Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Bad Movies => Topic started by: WyreWizard on April 28, 2007, 01:41:18 PM



Title: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: WyreWizard on April 28, 2007, 01:41:18 PM
Yes, in the era that this film was made, movies had some incredibly bad flaws in reality.  Flaws like oversized insects, giant rodents, and aliens which want to conquer Earth.  But this film had its fair share of reality flaws.  What is this film?  None other than 1958's The Fly.  Yes, The Fly.  This film had a remake done in 1986 which was only slightly more plausible than the original.  In the time this film was made, movie makers sure let their imaginations get way out of hand. 
Now, a word of warning, if you haven't seen 1958's The Fly and don't want to have too much of the film revealed to you, stop reading now....












Ok, so you have seen 1958's The Fly.  Lets get down to its flaws.

Machines doing more than what they are designed to do:  This is perhaps the most laughable thing in movies, machines doing more than what their design specs call for.  In the Fly, the main character builds a machine which was the inspiration for Star Trek's Transporter.  A molecular dissassembler, transmitter and reassembler.  This machine did something that it wasn't designed to do, swap body parts.  A fly gets into the machine with the main character and swaps heads with the main character as the machine is tested.  Not only did it swap their heads, but it scaled their heads to size according to the bodies they were attatched to.  This is perhaps one of the biggest reality flaws in films from the 50s and 60s.  I can understand this was a simple malfuction in the device itself.  But the device should have had a safety protocol to prevent this from happening.  In the 1986 version of the film, their body parts weren't swapped, but their bodies werre fused together.  Nowadays when new devices are made, every measure is taken to insure every possible flaw doesn't happen.

Swapped Heads:  Not only did the machine swap and scale their heads, but it seems to split apart the main character's brain and distributed it between the two.  When the fly's head is on the main character, he seems to behave almost like a human.  He even think to cover up his horrible disfigurement to hide it from the other scientists.  And the fly with the main characters head seems to have human intelligence.  We see this towards the end when he makes the idiotic mistake of getting caught in a spiders web and calls out for help.  If this were for real, he wouldn't have any human intelligence at all.  He'd have the same intellectual capacity of the average house fly.  So he wouldn't be able to speak any english.  And even if he had the ability to, no one would be able to hear it.  Because his vocal chords would be so small, his voice would be far too high pitched for human hearing.

All in all, I rate The Fly to be a nice film.  But I don't consider it sci fi or horror.  I call it comedy.  I never laughed so hard in my life!


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: RCMerchant on April 29, 2007, 12:11:51 AM
You laughed ?!!? And your ears didn't fall off? And your face didn't crack? Well, damn..that's pretty cool!If you laughed...whatta you b***h'in about? Who really gives a flying f#ck about REALITY!?! I think REALITY is WAAAAAAAAY overrated! Good GRAVY,MAN!!! LIVE a little! ( Of course, I,personally think  your whole act is bullsh!t,and you just like to rile people up...but whatever gets yer rocks off...you go,girl! :thumbup:


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: RCMerchant on April 29, 2007, 12:37:23 AM
Oh, by the way...I gave you a + karna Willie...just because I LOVE YOU!!! You never fail to make me laff,with your pathetic idiocy! Cmere,ya big doofus! lemme give you a big hug! OH NO! WAIT a minnite! That's too unreal!!! AHH! What the hell am I thinking?!! We're online!!! Let's just suspend reality for a second then,and I'll PRETEND I'm hugging you! Boy oh boy... I'll bet your world is just a bowl of cherries!!! Do you have a girlfreind? If she say's " I'm gonna f#ck yer brains out,and yer brains don't fall out,do you get p**sed?
Oh by the way...when machines are made,and every flaw is elimanated, think of the CHALLENGER space shuttle...


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: Shadow on April 29, 2007, 12:41:03 AM
I didn't know it was possible to have negative Karma points. :buggedout:


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: RCMerchant on April 29, 2007, 12:47:11 AM
Tell that to WW...oh yeah.. he may not believe it..! :smile:


Edit: I apoligize to the board for goin' apes**t...but ww caught me in a p**sy mood...


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: sideorderofninjas on April 29, 2007, 01:34:00 AM
The world must be safe for democracy after WW's such glowing recommendation... 


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: Ash on April 29, 2007, 01:39:56 AM
I didn't know it was possible to have negative Karma points. :buggedout:

He was at -11 Karma yesterday.
Somebody must've "applauded" him recently.


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: RCMerchant on April 29, 2007, 01:42:16 AM
I did. Cuz he made me laff.


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: Menard on April 29, 2007, 08:48:13 AM
I did. Cuz he made me laff.

