Title : Didn't Lois forget? SPOILER
Category : Action
Movie : Superman Returns - 2006
Detail : If the movie is a "sequel" to the Christopher Reeve series, (at least the first two as many have suggested) Lois must have been somewhat confused by her pregnacy and the subsequent birth of her super-child. At the end of Superman II, Clark appears to erase Lois' memory of their romance with a "super-kiss". She immediately began discussing Superman as a third person, and her tearful admission of being "selfish" with him is suddenly no longer an issue. If she's forgotten their "relationship", how would she know the identity of her child's father? If she discovers only after observing the boy's special abilities, the question in her mind must still be "But how???"
-----------------------------------
The kiss did not erase her memory of her romance with Superman, it only erased that Clark was Superman. Her shock at her son's super strength is only because he had never manifested any super powers before this.
I didn't realize this movie was supposed to be a sequel to the Christopher Reeve movies. They seem to have redone a lot of characters and played with the time.
Only the first 2. Parts 3 and 4 are ignored, from what I understand.
They did things, though, like unexpectedly moving 20 years into the future, without aging the characters.
That's the only major discrepancy though, other than that it's fairly compatible with 1 and 2. I just chalk up the time frames to the James Bond effect. they're always in the present day, when ever that is when the movie's made. Not too unreasonable considering you're talking about a movie where a guy shoots laser beams out of his eyes...
I looked up the history and it seems to have been only loosely drawing on 1 and 2. So I don't know that we can expect the same level of continuity we'd expect to find in a true sequel.
Here's a link - scroll down to see the director's comments. (If you have trouble finding them, search for the word "vague".)
Title : Mei-Ling lied about dancing
Category : Comedy
Movie : Flower Drum Song - 1961
Detail : At Wang Ta's (James Shigeta) graduation party, Mei-Ling (Miyoshi Umeki) dances a sort of Chinese square dance, as part of the Chop Suey number. Moments later she dances a waltz with Ta. But several scenes later, at the Celestial Gardens, Ta asks her to dance and she responds, "I do not know how, but I will walk around with you while you dance." They begin to dance before the music stops and it is apparent that she cannot dance.
I understand this, but I disagree. Most movie musicals have set musical numbers where characters sing and dance, even when they realistically couldn't or wouldn't. The fact that someone sings or dances during one of these numbers doesn't mean that person is actually singing and dancing, for purposes of the story. For example, some of the older traditional Chinese characters sing and dance in a Broadway-style number to express their respect for their traditions. But of course this is something those characters would never do in real life, even if they could sing and dance. Because I think this is appropriate to this genre, I voted "explained in the movie."
This reminds me a little of the "singing in the abbey" nitpick on The Sound of Music a while back. In that nitpick, someone pointed out the nuns were criticizing Maria for singing in the abbey when, in fact, they themselves were singing at that very moment. But as someone else (Cassie, I think) pointed out, just because we see and hear them singing on screen doesn't mean, in the story, those characters really went around singing everything. Really, the nuns were just talking but it's shown as singing because that's what musicals do. In a lot of musicals, characters suddenly develop an amazing ability to sing and dance as part of an ensemble in big elaborately-choreographed numbers, but this is supposed to happen in this kind of movie. None of the characters ever thinks it's unusual that everyone else is singing and dancing around, which they would do in real life. In most cases, what we're seeing is a stylized presentation of the characters' words and thoughts. Occasionally, a musical will show a song or a dance that is a real song or dance within the story. For example, there are several musical performances during The Sound of Music when members of the family are actually singing or dancing as part of the story, and we can assume the other characters see those as actual songs, and not just as dialogue.
Here's the discussion about the "singing in the abbey" nitpick.
Makes perfect sense to me.
TOU violation there, I'd say (spam).
...but "made no sense" or "contains a link" would be fine, also.
Title : Cruella Investigated by Scotland Yard
Category : Animation
Movie : 101 Dalmations - 1961
Detail :
The shot opens with Cruella reading the newspaper articles about the stolen puppies, then she decides to call Anita about it. She acts very surprised saying "I just saw the papers," as if she just found out. Roger thinks that Cruella is indeed the thief. However, Anita says, "She's [Cruella] been investigated by Scotland Yard." How could Cruella "just find out" if she has ALREADY been investigated?
