but for now, my queue is full of 1950's-1970's horror and sci fi.  The newer stuff can wait.

Glad I didn't read the post, since there was unmarked spoilers in there.

Ok, do me a favor please and point out the areas in my post where I spoiled the plot.  Where did I reveal character names and character motivations. Where did I reveal what happens in the film that relates to the main story.  I suggest you scrutinize my post the same way I scrutinize every film before you come up with your final answer

To someone with no knowledge of the movie, it could contain a spoiler or two.  You did not reveal very much I agree.  However, Ash's request was polite and not something that would require much effort on your part.  Your reply was flippant.

We uphold some standards of polite conversation here.  Please ahere to them as well.  You have been running along the edge of my radar, because you seem to hedge at causing some sort of argument at times.  The board does quite well with accepting different opinions and views.

Well pardon me for seeing Ash's request hitting me like bricks thrown by Katrina in New Orleans.  Pardon me for liking the challenge of a good debate.  The bad movie junkies from me receive an A+ for being good debaters and and D- for flaming.

Now, why hasn't anyone here come up with an argument about what I said about movies and books showing mistakenly that a clone would look like the person who donated genetic material to replicate it?  Doesn't anyone disagree with me in this area?  I mean, come on!  Don't consider the issue of cloning on the Island, but the issue of cloning in other movies like Multiplicity or other movies who's themes revolve around cloning.

The problem with movies dealing with cloning is that they usually breeze right over the part where they describe what method they used to clone an individual, so you have to give them the benefit of the doubt that the clone is exactly identical genetically to the parent. A clone would have the same eye color, same basic bone structure and facial features and be predisosposed to the same genetic disorders as the parent. However, the clone would not look the same as the donor. For one thing, it would be a hell of a lot younger. Also diet, physical activity, and exposure to sunlight/ pollutants would determine how it looked. Just look at Star Jones (not too long). She lost, what, 80 Ibs? Yet you could still recognize her as the old Star. That's about the maximum difference between you and your clone. As for the clone's in The Island specifically? You'd be lucky if your clone didn't die of Rickets in that place. Even if they forced the clones to drink a gallon of milk a day, they would seriously be sporting a graveyard tan what with having never seen the sun before. Overhead UV lights could only do so much. But take everything I just said with a grain of salt. I only got a B in Genetics and I liked BloodRayne so what the hell do I know?

However, I can speak from personal experience. On my mom's side of the family: if you look at old pictures, her brother, dad, uncle, and grandpa look exactly alike. Same body, face, and hair. It's downright scary.

Hmmm... I'll give this whole question answering thing a shot...

I think that the whole "Cloning in film" issue is one which is pretty unrealistic at times, true, but like someone else mentioned: they don't exactly go into specifics about how they achieve their cloning process.  For all we know it's all part of some new-fangled technology that allows for it.  But I think the main reason we don't really discuss it too much is that we don't really care.  Realism in movies is a risky business, which can often hurt a movie more than gain for it, even if it is nicely refreshing to have something realistic everynow and then.

Also using Enron as an example of a corporation hiding things from the public isn't exactly a good comparison, realistically speaking of course.  I don't know the specifics [I'm not American so whilst I know a bit about it, I'm not really exposed to the details] but from what I understand they were poorly managed to the point where they couldn't hide it any longer.  But a company like the one in The Island seems to be doing incredibly well for itself money wise, and the cynics amongst us could really just argue that they could buy their way out of trouble.  I see no reason why they couldn't get away with it, as long as business was good and their employees were loyal.  Sure it may take a bit of luck not getting a whistle-blower, and the odds are against it, but, realistically, it could happen.  Not that I think it would, but I'm just saying...

I'm sure there are dozens of companies out there right now 'doing the dodgy' to some degree or another without being caught, so who's to say the comapny in The Island can't do it?