Now why would you have to go and negate the negative karma I already gave Wire Willie? :tongueout:


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: dean on April 29, 2007, 09:11:19 AM

Oh I added a positive as well, because he gave me a laugh too.

Gave one as well to RCMerchant based on the 'f%$k your brains out' comment.  Great stuff!

But yes, Wyre, why???

Maybe the flaw in the machine was not in the programming but in the programmer, in that he failed to right a subroutine in order to combat that flaw of fly-headedness.

Maybe the flaw was in your own perceptions, in that you didn't realise that reality was skewed in this movie space, and as such it is YOU who is the unrealistic flaw.

Either way, glad you got your rocks off watching it.  If we can't laugh, we are nothing!


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: Dennis on April 29, 2007, 10:02:40 AM
You know Mr. WyreWizard, if I were you I'd just stop watching "B" type movies entirely. Since I'm not you I think I'll just ignore you from this point on.


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: Raffine on April 29, 2007, 10:18:41 AM
This thread reminded me of one of the worst flaws ever I spotted in a film.

At one point in THE CRYING GAME Dil (Jaye Davidson) reveals herself naked to Forest Whitaker.
The camera accidently pans down briefly to reveal Davidson has a penis, and is in fact, a man.  :question:  :buggedout:

You would think a big shot director like Neil Jordon would have noticed something like that!   :hatred: 



Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: Shadow on April 29, 2007, 10:43:12 AM
(http://forums.lowerdecks.com/style_emoticons/default/laughup.gif)

Too funny! You get a Karma point for that.


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: KYGOTC on April 29, 2007, 02:45:31 PM
Oh, by the way...I gave you a + karna Willie...just because I LOVE YOU!!! You never fail to make me laff,with your pathetic idiocy! Cmere,ya big doofus! lemme give you a big hug! OH NO! WAIT a minnite! That's too unreal!!! AHH! What the hell am I thinking?!! We're online!!! Let's just suspend reality for a second then,and I'll PRETEND I'm hugging you! Boy oh boy... I'll bet your world is just a bowl of cherries!!! Do you have a girlfreind? If she say's " I'm gonna f#ck yer brains out,and yer brains don't fall out,do you get p**sed?
Oh by the way...when machines are made,and every flaw is elimanated, think of the CHALLENGER space shuttle...
Making me laugh loud hard enough to have my mom come downstairs and see what the hell im laughing at deserves Karma out the wazoo!


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: KYGOTC on April 29, 2007, 02:50:25 PM
Even though I agree that W.W. is just some nut whith a fetish for p**sing off badmovie fans, I feel that I must comply to the arguement.

What did you think of Planet Terror when Cherry Darling is causing all sortsa hell with her asault rifle leg yet is never seen pulling the trigger? TELEPATHY? Or is that to far from DA RULES to be possible?


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: Menard on April 29, 2007, 04:19:39 PM
What did you think of Planet Terror when Cherry Darling is causing all sortsa hell with her asault rifle leg yet is never seen pulling the trigger? TELEPATHY? Or is that to far from DA RULES to be possible?

An attractive woman hiking her leg up does not have me wondering about the mechanics of the trigger. :tongueout:


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: trekgeezer on April 29, 2007, 04:45:53 PM
Wyre, Wyre,  ho hum............


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: WyreWizard on April 30, 2007, 10:54:13 AM
::backs up an Earthmover dumptruck filled with individually wrapped twinkies, ho-ho, devil dogs and dum-dums to an olympic sized swimming pool and dumps it all in.  The hops out and calls out to everyone::

Okay guys, for all who replied to my posts (good and bad) knock yourselves out.


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: WyreWizard on May 14, 2007, 11:45:19 AM
You know Mr. WyreWizard, if I were you I'd just stop watching "B" type movies entirely. Since I'm not you I think I'll just ignore you from this point on.

Nobody's stopping you


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: WyreWizard on May 14, 2007, 11:51:10 AM
Oh by the way...when machines are made,and every flaw is elimanated, think of the CHALLENGER space shuttle...

While it is true that Challenger wasn't designed as a BOMB.  It simply failed because of a lack of proper maintenance.  You see, shuttles like challenger were designed to take off using explosive forces.  These forces have enough magnitude to knock down an entire city block.  Now challenger had been in use for over six years.  But the equipment had reached its failure point and as a result, we got those nice little fireworks that one spring afternoon in 1986.
But the machine in the Fly was not old like challenger.  It was just built.


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: KYGOTC on May 14, 2007, 12:56:39 PM
W.W., Id like to know what movies you DO enjoy.


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: Kooshmeister on May 14, 2007, 08:10:56 PM
Machines doing more than what they are designed to do: I can understand this was a simple malfuction in the device itself.  But the device should have had a safety protocol to prevent this from happening.

