h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think that was down to a rights issue.

Actually, if Michael Caine was singing, it was down to a human rights issue.

Yes, there is that....

"Scrooge" is better anyway.

After breaking the computer system security through some trivial bit of hacking or social engineering the protagonist plugs in their media, hits save, and the progress bar starts slowly inching across the screen. We see the bar reach 97.5% as we cut to the bad guys bursting into the room to find - nothing; just an open window (or a knife).

I cite The Net, Mission Impossible, lots of others. Grrr.

Yes, I hate that - and it happens everywhere. As a viewer, I expect that if they cut between two action scenes, then there's some sort of temporal association between them.

Or the typical "hacker" typing furiously away at 100+ WPM, while giving exposition, never touching their mouse.

Or a countdown that begins 'Ten – Nine – Eight'
Then focus changes somewhere else, but you're still counting along 'seven – six – five – four'
Then back to the countdown 'six – five' and you think 'No, that should definitely be 'three' not 'six'.'

<BB<

And now I'm reminded of John Cleese in the role of the time bomb in the game _Starship Titanic_ counting down from 1000 and getting confused every time you checked and having to start over.

The world (or the good guys) get saved at the last possible moment. One of the Shrek sequels, the Princess and the frog, you name it. There's never a rescue before the last grain of sand has fallen in the hourglass.

That reminds me - in 'Goldfinger' the bomb was supposed to be stopped with 3 seconds to go, which is why Bond says 'Three more ticks and Mr Goldfinger would have hit the jackpot' but they changed the image of the bomb so that it was stopped at 007 instead (you know, 'cos all clock displays show '007').

And that's another annoyance, when the image doesn't match what is being said. For example in 'Biggles: The Movie', Raymond's business card clearly says 'Air Commodore' but it is read out as 'Commander'.
(I'll save what else I find annoying about the film 'Biggles: The Movie' for another time. Contrary to popular opinion it isn't an entirely bad film, but the makers did go out of their way to make it seem like it.)

<BB<

A812800 Sums it up pretty well - the artificial world of films.
I often think baddies are really weak, spending so much time talking about what evil they're going to do instead of doing it, so the goodies have time to escape/ foil the plot etc.
Also, like the train fate - it's the details that you know something about that are glaring errors. In Downton Abbey, the cook's cataract operation resulted in perfect eyesight without glasses - impossible at that date.

I just happened to run into my favorite "we're being hacked!" clip.

http://youtu.be/u8qgehH3kEQ

But if people *know* they're being hacked, doesn't that mean the hackers are not stealthy enough?

Watch that video again.... That's TWO PEOPLE slapping away at ONE KEYBOARD!!!


I don't think reality was a major concern.

'Jurassic Park' is a film about dinosaurs rampaging on an island. It led to a sequel, 'The Lost World: Jurassic Park', about dinosaurs rampaging on an island (oh, and a T-Rex at San Diego at the end). However the annoying thing is they go to great lengths to explain that this is actually a different island – Isla Sorna - and not the island in the first film (Isla Nublar). Why? The plot of being chased by dinosaurs would have worked the same if there wasn't multiple dinosaur islands.

Dinosaur Island Guide:
Isla Nublar: Jurassic Park, Jurassic World
Isla Sorna: The Lost World: Jurassic Park, Jurassic Park III

<BB<

"Why?"

Because there's a larger number of T-Rexes and Raptors on Isla Sorna, as well as a wide variety of dinosaurs that weren't present in the first movie. Basically it's a way to expand the dinosaur cast.


Also, if I'm not mistaken, it's a plot-element in the book. Now, while I have read Jurassic Park I haven't actually read The Lost World, so I don't really know what I'm talking about. But odds are, if it is an element in the book, then it's probably much more important there than it was in the movie.

Ultimately it wouldn't be the first time that filmmakers adapted elements of a plot thread while leaving out most or all of what made that plot element important. It's really not such a terrible thing to do in itself, considering the structural differences between book and film.


Besides, I wouldn't say they did go to "great lengths" to explain it anyway. There's a single conversation between Ian and Hammond and that's about it. Even of that, half of it has nothing to do with being a different island.

Oh yeah, I remember now. In the book Isla Nublar was napalmed after the events of Jurassic Park, so the sequel had to be set on a different island because there weren't any dinosaurs left on the first one.

So there you go.

Admittedly that doesn't really apply to the movie, but I refer you back to the expanded cast of dinosaurs.


P.S. (We need a smiley.)

The only dinosaurs to appear in 'The Lost World' that weren't in 'Jurassic Park' were Stegosaurus (which were mentioned as being on the island but not seen as the tour was cut short), Compsognathus (which are tiny) and Pachycephalousaurus – plus flying reptile Pteranodon. As the cast only had half a tour they could simply say they were on parts of the first island they didn't visit rather than come up with a whole new island – but if the island was napalmed in the book that makes more sense.

<BB<

But the really annoying thing about Jurassic Park is that despite years of research going into dinosaur locomotion and CGI physics engines, the animation is only a little better than A Million Years BC and not even up to Nick Park's standards of realism.