Do filmmakers think we are stupid?

[loyal1]

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.

[loyal1]

Amen!

[loyal1]

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.

[loyal1]

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!!!

[loyal1]

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.

[loyal1]

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

[loyal1]

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?

[WyreWizard]

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."

[WyreWizard]

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.

[loyal1]

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?

[ulthar]

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.'

[loyal1]

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...

[WyreWizard]

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!

[ulthar]

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

Gigantopithecus at Wikipedia

To wit:

"Gigantopithecus was likely about 3 metres tall and weighed from 300 to 500 kg â€" 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.

[trekgeezer]

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