Maybe you missed the part where it was explained that the teleportation machines were experimental. Anything in the testing phases is going to have some bugs to work out (pun intended!) and have some unforseen setbacks and side-effects.


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: Menard on May 14, 2007, 10:05:41 PM
While it is true that Challenger wasn't designed as a BOMB.  It simply failed because of a lack of proper maintenance.  You see, shuttles like challenger were designed to take off using explosive forces.  These forces have enough magnitude to knock down an entire city block.  Now challenger had been in use for over six years.  But the equipment had reached its failure point and as a result, we got those nice little fireworks that one spring afternoon in 1986.
But the machine in the Fly was not old like challenger.  It was just built.

And yet, wrong again.

The flaw which brought Challenger down were newly manufactured o-rings which cracked due to the cold temperatures that morning.

I sure hope you aren't pathetic enough to consider the death of the crew aboard the Challenger was nothing more than 'nice little fireworks.

You actually started contributing to a conversation, short it may have been, today. Let's bring your personality up to speed as well.


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: Torgo on May 14, 2007, 10:47:01 PM
Now challenger had been in use for over six years.  But the equipment had reached its failure point and as a result, we got those nice little fireworks that one spring afternoon in 1986.

That is so not cool...................

One of my 5th grade teachers was actually one of the teachers on the list to get on that flight and she passed out when she saw the footage back in the day.


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: RCMerchant on May 14, 2007, 11:00:50 PM
I hadda boo ww....the Challenger  tradgedy is NOT funny.   :bluesad:


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: DodgingGrunge on May 15, 2007, 07:47:34 AM
What did you think of Planet Terror when Cherry Darling is causing all sortsa hell with her asault rifle leg yet is never seen pulling the trigger? TELEPATHY? Or is that to far from DA RULES to be possible?

I assumed the gun was redesigned to detect impulses in the remaining muscles in her leg.  :teddyr:  She can cause the gun to fire by telling her leg to wiggle her (phantom) toes.  You know, 'cause sophisticated mechanical engineering inside a prison is much more plausible than guns that fire via telepathy.


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: Snivelly on May 15, 2007, 07:59:26 AM
Oh by the way...when machines are made,and every flaw is elimanated, think of the CHALLENGER space shuttle...

While it is true that Challenger wasn't designed as a BOMB.  It simply failed because of a lack of proper maintenance.  You see, shuttles like challenger were designed to take off using explosive forces.  These forces have enough magnitude to knock down an entire city block.  Now challenger had been in use for over six years.  But the equipment had reached its failure point and as a result, we got those nice little fireworks that one spring afternoon in 1986.
But the machine in the Fly was not old like challenger.  It was just built.

Booed here also......I'm guessing you're a troll, if one uses the definition of trolling as someone who seeks to create discord for their own amusement, and in every thread here, I usually skip right over your remarks to get to the real posts.  That was especially heinous though. 


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: KYGOTC on May 15, 2007, 10:40:26 AM
What did you think of Planet Terror when Cherry Darling is causing all sortsa hell with her asault rifle leg yet is never seen pulling the trigger? TELEPATHY? Or is that to far from DA RULES to be possible?

An attractive woman hiking her leg up does not have me wondering about the mechanics of the trigger. :tongueout:

Oh, sorry. I didnt realize that there were some of us who are sexualy atracted to firearms, (or should I say, firelegs?)


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: daveblackeye15 on May 15, 2007, 02:08:53 PM
Quote
Oh, sorry. I didnt realize that there were some of us who are sexualy atracted to firearms, (or should I say, firelegs?)

I don't know that last word tickled me. Heh heh!


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: Yaddo 42 on May 15, 2007, 08:19:44 PM
I saw Robert Rodriguez on a talk show when Grindhouse was released, he "claimed" the explanation for how she fired the gun was in one of the missing reels.

I back up the Kooshmeister, both teleport devices were experimental, I doubt either would meet OSHA regulations or have much in the realm of safety protocols. And didn't the plots of both films involve human error. Neither scientist planned on what would happen if something else got into the teleport pod; in the second film this even happened after Seth Brundell tried to teach the teleporter what living matter was.

And from his earlier threads, WW has no suspension of disbelief for mainstream movies either. If he's legit, he seems to enjoy hating films for failing to rise to his standard.


Title: Re: Flaws of a classic film
Post by: Menard on May 15, 2007, 09:07:26 PM
And from his earlier threads, WW has no suspension of disbelief for mainstream movies either. If he's legit, he seems to enjoy hating films for failing to rise to his standard.

I think the word sink would be more appropriate. :tongueout: