- There are some African-American soldiers strategically placed in scenes throughout the movie that would make you believe that they were not segregated during World War Two. Are the filmmakers trying to revise history? It would've been better if they didn't show any so as to not make one even think about this if they're embarrassed by this fact. And then they go on to suggest that Asian American soldiers were not segregated either. In their attempt to make the past seem better they actually made it a little white lie which is much worse.
-So Captain America's shield is made from a very, very rare metal of which all the known material of that metal on planet earth has been made into a saucer and is held in a semi-permanent army research facility in Europe?
I wouldn't pay money to watch this movie but it was OK watching it for free.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Cowboys & Aliens (2011, directed by Jon Favreau)
- Is this movie supposed be fun adventure or serious adventure? Raiders of the Lost Ark is a fun adventure. Conan the Barbarian (the version released in 1982 directed by John Milius) is a serious adventure. From the title you would think that this movie is supposed to be a fun adventure. However, the movie didn't feel fun. The tone felt like the filmmakers wanted us to take the movie seriously. But when I tried to take the movie seriously, I couldn't stop laughing. The movie did not work; it needed to decide whether or not to be a fun movie or a serious movie.
- Ella, the good alien, says that the bad aliens are kidnapping humans to do experiments on them to find out human weaknesses. How about using that wrist-gun they use to shoot holes through a human's torso? Or piercing their pointy fingers through a human's abdomen? Are those weakness in humans not enough? And then later Ella says when they're planning to attack the bad alien mining ship that humans have an advantage because the bad aliens underestimate the humans; the humans are like insects to them. So then why do the bad aliens have a kidnap a whole bunch of humans to find out their weaknesses?
- Ella says that the mining ship is just a scouting mission. She says that if the scouts get away, then more bad aliens will arrive and take over earth. So Ella blows up the scout ship. So this means no more bad aliens will ever come earth, right? Wrong. You would think that the scouts sent out signals to the mothership. Or you would think that if the mothership loses contact with its scout, it would investigate why it hadn't heard back from them. Nope. There'll be more bad aliens visiting earth. Sequel? Probably not, the box office returns for this movie were low despite it's large budget and star-studded cast.
- alien spaceship uses rockets? The aliens have conquered interstellar travel and they did it using rockets?
I wouldn't pay money to watch this movie but it's ok to watch it for free.
- Ella, the good alien, says that the bad aliens are kidnapping humans to do experiments on them to find out human weaknesses. How about using that wrist-gun they use to shoot holes through a human's torso? Or piercing their pointy fingers through a human's abdomen? Are those weakness in humans not enough? And then later Ella says when they're planning to attack the bad alien mining ship that humans have an advantage because the bad aliens underestimate the humans; the humans are like insects to them. So then why do the bad aliens have a kidnap a whole bunch of humans to find out their weaknesses?
- Ella says that the mining ship is just a scouting mission. She says that if the scouts get away, then more bad aliens will arrive and take over earth. So Ella blows up the scout ship. So this means no more bad aliens will ever come earth, right? Wrong. You would think that the scouts sent out signals to the mothership. Or you would think that if the mothership loses contact with its scout, it would investigate why it hadn't heard back from them. Nope. There'll be more bad aliens visiting earth. Sequel? Probably not, the box office returns for this movie were low despite it's large budget and star-studded cast.
- alien spaceship uses rockets? The aliens have conquered interstellar travel and they did it using rockets?
I wouldn't pay money to watch this movie but it's ok to watch it for free.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011, directed by Brad Bird)
Nuclear missiles
- Why did the main bad guy only order one nuclear missile to be launched from the submarine? There is dialogue in the movie where he says something along the lines of We only need one to do the trick. But the submarine has more than one to launch. I don't know the exact number available but it's more than one. (I think it's probably 12 or 16.) Why not launch two? Or three? Or a better idea would be to launch all of them? You want it to be the end of the world anyways, what are you saving those other missiles for? This guys was a professor and strategist? If he was really that smart then he'd launch more than one. He doesn't know anything about statistics? Did he not consider that something could go wrong with the one missile? After all, it is rocket science.
- The United States has many satellites (again, I don't know the exact number) orbiting the earth whose purpose is to detect missile launches. This is so that if a nuclear strike is launched against them, the US can launch its own missiles to retaliate even before the incoming missiles detonate on their soil and the US's capability to strike back has been hampered. Do you think that the US is going to wait for the incoming missile(s) to detonate before they launch a retaliatory strike? Well, the US protocols for the response to a nuclear attack are top secret so we'll probably never know.
- The missile launches from the submarine. The missile goes into orbit and then comes back down again to hit San Francisco. The missile then careens off of a building and then splashes into the ocean. This is incorrect. Nuclear ballistic missiles have MIRVs; Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles. When the one big missile points back down towards SF and it's on its way back down to earth, the nose cone detaches and ten to 12 (don't know the exact number) MIRVs deploy. The 10 or so MIRVs are now like 10 nuclear bombs free-falling towards the SF area. There should have been 10 or so nuclear armed objects falling towards SF ready to explode, not just one. And I don't know for sure because it's top secret but there's probably no way to stop the MIRVs once they're detached from the big missile.
Granted this is a Mission: Impossible movie. There are technologies in the movie which do not exist yet (that the public is aware of) and so a lot of the gadgets aren't verifiable. But the above issues concerning the missile are. This is a techno-thriller so they have to get the tech correct. It is unforgivable that they didn't.
I paid money to watch this movie and I wish I could get that money back.
- Why did the main bad guy only order one nuclear missile to be launched from the submarine? There is dialogue in the movie where he says something along the lines of We only need one to do the trick. But the submarine has more than one to launch. I don't know the exact number available but it's more than one. (I think it's probably 12 or 16.) Why not launch two? Or three? Or a better idea would be to launch all of them? You want it to be the end of the world anyways, what are you saving those other missiles for? This guys was a professor and strategist? If he was really that smart then he'd launch more than one. He doesn't know anything about statistics? Did he not consider that something could go wrong with the one missile? After all, it is rocket science.
- The United States has many satellites (again, I don't know the exact number) orbiting the earth whose purpose is to detect missile launches. This is so that if a nuclear strike is launched against them, the US can launch its own missiles to retaliate even before the incoming missiles detonate on their soil and the US's capability to strike back has been hampered. Do you think that the US is going to wait for the incoming missile(s) to detonate before they launch a retaliatory strike? Well, the US protocols for the response to a nuclear attack are top secret so we'll probably never know.
- The missile launches from the submarine. The missile goes into orbit and then comes back down again to hit San Francisco. The missile then careens off of a building and then splashes into the ocean. This is incorrect. Nuclear ballistic missiles have MIRVs; Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles. When the one big missile points back down towards SF and it's on its way back down to earth, the nose cone detaches and ten to 12 (don't know the exact number) MIRVs deploy. The 10 or so MIRVs are now like 10 nuclear bombs free-falling towards the SF area. There should have been 10 or so nuclear armed objects falling towards SF ready to explode, not just one. And I don't know for sure because it's top secret but there's probably no way to stop the MIRVs once they're detached from the big missile.
Granted this is a Mission: Impossible movie. There are technologies in the movie which do not exist yet (that the public is aware of) and so a lot of the gadgets aren't verifiable. But the above issues concerning the missile are. This is a techno-thriller so they have to get the tech correct. It is unforgivable that they didn't.
I paid money to watch this movie and I wish I could get that money back.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Basketball is a stupid sport
The clip below clearly demonstrates why basketball is a stupid sport (let's say, as compared to ice hockey)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR3NhE8fBs8&feature=g-logo&context=G299baa7FOAAAAAAAQAA
The hoop
a) Except for the earth rotating and orbiting around the sun, the target (the hoop) in is always in the same place all the time - the x, y and z axes. From side to side, up and down, front and back, it's always in the same place. Concerning the front and back axis, you even get a backboard in which you can make a bankshot which makes it even easier. Basketball players can shoot hoops; what's the big deal in hitting a predictable, single, static target that's always in the same place?
- in hockey, there's a goaltender. Granted that the hockey net is bigger than the hoop, the goalie cannot cover the entire net, and although there are multiple targets to shoot at, those targets are always moving. At one moment the goalie will cover one part of the net preventing a shot from getting through and leaving another target open. But then a moment later (a moment meaning one second) the goalie will cover that target and leave another part of the net open. Depending on the angle from where the shooter is, there may not be any targets available thereby forcing the shooter to move or pass. In hockey there are multiple targets unpredictably changing where they are on the x and y axes.
Foul shots
b) See point a)
- in hockey the equivalent is the penalty shot. It's unpredictable and exciting. It's a rare occurrence and it usually actually matters to the outcome of the game if the player is able to score a goal or not (in contrast to point e))
Lame defence
c) In basketball, the defence is impotent. We can see it in the clip. The defender was set up right in front of the shooter- there was no better position in which to be in. But all the defender could do is feebly wave his arms and jump up- and feebly wave his arms. With any luck, maybe he could touch the ball as the shooter shoots ruining the shooter's intended trajectory of the ball towards the static hoop. Even when the offence is on the move and is dribbling the ball (having to dribble the ball is in itself stupid), the defender has little chance of getting the ball without "fouling" the opposing player. The only way the defence can get the ball is if the offence makes a mistake (ie loses control of the ball when dribbling) or after they shoot it.
Clock running
d) Related to point c), the offence can just hang onto the ball and run the clock. Having a 24 second shot clock rule just proves the point that the defence is impotent.
- in hockey the defence can strip the the player of the puck. The defender can get right in the offence's space and go get the puck. The offence needs skill and determination for his team to keep possession of the puck (by either fending off the defender, skating away or passing it off to a teammate). There's no need for a shot clock because all players are in danger of losing possession of the puck at any time.
...Contrast this with the basketball player. There were six seconds left in the game and all the basketball player had to do was just stand there to keep possession. The defender couldn't do anything to get the ball. The offence then just ran the clock and then took a shot at a single, unmoving target to win the game.
Easy to score points
e) Average basketball games have scoreboards that go from 80 points to over a 100 points per game... per team! This means each team is making 40 to 50 baskets per game. So a player scores a basket. How can you get excited over this when there'll probably be 40 to 50 more baskets for your team by the time the game ends?
- for the highlight reel for the evening news, for hockey you know what the feature. You feature the goals scored. And for a goal to be scored in hockey there're a lot of spectacular moves and skill involved. For basketball, what do you choose for the highlight reel? The baskets scored? Which ones of the 40 or 50 do you show? Because they happen so often, how the baskets are scored is so mundane. So you choose the ones that might look cool or have some flash and then try to make excitable commentary about them.
Basketball is boring and just a sweaty ballet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR3NhE8fBs8&feature=g-logo&context=G299baa7FOAAAAAAAQAA
The hoop
a) Except for the earth rotating and orbiting around the sun, the target (the hoop) in is always in the same place all the time - the x, y and z axes. From side to side, up and down, front and back, it's always in the same place. Concerning the front and back axis, you even get a backboard in which you can make a bankshot which makes it even easier. Basketball players can shoot hoops; what's the big deal in hitting a predictable, single, static target that's always in the same place?
- in hockey, there's a goaltender. Granted that the hockey net is bigger than the hoop, the goalie cannot cover the entire net, and although there are multiple targets to shoot at, those targets are always moving. At one moment the goalie will cover one part of the net preventing a shot from getting through and leaving another target open. But then a moment later (a moment meaning one second) the goalie will cover that target and leave another part of the net open. Depending on the angle from where the shooter is, there may not be any targets available thereby forcing the shooter to move or pass. In hockey there are multiple targets unpredictably changing where they are on the x and y axes.
Foul shots
b) See point a)
- in hockey the equivalent is the penalty shot. It's unpredictable and exciting. It's a rare occurrence and it usually actually matters to the outcome of the game if the player is able to score a goal or not (in contrast to point e))
Lame defence
c) In basketball, the defence is impotent. We can see it in the clip. The defender was set up right in front of the shooter- there was no better position in which to be in. But all the defender could do is feebly wave his arms and jump up- and feebly wave his arms. With any luck, maybe he could touch the ball as the shooter shoots ruining the shooter's intended trajectory of the ball towards the static hoop. Even when the offence is on the move and is dribbling the ball (having to dribble the ball is in itself stupid), the defender has little chance of getting the ball without "fouling" the opposing player. The only way the defence can get the ball is if the offence makes a mistake (ie loses control of the ball when dribbling) or after they shoot it.
Clock running
d) Related to point c), the offence can just hang onto the ball and run the clock. Having a 24 second shot clock rule just proves the point that the defence is impotent.
- in hockey the defence can strip the the player of the puck. The defender can get right in the offence's space and go get the puck. The offence needs skill and determination for his team to keep possession of the puck (by either fending off the defender, skating away or passing it off to a teammate). There's no need for a shot clock because all players are in danger of losing possession of the puck at any time.
...Contrast this with the basketball player. There were six seconds left in the game and all the basketball player had to do was just stand there to keep possession. The defender couldn't do anything to get the ball. The offence then just ran the clock and then took a shot at a single, unmoving target to win the game.
Easy to score points
e) Average basketball games have scoreboards that go from 80 points to over a 100 points per game... per team! This means each team is making 40 to 50 baskets per game. So a player scores a basket. How can you get excited over this when there'll probably be 40 to 50 more baskets for your team by the time the game ends?
- for the highlight reel for the evening news, for hockey you know what the feature. You feature the goals scored. And for a goal to be scored in hockey there're a lot of spectacular moves and skill involved. For basketball, what do you choose for the highlight reel? The baskets scored? Which ones of the 40 or 50 do you show? Because they happen so often, how the baskets are scored is so mundane. So you choose the ones that might look cool or have some flash and then try to make excitable commentary about them.
Basketball is boring and just a sweaty ballet.
The Marine (2006, directed by John Bonito)
- I really liked the intercontextual reference bit with Robert Patrick.
- as with a lot of other movies, someone's brought back to life using CPR as if CPR is some sort of magic spell that works all the time. To all the screenwriters out there; bringing someone back to life is a cheap and lame way to create tension. It's just lazy. I don't have personal experience with CPR being used on a human but if it's done correctly the victim's ribs should be cracked and in the slim chance that they do revive they're probably not going to feel well enough to say anything immediately, let alone move.
Wasn't expecting much. It did what it set out to do.
I didn't mind watching this movie for free but only because I like watching movies.
- as with a lot of other movies, someone's brought back to life using CPR as if CPR is some sort of magic spell that works all the time. To all the screenwriters out there; bringing someone back to life is a cheap and lame way to create tension. It's just lazy. I don't have personal experience with CPR being used on a human but if it's done correctly the victim's ribs should be cracked and in the slim chance that they do revive they're probably not going to feel well enough to say anything immediately, let alone move.
Wasn't expecting much. It did what it set out to do.
I didn't mind watching this movie for free but only because I like watching movies.
The Green Lantern (2011, directed by Martin Campbell)
- the Martin-Baker Zero-zero ejection seat has been in use since the 20th century. The zero-zero means that a pilot can use the ejection seat a zero speed AND zero altitude. When Hal's 21st century fight plane is falling uncontrollably towards the ground, why does the ground controller say something along the lines that Hal is approaching minimum altitude to eject? His ejection seat will work at zero altitude.
- regarding the space alien that comes to earth to give Hal the ring... why does he need a spaceship? Later we see that the being that can use the ring can fly through the air. They can even fly through outer-space from solar system to solar system. All without the use of any other type of technology. So why does that other alien have a spaceship at all?
- Hal disguise is a mask. The mask is just a raccoon mask that covers maybe a couple of centimetres around his eyes. Does he really expect no one to recognize him when he turns into the Green Lantern
I didn't mind watching this movie for free, but only because I like to watch movies.
- regarding the space alien that comes to earth to give Hal the ring... why does he need a spaceship? Later we see that the being that can use the ring can fly through the air. They can even fly through outer-space from solar system to solar system. All without the use of any other type of technology. So why does that other alien have a spaceship at all?
- Hal disguise is a mask. The mask is just a raccoon mask that covers maybe a couple of centimetres around his eyes. Does he really expect no one to recognize him when he turns into the Green Lantern
I didn't mind watching this movie for free, but only because I like to watch movies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)