Besides, anyone watching a Michael Bay picture should really automatically know what they're getting into and that the film they're about to watch isn't exactly going to be technologically precise and full of realism, so it's really the audience's own fault for expecting otherwise.  I could tear apart the Island due to it's plot flaws and poor storytelling devices, and not have to even touch the whole 'realism' aspect of it, but that doesn't stop me from being entertained by it.  I mean, I too think it's a stupid movie, and in fact I'm sure you'll find that every single one of the movies reviewed here are probably unrealistic piles of trash, but as they say, one man's trash is another man's treasure, so we don't care how crappy it is, realsitic or not.

So as good as it is to tear apart some films [so far I've yet to see someone on this thread stand up and say 'hey, The Island is pure genius!  It's great!'] I'd really suggest, WyreWizard, that you choose your battles wisely.  Go ahead and pick out the flaws of a movie that's trying to be realistic, and fails, and I'm sure we'll respond well to that, since that's a real error that shouldn't have happened.  

But really, even you have to realise that posing questions of realism to movies such as the Island is kind of pointless.  As nice as it would be for some certain movies to be realistic, and to even have a movie deal with cloning in a realistic light would be refreshing, if you look at cinema history and the way stories are traditionally made, as Scottie brought up in another similar thread, realism and film have had a somewhat long distance relationship. So I guess most of us don't really care too much if the realism comes up a bit short.  It all really depends on the film you're watching.

So I guess the question I'll throw back at ya W.W, since you said you like a good debate [and so do I] is should you really be expecting lighthearted 'comedies' such as Multiplicity, or Arnie action movies like The Sixth Day that deal with cloning to be realistic in the first place?  Personally I'd almost compare it to buying a cup of coffee and taking it back because you didn't realise it was going to be hot.  

But anyways, regardless of all that, I do think it would be nice to have a movie deal with cloning in a more realistic light, and set it out kind of like some wacky Cronenberg film with the clone being horribly disfigured and underdeveloped, and how society deals with something like that.  Could work out nicely in fact.

dean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>  they don't
> exactly go into specifics about how they achieve
> their cloning process.  

>the main reason we don't
> really discuss it too much is that we don't really
> care.

> a movie deal with cloning in
> a more realistic light ... and
> how society deals with something like that.

Dean, you've really hit the point here, imo.  Sci-fi is not about the tech, but our response to it.  So, the details of the cloning, or faster-than-light travel, or artificial intelligence, etc are immaterial.  Fictional technological plot devices are just that - devices creating the underlying tension that drive the plot or develop a character.

The best sci-fi ignores the "how" and "realism" purposefully.  You said it: "who cares?"  What draws us in to a good story is how the characters, much like us now, respond to the stresses created by the storyteller.  It's not rocket science; it's fiction.  As been said 100 times to Wyred, IT IS FICTION.

Now, I am not calling THE ISLAND "good sci fi" by any stretch.  But I do assert that this same rule applies to other genres equally, and certainly to action films.  In fact, most modern movies have some science fiction element that helps create tension and/or drives the plot (hollywood depiction of computer crime, as a common example).

I'll take this opportunity to mention an example of what I think is a good, modern era, science fiction movie.  One that is TOTALLY unrealistic, but a very good, interesting story.  One offered as evidence that the 'tech' does not matter - the exploration of the characters is the guts of what we are watching.  My example is THE FINAL CUT.  The Zoe Implant is more than a bit far fetched.  But the movie is not about that.  It's about Hakman's conflicts, and by our extension OUR conflicts, over personal privacy; it's about Hakman's self discovery, etc, etc.  The same story could have been told without the Zoe Implant/Cutter metaphor, but that sure made it interesting to watch.

The tech is simply the 'glue,' not the 'purpose.'

Hey, I could tell the whole plot of this thing from the frickin' trailer.

Not everybody here runs out to see every movie that comes out so they can pick it apart. I actually like to watch movies that I may just happen to enjoy.

I still don't think WyreWizard gets what we're about.

trek_geezer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I still don't think WyreWizard gets what we're
> about.


I agree.  That's the reason why I haven't responded to any of his posts so far, other than this one.

I actually got into an email argument with the guy about a year ago (or longer) after he posted about Goodfellas and how it's awful and should be on the site and such.  Since then, I've not had much time for him.