Yes, I've seen 101 many times but I do not remember this detail. At the time of this scene, was the Scotland Yard investigation a secret to Cruella de Vil? Just some discreet nosing around? Or did they knock on the door and say, "Cruella De Vil, we are investigating you for dognapping. May we come in please?" "It's a fair cop but society's to blame."
(In the yet to be made remake, "CSI: Dalmatia", the CSI's "accidently" turn on their UV lights and detect urine stains on Cruella's carpets. She dismisses their discovery by producing another dog, lifting her in the air and squeezing a yellow stream and a loud Yelp! out of her. Grissom says, "But Dalmations are unique in that their urine contains uric acid which other dogs' do not. The uric acid test will do you in since it could not have come from your other dog." Cruella calls for the Baduns who come in, drop trou' and soak the carpets. Unperturbed, Grissom says, "But the allantoin test on that section of carpet over there will show that it could not have come from the Baduns.")
>How could Cruella "just find out" if she has ALREADY been investigated?
It's blatantly obvious that she didn't "just find out." (I hate to spoil the plot, but recall she dognapped the pups) She said she did because she was trying to portray that she just found out.
I don't think a lie by a character of Cruella' reputation constitutes a nitpick.
Some people call me 49; but it's Mr. 68 to you.
> I don't think a lie by a character of Cruella' reputation constitutes a nitpick.
You're right. I read more into it than I should have, namely that Anita could know that Cruella was lying because of the unknown (secret / open) detail of the timeline.
1. Anita is informed that Scotland Yard (SY) has investigated CdV.
2. Does Anita know the nature of the investigation (secret or open)?
If told it's secret: 3s. CdV pretends surprise. Anita has no proof of lying or pretense.
If told it's open ("CdV, we have a warrant to search for the missing pups."): 3o. CdV pretends surprise about the missing pups. But Anita now KNOWS she's lying.
But it's reasonable for CdV to lie no matter what.
By geode
Date 2008-05-31 15:35
A very lucid explanation! So, now that you've cleared that up to yourself...what is the undingable vote....?
By Magnanimous
Date 2008-05-30 03:41
Edited 2008-05-30 03:44
IMO, this submitted nitpick:
Title : Smoke plumes in space?
Category : Adventure
Movie : Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith - 2005
Detail :
In the battle over Coruscant, when the Invisible Hand (the ship Palpatine is being held on) starts plummeting towards the planet (the first time), a plume of smoke can clearly be seen coming from the left side of the ship. The plume looks and acts like it would in atmosphere. However, there is no atmosphere in this scene, or at least not very much of one. Would the smoke particles not just diffuse outward in all directions? is essentially the same as
this posted nitpick (which is mine, btw):
Movie : Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith - 2005
Nitpick Category : Scientific Fact
Nitpick Number : 76280
Approximate time of Nitpick : 1/4 of the way through
Summary : Fire ships
Detail : When Sen. Palpatine, Anakin, and Obi-Wan are plummeting through the atmosphere in the burning half of the ship, some ships fly alongside them and begin spraying them with water (or some other clear liquid) to put out the fire. However, the liquid is squirted in a fairly straight stream, looking almost like a stream of water from a fire hose. Since the burning half-ship is hurtling through the atmosphere, the water would hit resistance from the atmosphere as soon as it left the nozzles on the accompanying ships and it should be spraying towards the back of the half-ship rather than straight onto it. This seems like just a minor detail gone wrong.The only difference is that the existing one deals with sprays of water and the newly-submitted one deals with a plume of smoke. But they both point out the fact that the streams of ejected material behave as if they're in an atmosphere instead of in space. Since this is just pointing out two different aspects of the same error, I think it's the same nitpick. It would be sort of like one nitpick saying "Although it's 60 degrees outside, the snow hasn't melted" and another pointing out "Although it's 60 degrees outside, the ice hasn't melted." I think the submitted nitpick would be fine as a comment on the existing nitpick,though.
I read it as the opposite. You're nitpick is stating that they are in the atmosphere, but the behavior of the water is consistent with being in outer space. this nitpick takes place earlier, while they are still in outer space, and it's stating that the behavior of the smoke is consistent with being in the atmosphere. So I don't think it's a duplicate nitpick, IMO. but it may be invalid becuase they may be in the upper atmosphere by this point, which would explain the smoke.
