Recent comments in /f/movies

Extolord111 OP t1_j9zfa47 wrote

Yeah I'm talking something like that, just with extras that no one looks at. I also want to know about about moments where the extras just die and no one cares about them for the rest of the movie, like the Abydonian boys in Stargate, they just die and none of the main characters care. Yet when a side or main character dies, it's the biggest deal ever, like bro 10 of your friends just died. I see this killing extras thing a lot in military or sci-fi related movies.

1

Comprehensive-Fun47 t1_j9zc1xj wrote

Yes, I think it’s pretty obvious he would.

She refused to conform to what he wanted her to be. He would have hit her the next time she disobeyed him or did something he didn’t like.

There is a deleted scene that was cut from the scene where he smashes the table aside. The maid comes in and tries to help Rose clean it up. Rose is so beside herself, she basically collapses on the ground. It is classic abuser/abusee behavior.

3

IsRude t1_j9z8v7c wrote

Their goal is to introduce into the target's head, the idea of dissolving his father's company. They have to be subtle, or else he'll know that the idea came from someone else, so they separate these 3 ideas into 3 separate dreams:

>First dream: "I don't want to follow in my father's footsteps."

>Second dream: "I want to create something for myself."

>Third dream: "My father doesn't want me to be him.

Each time they go deeper into a dream, the amount of time they'd be stuck in the dream if they fail is increased. Which is why they need to manually get themselves out of the dream, and why they need the music as a queue to help time everything correctly.

What they're timing is "kicks". They need to fall at the right time so they can wake up. If they fall in the first layer while they're all the way in the third layer, they'll be in too deep a sleep to wake up, and they'll just die and end up in limbo. So they have a series of kicks to wake them from the third dream layer, then the second, then the first, in succession.

I can explain more if that doesn't make sense. It's been a long while since I've seen the movie.

3

WillysJeepMan t1_j9z7y7d wrote

A well-reasoned explanation, thank you. I agree with your assessment. This film was indeed too far of a jump for Michael’s character arc from Part II. If this was Part IV, it might’ve fit better.

From a physical medium perspective, the film didn’t have the same grain and warmth as the other two. I thought that the film’s score was not on the same level either…. it didn’t capture the moods of the scenes as well as the first two.

But having said that, I did enjoy the film, just not in the way I enjoy the first two.

2

zauriel1980 t1_j9z7nuq wrote

Not only does this movie need repeat viewings, it helps to have a flowchart to understand it (and even then … good luck).

https://imgur.io/VACTBSE?r

I love all manner of time travel movies, from the dumb to the comedic to the dramatic to the fantastical to the true sci-fi … but Primer was the only one to make me develop a real love/hate relationship with it.

1

kurt_hectic t1_j9z6u5g wrote

Same experience at the theater last night! My first reaction was "...are they actually finding this funny/good...? I'm dying inside, I hate this!" but soon after noticed how it was timed with each stupid development. What a shit sandwich. "Wot's the bravest thing yew've eva done 🥺??"

1

LeePT69 t1_j9z0xwr wrote

The first time I saw the film I came out of the theatre angry. I felt like it was hard to hear and hard to follow what was going on. The second time was better until about half hour in. Then it lost me again I agree. It’s not a good film if most people can follow it. The visuals were fantastic. But does not make up for it overall.
Love the concept. But frustrating to watch

Inception I can follow about two levels down. Once it’s a dream within a draw within a dream and into the fugue state. I can’t do that 3D chess

1

SuperSyrias t1_j9yzifq wrote

The problem is that once you make ordinary people competent in dealing with super people, you quickly reach "deconstruction of the genre" levels.

Not all supers are bulletproof. Nowhere near enough actually take that into account and it gets handwaved away for the plot.

Realistically, most good and badguys in marvel could actually be defeated by a wellarmed military unit or two. But of course if that gets teased, they suddenly pull out personal force fields or LMDs or whatever.

In the MCU specifically, how does the US Military not yet have a full unit of Pseudo-Iron Men by this phase? Whiplash and Hammer showed that people CAN reverse engineer Starks tech, with varying success. The military sure as shit collected every piece of armor scrap they could find from the big battle against "Mr. Extremis". No way they didnt piece at least one generally functiong suit together from that. Next, the Ultron units EACH had at least one arc reactor. No chance ALL of those got crushed beyond use.

All the drones Mysterio used? Very unlikely they didnt use arc reactors, very unlikely all of them get fully destroyed.

And so on.

Sure, Tony was a genius far ahead of his time. Sure, its Super Science. But thats the thing. It IS plausible Science in the MCU, not inexplicable magic. Science people mad at Tony managed to "fake" city destroying monsters that actively could destroy cities, seemingly with relative ease. Dont try to tell me the military could not get scientists intelligent enough to whip up pseudo AI to help run the refurbished Stark suits.

So, aside from "it would be horribly boring to have armies of Iron Men round up and defeat all super human threats" there really is no reason why the US military wouldnt already have functioning ArmorSoldiers on par with at least Iron Man 1 Tony.

1