Overall, The Island was Michael Bay's best film.  It doesn't make sense, but it's much more coherent than his various other films, and it's a blast to watch with the surround sound cranked up.  It's not a film that was supposed to be smart or shed any realistic light on the study/science of cloning.  It was just there so Bay could blow stuff up and use CGI jet bikes.

Spoiler warnings are de rigeur anywhere.  It's just common courtesy.  I wouldn't spoil a movie I hate to my worst enemy.  (Well, maybe I would, but it would have to be under extreme circumstances.)

I think you are confused about the mechanisms of genetics.  Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning) is a quick rundown on cloning you may be interested in looking at.

Basically a clone of a person would indeed look more or less like original.  You can see this in identical twins, which you mentioned.  These twins share the same genetic structure, as would clones.  Barring any environmental surprises (such as feeding one well and undernourishing the other), the two would grow up to be more or less the same.

However, sexual reproduction is the chromosomes of two individuals recombined.  Half the chromosomes of one and half the chromosomes of the other.  Furthermore, the chromosomes of the individuals recombine amongst themselves to create further variety.  The mechanisms of meiosis. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis)  In this case you would be right, there are literally millions of different combinations.  No two individuals (excluding identical twins), will ever share the same genome.

Cloning, in theory, takes the DNA from one cell and puts it inside an "empty" egg.  The new individual, in theory, has the same DNA and grows up to be roughly the same as the original individual.  There is no recombination, no random number generators.  That only happens during meiosis, and it's a bad metaphor anyway.

Think of it this way, your body is constantly making new cells, all of which contain the same DNA that started out in the original fertlized egg.  If your DNA scrambled itself every time it had to replicate itself, you would be well screwed.  In fact, there are elaborate mechanisms to ensure that DNA is copied with no errors billions and billions of times.  Errors in replication tend to lead to fun little things like cancer.

So you're wrong about the cloning.  If you wanted to argue fine points about the film, why not ask why they didn't just create brain-dead humans in jars if all they wanted was the organs?  Better yet, why argue fine points about THE ISLAND?  It's a Michael Bay film.

My dad is actually a fan of the film, and says that 99% of the public completely misinterpret the movie as a whole. Of course I will never see it because I hate Michael Bay more than I think Ewan McGregor is cool.

The worst thing about this flim I found was the product placment. Did anyone notice it? Like X-Box and various others. I thought it was a bit much.

Mofo Rising Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think you are confused about the mechanisms of
> genetics.  

Think again.

>Here is a quick rundown on cloning you
> may be interested in looking at.
> Basically a clone of a person would indeed look
> more or less like original.  You can see this in
> identical twins, which you mentioned.  These twins
> share the same genetic structure, as would clones.
>  Barring any environmental surprises (such as
> feeding one well and undernourishing the other),
> the two would grow up to be more or less the
> same.

Have you ever seen a real human clone as proof of this?  How do you explain the fact that couples have children who often look different from each other unless they are identitcal twins?  

> However, sexual reproduction is the chromosomes of
> two individuals recombined.  Half the chromosomes
> of one and half the chromosomes of the other.
> Furthermore, the chromosomes of the individuals
> recombine amongst themselves to create further
> variety.  The mechanisms of meiosis.  In this case
> you would be right, there are literally millions
> of different combinations.  No two individuals
> (excluding identical twins), will ever share the
> same genome.

Even identical twins have subtle variations in their genomes.

> Cloning, in theory, takes the DNA from one cell
> and puts it inside an "empty" egg.  The new
> individual, in theory, has the same DNA and grows
> up to be roughly the same as the original
> individual.  There is no recombination, no random
> number generators.  That only happens during
> meiosis, and it's a bad metaphor anyway.

Again I ask, have you ever seen a real human clone grown?  Its a little more than genetics that affect how we look.  I mean, what if you took identical twins and separated them for 40 years?  You have one live in the middle east and the other live in Canada for those 40 years.  After that time, they don't look identical anymore.

> Think of it this way, your body is constantly
> making new cells, all of which contain the same
> DNA that started out in the original fertlized
> egg.  If your DNA scrambled itself every time it
> had to replicate itself, you would be well
> screwed.  In fact, there are elaborate mechanisms
> to ensure that DNA is copied with no errors
> billions and billions of times.  Errors in
> replication tend to lead to fun little things like
> cancer.

Don't forget that the gentic replication process becomes flawed as we age.  Your statement implies the genetic replication process is perfect and free of flaws.  In reality, its far from it.

> So you're wrong about the cloning.  If you wanted
> to argue fine points about the film, why not ask
> why they didn't just create brain-dead humans in
> jars if all they wanted was the organs?  Better
> yet, why argue fine points about THE ISLAND?  It's
> a Michael Bay film.

A word of warning, don't read any further if you don't want a spoiler.




If you had watched the movie and listened to that which the CEO of the Company and genetecists
they said that clones would have better quality organs if they actually lived a life and were fully conscious.  They broke the law in secret to cater to high-paying clientele.

Thanks for the argument.

I couldn't have said it better. The story is really about the implications of the technology, not the technology itself.

A lot of great SF has been based on some really implausible technologies. A lot of classic SF has been rendered technically unsound by advances in real technology. But the stories still have merit if you take them in their proper context.

Isaac Asimov is a great example. Asimov's future, as written in the 40s and 50s, ran on atomic fission and didn't have computers, but those stories are much better than his later works. By the 80s, he was so obsessed with getting the details right and making everything plausible that he was writing longwinded stories with explanations worthy of a lawyer in their intricacy. Old Isaac made sure you couldn't pick holes in his stories, but they could be tough to slog through at times.

Good storytelling is about more than technical accuracy. The Island is not the greatest example, since it isn't a particularly great or original story, but if you're obsessing over the way the cloning works, you've kind of missed the point.

And, since it's all purely speculative, who's to say it couldn't work that way?

I could give a rat's behind about the grade you give myself and the rest of the board.  What I care about is that the board is a true community, not a place where people just insult the opinion of others or think nothing of being casually rude.  I will often keep an eye on newcomers, but I also try to ensure that anyone new also is given a fair shake and not just disregarded for being the FNG.

The conversion seems to have taken off and is interesting.  I apologize if I stepped in too quickly, but I get far too many emails from people who are trying to be rude and, "Hello, it is such and such, stupid." is a hallmark.

I repeat, I believe you have the mechanisms of genetics mixed up in your head.  Specifically the difference between regular sexual reproduction and the cloning process.

> Have you ever seen a real human clone as proof of
> this?  How do you explain the fact that couples
> have children who often look different from each
> other unless they are identitcal twins?  
>

Of course nobody has seen a real human clone, any arguments continuing on this tack are going to be specious.

I've already addressed your second question.  Please re-read the article on meiosis.  Here it is again. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis)  This should explain why couples have kids who look different.  Compare this to mitosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitosis).  If you are unwilling to look at this very, very basic rundown, there's no reason for me to continue "debating" you.

> Even identical twins have subtle variations in
> their genomes.
>
> Again I ask, have you ever seen a real human clone
> grown?  Its a little more than genetics that
> affect how we look.  I mean, what if you took
> identical twins and separated them for 40 years?
> You have one live in the middle east and the other
> live in Canada for those 40 years.  After that
> time, they don't look identical anymore.

Yup, and I addressed that point in my original post as well.  However, unless the environments are drastically different, the two twins will look extremely similar.  You can see this at work in real world examples of identical twins who have grown up thousands of miles apart from each other.  This is the development that these THEORETICAL clones would follow.

> Don't forget that the gentic replication process
> becomes flawed as we age.  Your statement implies
> the genetic replication process is perfect and
> free of flaws.  In reality, its far from it.

Addressed again.  See "errors in replication cause cancer".

Your original assumption about clones looking different than the original individual due to random genetic reproduction is wrong.  The difference is that the cloning process takes a person's DNA from one of their cells and introduces it to an "empty" egg where development proceeds mitotically.  The article again. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning)  This is a completely different process than meiotic division and sexual reproduction.