I'd re-watch it to see if that seems to be the case, but I'm currently hiding it from my 4 year old son. It's the only one that I don't feel is appropriate to show him, and if he's so obsessed with star wars right now, if he ever found out about it he'd demand to see it.
You're right - I misread that. But for reasons you explain, I think it's invalid.
The first nitpick explains within itself that there is no nitpick - it states, "the plume looks and acts like it would in atmosphere," and then goes on to state there may be at least some atmosphere in the scene.
The posted nitpick takes an opposite tack: there is some atmosphere, therefore we should expect to see the scene as though it was in a complete atmosphere. Frankly, though, I don't know, and I don't suspect too many people know, exactly how a stream of water would look coming from a spaceship in the upper reaches of our atmosphere. Recall that air gets very thin, very quickly, as we move away from the earth, so if the water was under sufficient enough pressure, it could travel straight out from the ship (relatively speaking because the two ships and the water are all moving somewhat in sync) for quite a distance.
Some people call me 49; but it's Mr. 68 to you.
>so if the water was under sufficient enough pressure, it could travel straight out from the ship (relatively speaking because the two ships and the water are all moving somewhat in sync) for quite a distance.
Intuitively you'd think this would be true, but it's not. The two forces (pressure pushing the stream of water out of the ship, and resistance) are perpendicular. (They're actually moving around, so at times they're actually perpendicular and at other times the angle is slightly more acute or obtuse.) Regardless of how strong the pressure from behind the stream is, it won't prevent the horizontal force from moving the stream to the side.
Consider an example where something is shot out of a gun or cannon parallel to the ground. The force behind the bullet/cannonball is perpendicular to the gravitational force. You might think the bullet/cannonball could travel further before it started to fall if it were shot out at higher pressure (and thus a higher speed). But in fact, regardless of how fast it shoots out, it begins dropping to the ground the moment it leaves the barrel, and the horizontal speed has no effect on the rate at which it falls to the ground.
>You might think the bullet/cannonball could travel further before it started to fall if it were shot out at higher pressure (and thus a higher speed). But in fact, regardless of how fast it shoots out, it begins dropping to the ground the moment it leaves the barrel, and the horizontal speed has no effect on the rate at which it falls to the ground.
Yes, the bullet drops at the same rate, but the faster bullet would appear to be travelling in a straighter line over short distances. If bullet 1 is shot at such a speed that it only drops, say, 1 inch over the first 50 yards it travels, and bullet 2's initial velocity is twice as fast, it would drop (approx) 1/2 inch over that distance, and would therefore appear to be traveling in a straighter line. Increase the velocity 10-fold, and the drop would be negligible.
I don't necessarily disagree with the nitpick (there should be some "bowing" in the water line), but it could be quite negligible depending on the amount of air resistance and velocity of the water.
Some people call me 49; but it's Mr. 68 to you.
Well, the possible explanations you mention don't really happen in the movie. They might be relevant in some other type of scene, though. The comments to the nitpick give more information, noting for example that the water freely wiggles back and forth a bit like water coming out of a fire hose (indicating it is traveling at a fairly low speed). So whether it's faster or slower than a fire hose, it's still nowhere near as fast as you are thinking it might be. Also, the atmosphere isn't as thin as I think you're imagining.
Title : No CHUCKS!
Category : Drama
Movie : Marie Antoinette - 2006
Detail : I'm sure that in the late 1700s there weren't any converses because they were introduced in 1917. Yet in the movie, Marie Antoinette is shopping for shoes and a pair of light blue converses are shown next to her. This topic has been previously discussed
here. That submission (from July 2007) was not accepted into the nitpickers.com dbase.
By nitpickabc
Date 2008-06-27 00:49
Edited 2008-06-27 00:58
Title: Surely James Cameron could have found two actresses who REMOTELY resembled one another!
