there is a better one with mel gibson in it where he can hear womens thoughts, think that would be my superhuman power lol. dont like heights so flying a no go for me. love to be able to swim underwater indefinitely ie not need air.
Would you really want to know what a woman was thinking - you could end up with serious self esteem issues
i am too old to give a **** about that anymore maybe 20 yrs ago would have been useful lol, although i did go through a phase where every woman i proposed to said yes, even had an arrangement in place with a friend (fit) if neither of us was married by the time we was 30 we would get married lol, we both have kids now though so not sure if still an option although she is single
Yes it is. I don't want to go all nerdy on this, but no matter how outlandish and beyond our capabilities, the projectile thing is theoretically possible if you had the technological ability (obviously no mortal being could do it), whereas never, under any circumstances, could spinning the world backwards turn back time and bring the dead back to life. Before anyone starts, I know it's fiction, or fantasy, but to me SF has to work within some sort of plausibility. Stretch the limits of the possible, but not break the physical laws of the Universe. I know it's only entertainment, and I certainly don't lose any sleep over it but, as were discussing it, my critical view is that it's lazy writing and insults the viewer by thinking you'll swallow any old ****e. It was just an excruciatingly amateurish, bad way to end the film. As for DEM, I don't know if the Greeks invented it, but it was certainly popular with them for a while, until they realised it was a crappy cop-out way of ending something. I don't see it used so much since then (War of the Worlds, possibly) but when it is, it's usually recognised as being a crappy cop-out way of ending something.
not sure to be honest lol. maybe some of them knew that i didn't take life too seriously back then?,who knows.
I don't see Superman as science fiction. It's fantasy. We'll just have to disagree on the earth spinning thing. Just by comparison in fairy tales, the prince's kiss brings Snow White back to life, while everything else in the story is a possibility, that certainly isn't. How is that different. Deus ex machina was invented by the Greeks and used continuously as a plot since. Just think about westerns and the cavalry appearing just in time and that's only one modern version.
True, it was a device they used, kind of a crane/winch that would literally lower the god from out of nowhere. We took the name to describe almost-implausible or sudden plot twists.
You're right. The eagles in Lord of The Rings is another one, they appear from nowhere to save Frodo, Bilbo and Gandalf.
I don't want to bore anyone with this any more than usual, so anyone not interested in a literary discussion, look away now, as they say. You're right, JB, about there being more examples of it, I've thought about it since. However, the fantasy argument doesn't work. The genre is irrelevant, it's just more apparent in works of that kind. I'll continue as though I'm talking about books, but the principles apply equally to film. It's about story-telling. It's not reality, it's an art form, and as such needs to follow a certain necessary structure to be satisfying. The narrative is usually based on character development through situation. Even in fantasy, a story sets up a mythology, from the beginning, that it then has to work within. There's nothing wrong with a twist ending, but there needs to be enough set-up in the story for the twist to be logical with hindsight. A random, out-of-the blue ending just leaves readers feeling cheated. It's as though the writer can't think of a clever yet logical way of getting himself out of the corner he's painted himself into, and just throws in some daft, hitherto unhinted at plot device. Take the Sixth Sense. The ending worked because all the clues had been subtly placed throughout the story. Other films by Shyamalan have been poor by comparison because they don't have enough set-up to justify the ending. His need to provide a twist has led him to create some bizarrely daft endings. The problem for film is that books create images in your head, and films have to make them for you. The improvement in visual effects has led to a situation where the imagery has become the raison d'etre for the film. Many Hollywood mainstream films nowadays are little more than two-hour music videos. Story-telling has become subservient to visual pyrotechnics. It's like eating a cake, it might give an initial hit of excitement, but it's ultimately unsatisfying. Ok, you can all come back now.
the only time i can think i have enjoyed the film more than the book was probably kes. if that means anything to any of you lol, we studied it in English, think it was based in or around leeds somewhere, about a boy and a kestrel.
I agree that most story lines and works of fiction must, at least, be internally consistent, in that they set certain parameters from which they never deviate. However, when you are dealing with Superman -- whom I've always considered a type of God-replacement, at least in our solar system -- there is not much he can't do on Earth. In reference to your throwing example, the ballistics are totally plausible, it's just the power to do so simply isn't possible from the finite person-sized frame. The physics is sound (ballistically) but the Biology (biochemistry, mechanics) isn't. Once we allow impossibilities in biology -- 'magic', as it were -- we are required, by the 'internal consistency rule', to allow impossibilities ('magic') in the physics, too. Although, Biology and Physcis are irrevocably linked, and fracturing the rules of one fractures the rules of both: the rules of Science. In short, Superman's abilities already stretch to rules of Science past breaking point and, therefore, I'd argue there is no limit to the parameters in which his story lines can operate. With more brevity: stupid powers, stupid plots. I totally agree with this, Saint. It was very lazy writing. It ruined a pretty good movie in my opinion. Although, non-Christopher Reeve superman films are far worse.
i cant remember the exact quote, hopefully you will know what i mean or getting at lol. they covered something about this in big bang theory one episode in its physically impossible for when superman does his swoop down to save lious she would have been sliced into 3 pieces. something to do with the gravity force and the speed he is going at i think.
Yeah, I know the episode and argument you are referring to. I'm a Big Bang geek! They argued that superman being the man of steel had arms whose density was such that moving at the speed he did and flying up to catch lois, who was falling down, with out-stretched arms would slice her tripartite. Leonard (paraphrasing): "Superman could have matched her speed and then decelerated her drop." Sheldon (paraphrasing): "In what space, Leonard, in what space?"
you reckon you could handle sheldon as a mate lol. the one who plays his girlfriend does actually have a Phd and is qualified to actually know what the **** she is actually saying lol rather than reading lines.
Yep. She has a PhD in Neuroscience. The actress was mentioned in an earlier episode, before she started acting as Sheldon's love interest, by Raj. He said (paraphrasing, again!): "What about that girl who plays Blossum [sh*t children's TV show, BTW!]? Hasn't she got a PhD in Neuroscience?" Very funny, retrospectively, when she started appearing in the show as a parody of herself.
I keep saying this to the point where I'm getting fed up listening to me, but: The world reversing thing is nothing to do with Superman's ludicrous powers. The Superman stories are filled with absurdities, which we accept, because of the basic premise of the whole thing. However, no matter how powerful he is, even if he was capable of reversing the spin of a planet, it wouldn't send time backwards and resurrect the dead. Apart from the super characters in the story, the rest of the world functions in relative normality. Anyway, as I said, my complaint is more about bad writing and lack of, as you say, internal consistency rather than the science per se. I think it's an insult to the reader/ viewer for an author to be unable to come up with a decent, logical ending to a story which is, after all, entirely their own creation. It feels like they're saying "I can't think of a good ending here, but you're all thick anyway so just have this crap".
Fair enough, Saint. I can see this is a significant bugbear of yours. I abhor shoddy writing / scripting, too. JB's example of the cavalry as a common Deus Ex Machina, was one that I'd forgotten. Perhaps I can cite my rather youthful age as an excuse. Another common one, perhaps used more recently, is the 'it-was-all-just-a-dream' trope. Great sky-hook that one in scriptwriting. It screams that the author has run out of ideas.