If you're not willing to read and understand those articles, I am not willing to debate you.

> Thanks for the argument.

No problem.

Of course, there is the most important reason the clones look exactly like their originals: because it makes sense dramatically to have the same actor play both parts. It also offers more dramatic possibilities if there is difficulty in telling them apart. Again, storytelling comes first.

AndyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course, there is the most important reason the
> clones look exactly like their originals: because
> it makes sense dramatically to have the same actor
> play both parts. It also offers more dramatic
> possibilities if there is difficulty in telling
> them apart. Again, storytelling comes first.


That and it's cost effective: you don't have to pay for another actor...

AndyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course, there is the most important reason the
> clones look exactly like their originals: because
> it makes sense dramatically to have the same actor
> play both parts. It also offers more dramatic
> possibilities if there is difficulty in telling
> them apart. Again, storytelling comes first.

How then do you explain the movie TWINS?  The twins in that movie were played by Danny DeVito and Arnold Schwarzenegger; actors who are, in fact, two very different people.

Of course storytelling comes first.  As long as the scientific mumbo-jumbo isn't egregiously insulting.  Still, bad science talk has always been one of the more entertaining aspects of bad movies.  My favorite example comes from this terrible movie DR. JEKYL AND MS. HYDE, where the main character proudly announces he's isolated the gene that causes all human evil.  Me and my little brother still use that as a milepost to this day.

My advice to filmmakers on using the same actor for different roles?  Stop.  For every DEAD RINGERS (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094964/) there are twenty films like DOUBLE IMPACT (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101764/).

The most realistic view of cloning happened in what some consider a dreadful movie (pardon the pun), Judge Dredd. Armand Assante was a clone of Sly Stallone.

Mofo Rising Wrote:

> How then do you explain the movie TWINS?  The
> twins in that movie were played by Danny DeVito
> and Arnold Schwarzenegger; actors who are, in
> fact, two very different people.

Well, first of all, they were fraternal twins, not clones or even identical twins. The scientific theory offered even stated that the genetic traits went in two different directions, strengths to one and flaws to the other (speaking of hokey science). Besides which, the whole joke behind the movie is that these two unlikely actors are playing twins.

But that really has nothing to do with anything. I was talking about The Island specifically, not stating a general principle. For this particular story, it works better to have the same actor in both parts. In fact, The Island probably wouldn't work without that arrangement. Different stories have different requirements. A more comparable Arnie film would be The Sixth Day -- a story that would not have worked if Arnie's clone were not an exact copy. Sure, it wasn't one of his better films, but there are plenty of reasons for that without suggesting that it was because they had one actor play identical people.

And I did not mean to imply that anything goes in the name of storytelling. However, there's nothing wrong with bending the laws of nature to enhance a good story. A good storyteller knows just how far he can go.

AndyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But that really has nothing to do with anything. I
> was talking about The Island specifically, not
> stating a general principle.
>
> And I did not mean to imply that anything goes in
> the name of storytelling. However, there's nothing
> wrong with bending the laws of nature to enhance a
> good story. A good storyteller knows just how far
> he can go.

Don't worry, I understood the intent of your post.  I was trying to make a joke with that TWINS remark.  It's really difficult to pull off deadpan sarcasm in text, and I reject the use of emoticons out of hand.

One thing to look for in movies, which I always enjoy, is when the filmmaker embraces the ridiculousness of trying to explain the impossible.  Take SHAUN OF THE DEAD.  There's really no need to explain why the dead are coming back to life, they just are.  So the movie provides quite a few possible reasons in the background.

Lost track of my point here.  Oh well.

Mofo Rising wrote:

"I wouldn't spoil a movie I hate to my worst enemy. (Well, maybe I would, but it would have to be under extreme circumstances)."

>
>
>

Hmm. This brings up an interesting scenario I'm going to explore to relieve some of the tension I see in this thread. Exactly how devastating would spoiling a movie be to someone who hasn't seen it? And how could the spoil be used in the most mean hearted way? What movie would you spoil for somebody? Is there one film out there that is so good and has such a good twist at the end, the person's head would literally explode from the spoil, or are you going to have to do some research on the person to find out what film they haven't seen, want to see really bad, and of which they don't yet know the ending?

Here are a few films that would probably devastate someone if they fell under this criteria:

a.) They really really liked the idea of the film
b.) They had been following a film series since the beginning
c.) They only saw half the film a while ago and never got around to finishing it
d.) Their head was rigged with neurons linked to the knowledge center of the brain so that it responds with explosion when a movie is spoiled

Spoilers below (hehe)



1. Star Wars. Vader is Luke's father. Remember when you first saw that film after watching the first film three years earlier and highly anticipating the second one? Well, I didn't, I wasn't born yet. But watching it at home brough about the same level of shock and amazement to me. Now, let's say it's 1979 and while at the comic book store trying to buy the last copy of the Star Wars Comic some overweight fanboy cuts you off in line and purchases that last copy. Of course you bite your tongue because his fate will come soon. Later that night you go to his home and, with a team of three of your friends, you haul his ass out of bed and into your van where you drive him to an abandoned warehouse and strap him into a chair. You then proceed to show him a pristine 35mm print of Star Wars episode IV all day and all night for three days, keeping him awake with intermittent injections of caffeine and slaps in the face. Then as he's about to break from the stress of being awake for three days straight, watching the film he once loved and still loves dearly, and having lost thirty fanboy pounds, you step in front of him and, with knowledge of the new Episode V from a friend of yours living out in LA  working on the project, you say defiantly and with a smirk "Vader is Luke's father."

I can't think of anything else right now. I just thought this topic would be funny. I hope you laught along in my delirious-ness

The most frustrating spoiler I've ever had was in class back in school, a teacher and a couple of students were discussing loudly the entire plot of Sixth Sense before I saw it.  I was pretty annoyed since I was seeing it that night, and was looking foward to it.  Not that it was a particularly groundbreaking movie, but I do sometimes wonder how different I would have reacted if I didn't know the twist.

I don't know, Scottie.  But you know what I think?  I think that little scenario you posited has the chance to be one of the funniest student movies of all time.

In the case of M. Night Shyamalan's The Village, I can say that having the main plot twist revealed to me by a friend before seeing the film actually made it better.

!!!SPOILER NOTICE!!!
(for those who haven't seen it)













Knowing beforehand that it's set in modern times and that the village elders were behind the facade made this movie so much better.
It was like I was personally in on the secret.
Watching the film from the elders' point of view was the proper way to watch it.
I wasn't let down by a bad ending like most of the population...I was in on it the whole way.

I wasn't aware of the twist to The Village going in, but I had it guessed by about the second time somebody warned that the city was a bad place one didn't want to go. Put that together with the woods full of monsters and it wasn't far to guess that there was something outside they weren't supposed to see, and the modern world was the most likely thing. Pretty standard Twilight Zone surprise.

That movie disappointed the hell out of me. If part of the surprise in your monster movie is that there are no monsters, it had better be a damn good story, because that's a crappy surprise that probably only ever worked for Scooby Doo. Looking at the advertising for The Village, it looked like a really cool monster movie, and I can't help thinking it would have been great if we'd gotten exactly what we expected.

I used to love M. Night Shamalamalaman's movies. The Sixth Sense was good, I thought Unbreakable was clever. Both surprises worked for me. Signs was kind of disappointing. But after The Village, I just don't care what he makes next. Saw the ad for his latest and it just didn't interest me.

I still haven't seen the end of The Village, but guessed the twist fairly quickly.... I was watching it with my inlaws, and my Mother-In-Law was trying to get me to pick the twist as a brain-teaser of sorts.  Got to about 1am and my wife really wanted to go home, and it hasn't been back on tv here since (that I have spotted, at least).  One day I'll get hold of the DVD and find out.

Now what would the people in The Village think about cloning?