Category: Drama
Movie: Titanic - 1997
Detail: Kate Winslet grew up to be Gloria Stuart? Not unless she had extensive cosmetic surgery at sometime in her long life! A PBS documentary done in the early 90s showed several extremely elderly survivors juxtaposed with their 1912 photographs, and even with the baby pictures you could see the resemblance to their grown up selves. Anyway, I am embarrassed to say that this has bothered me for 11 years!While the submitter seems to be applying scientific principles ("facial recognition; aging patterns" and a small sample set from a PBS documentary), just how accurate are humans at pairing faces that have aged several decades since their reference photos? I'd put more faith in computerized facial recognition software, but even that is frequently wrong, especially if it can't account for incidental injuries, disease, cosmetic surgery (a possibility that even the submitter acknowledges) or effects other than the usual sagging and wrinkling.
See, for example,
this,
this,
this and
this.
You movie experts might want to write a paper with good and bad movie examples for future publication
here.
(And there's also that TV crime show with lots of time shifts and aging effects: "Cold Case", I think. I thought the episodes I've seen were very good.)
This is totally speculation on my part, but I think that the things that make a person look the same years and decades later might me more subtle than what the submitter is thinking. Our brains do a lot of work subconciously and it may be very subtle features in someone's face that make it easy to see a resemblance in the baby pictures on the PBS special. Obviously a baby's face looks nothing like a grown up's face, yet you can still recognize the resemblance even if you can't quite put your finger on what the resemblance is. This would explain why it's so hard to find two actors that appear similar, even when dealing with a much shorter gap in age (for example the young Forest Gump and Tom Hanks - they look similar enough for the audience to suspend disbelief, but that's about it). You can't just go to the actor store and pick one up with the same general facial features and expect it to look the way the nitpicker is expecting.
By Cassie
Date 2008-06-27 16:45
> You can't just go to the actor store and pick one up with the same general facial features and expect it to look the way the nitpicker is expecting.
Very true. You also can't just go to central casting, find someone who looks perfect, and expect them to be a great actor. Sometimes you have to pick a better actor and let the looks thing slide a bit.
Sometimes it does work. When the Star Wars people cast Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan for the prequel trilogy, one of the factors that sealed the deal was that he looked like Sir Alec Guinness had as a young man.
Title : Marty Holds Walkie Talkie Backwards!!
Category : Family
Movie : Back to the Future Part II - 1989
Detail :
When Marty is incognito watching Biff leave his grandma's house, right after he throws the ball on the roof Marty hides behind a car and pulls out the Walkie Talkie and says: "Doc it is Biff's house, I'm on him." Marty is speaking into the BACK of the Walkie Talkie. You can clearly this as he pulls it out. This walkie talkie has grooves on the front and a silver sticker on the back. When he pulls it out you see the silver sticker on the side he speaks into. Plus the orange 'talk' button is located on the left of the walkie talkie and Marty holds it in his right hand, with his right thumb on the button, clearly the back, which of course has no microphone on it, which doesn't help the fact that these Walkie Talkies are terrible in audio and range! These are the Archer Space Patrol Walkie Talkies from Radio Shack for $14.99! (you can see the price sticker when he takes it out of the package) I actually had these exact walkie talkies when I was a kid, they sucked! and they had about a 30 foot range tops! Marty and Doc were using these to communicate for something more like miles that feet! Something impossible with those, even if they strap big batteries to the back as they did later on.
I'm leaning towards "multiple" on this one.
Talking into the "back" of a walkie-talkie, telephone, cell phone, etc. might not be a nitpick. Sometimes, it looks cool or it's done for effect. Some mics (maybe not highly directional cell phones) can pick up voices as the sound waves wrap around the device. I've seen professionals (on construction sites, etc.) use (admittedly, high quality) walkie-talkies backwards or by not talking directly into the microphone.
Then, there's the "sci-tech", "factual" aspect of real Archer walkie-talkies that could not possibly broadcast over the distances used in the movie. That seems valid to me.
I agree with the multiple, but to me, it seems to be the opposites. Talking into the back of the walkie talkie seems like an obvious mistake on the actor's part. Why would he do this on purpose? and as the nitpicker points out, these are cheap walkie talkies, so I wouldn't expect the mic to pick up a whole bunch if you're not talking directly into it. The walkie talkies you're speaking about on construction sites are most likely equipped with omni-directional mics (speaking from experience that the case with all Nextel walkie-talkies). On the other hand, the issues with the range of the walkie talkies seems to be both nessecary for the plot and reasonable given the technological exxagerations common in the BTF movies.
in any case it's a moot point until the nitpicker resubmits as separate nitpicks
> I agree with the multiple, but to me, it seems to be the opposites. Talking into the back of the walkie talkie seems like an obvious mistake on the actor's part. Why would he do this on purpose?
In character: trying to be cool? To be acting like one of them professionals with "real" walkie-talkies?
> and as the nitpicker points out, these are cheap walkie talkies, so I wouldn't expect the mic to pick up a whole bunch if you're not talking directly into it. The walkie talkies you're speaking about on construction sites are most likely equipped with omni-directional mics (speaking from experience that the case with all Nextel walkie-talkies).
I think the cheap mic is somewhere between a GOOD directional mic and a GOOD omni-directional mic. Namely, a crappy mic that picks up sounds poorly from all directions.
> On the other hand, the issues with the range of the walkie talkies seems to be both nessecary for the plot and reasonable given the technological exxagerations common in the BTF movies.
Why didn't they just use a more expensive looking prop? They could have borrowed their own (movie crew) walkie talkies for those scenes!
> in any case it's a moot point until the nitpicker resubmits as separate nitpicks
>In character: trying to be cool? To be acting like one of them professionals with "real" walkie-talkies?
this seems unlikely and highly speculative, IMO. Does Marty care so much whether or not he looks like contruction workers or not that he would do this? does Michael J Fox care so much about getting into character that he would purposefully portray a detail so arcane that only the nittiest of nitpickers would notice it? I suppose both statements are possible, but I just don't see it.
>Why didn't they just use a more expensive looking prop? They could have borrowed their own (movie crew) walkie talkies for those scenes!
I think the point was to show them using something that could be easily purchased in 1950's suburbia, to fit in with the nostalgic theme of the movie. We all had cheap radio shack style walkie talkies as kids, so seeing Marty and Doc use this sort of walkie talkie to organize their efforts is kinda cool. Now I'm the one being speculative, but it works for me.
it just goes to show that some nitpicks are in enough of a gray area that reasonable people can honestly disagree about them. It just seemed interesting to me that while we agreed that they were multiple nitpicks, we had completely opposite opinions on the nitpicks themselves.
Title : What kind of nightclub has people out dancing at 3 in the afternoon.
Category : Comedy
Movie : Encino Man - 1992
Detail :
Right after they take the Driver's-Ed car, they go into the bar that is hoppin'! I don't know of any bars that have a bumpin' dance floor at 3(ish) in the afternoon. Or earlier even, I'm assuming the drivers-ed is an after school activity. It's just wierd.
The submitter admits that "[they] don't know of any bars that have a bumpin' dance floor at 3(ish) in the afternoon." If it's beyond the submitter's knowledge or experience, I suppose it must be impossible.
On that, I admit that I don't know this movie or the exact kind of club. But I do know that some clubs in major cities are essentially open 24 hours to accommodate people with different, uh, needs and schedules. As the song says, "New York, New York ... the city that never sleeps." That applies to many other places.
Title : Spelling of Neil Daniels
Category : Action
Movie : Bourne Ultimatum, The - 2007
Detail : Not a very interesting nitpick but Neal Daniels name in the CIA records is Neal Daniels then changes to Neil Daniels later on.
It's too bad this person began with "Not a very interesting nitpick but". W/o that phrase, I think it's a good nitpick (also noted at us.imdb.com). Even if people note that, via the Freedom of Information Act, they have found errors in their own CIA, FBI and other government files (making such spelling errors "within character [of government record keeping]", I still think it's a good catch and, if edited, belongs in the dbase.
This nitpick is already posted:
Submitted by Nitpicker : Anonymous
Movie : Strictly Ballroom - 1992
Nitpick Category : Other
Nitpick Number : 9377
Approximate time of Nitpick : 1/4 of the way through
Summary : Eyesight miracly cured
Detail : What really confuses me about this movie, is that, even though it is an excellent movie, what I dont understand is if Fran can do without glases for the rest of the movie after Scott asks her if she can, why does she wear them in the first place? And the same applies to her face and clothes- Instant no pimple cream and a new wardrobe?
First of all, the movie is about change and awakening. The change in physical appearances is symbolic of the emotional process. The changes are not instantaneous but occur over several (6? 8? 10?) weeks. At the beginning, Fran had no motivation or "training" to concern herself with her appearance. As the movie progresses, that becomes more important to achieving her goal: to dance in the competition with Scott. She becomes more aware of and dedicated to that aspect of her life. Makeup, medicines, nutrition (we aren't shown a change in eating habits but it's reasonable to assume she improved her diet on the recommendation of the professional ballroom dancers such as Scott), ...
Depending on her Rx, she may only need glasses for some purposes (reading?) and can get along adequately or better than just adequately without them. (Some people wear their glasses out of habit or to avoid misplacing them, even though they only need to use them part of the time.) We don't need to be shown a closeup of Fran reading something with her glasses on to accommodate this possibility.
Her complexion is partially the result of learning makeup arts(?) from Scott's mother and the other dancers. She is probably taking better care of herself as the dance deadlines approach. To go sci-tech-med (without specific references), her life is changing and she is now dancing up close to Scott several hours a day, not her former partner in beginners' class, the chubby girl. Raging hormones can alter one's complexion (for better or for worse). (E.g., exposure to male sweat alters female hormone levels: Wyart C, Webster WW, Chen JH, Wilson SR, McClary A, Khan RM, Sobel N. "Smelling a single component of male sweat alters levels of cortisol in women." J Neurosci. 2007 Feb 7; 27(6):1261-5.)
Within the context of this film and the characters, ANYBODY can change their clothes for any reason whatsoever, so there is nothing impossible about that, even if it bothers the submitter.
So let's see:
(1) this is a multiple (eyeglasses, complexion, clothing)
(2) changing clothes is not a nitpick
(3) complexion is, I think, sci-tech-med-cosmetics possible and reasonable
(4) vision is, I think, possible and reasonable
(5) The submitter is bothered by the writer-director's subtle physical cues to emotional change. Not a nitpick.
I say, "Refute."
>I say, "Refute."
I agree. This nitpick is worthless.
> I agree. This nitpick is worthless.
Aren't they all anymore?
By geode
Date 2008-09-05 22:13
Nah. Just the Anonymous ones.
I have elsewhere posted a possible nitpick on Day for Night:
here and
here.
I can't find Day for Night in the movie list. If someone wants to check this possible nitpick, you're welcome to have it and submit it.
It's been literally weeks since anyone posted anything here; the cobwebs are thick!
By nitpickabc
Date 2008-08-25 04:20
Edited 2008-08-25 04:31
I can't find the movie
Secret Passage (2004) in the list of movies.
According to
this source, the movie takes place in 1492 but the characters refer to "Prince Rupert's Drops" ~140 years before they were known by that name. Not my nitpick; just passing it along to anyone who wants to get the movie and the nitpick into the system.
Oops. Also already noted as a goof at
IMDB.
Title : Who adds a musical score to their aversion therepy?
Category : Sci-Fi
Movie : Clockwork Orange, A - 1971
Detail :
The Ludovico treatment is an aversion therepy whereby the patient is forced to watch the horribly graphic rapes, assaults and other acts of violence while suffering from the effects of a drug that causes a severe panic, feeling of impending death or other highly distressfull symptoms. The patient is supposed to assimilate the sensations and then become incapacitated or very ill whenever attempting to perform or even just witnessing such acts of violence. Why would a psychologist add a background score to a film used in this type of aversion therepy. Is it supposed to make the patient tap his toes while feeling like he is going to die? There is no reason to spend the time, expense or trouble to add music. If anything it would make the treatment less effective.
I have not seen this movie lately. Nevertheless ...
1. Psychological theories come and go. Perhaps theory and practice at that time were to include music or music of which the patient was particularly fond. They used to do a lot of lobotomies and lobectomies, but not so much anymore.
2. Was this one of those things where the psychiatrist was deliberately trying to hurt Alex by making him hate the music he once loved? I don't remember if the doctor made such intentions clear. Maybe he slipped in the sound track on purpose, hoping it wouldn't be noticed by others in the hope of getting kind of a two-for-one Ludovico special: violence AND music.
3. SPOILER ALERT: I thought the inclusion of the music score was a DELIBERATE flaw that allowed the character to break away from the system later in the film. No musical "flaw", no such plot twist.
Basically, I disagree with this nitpick.
Action consistent ...?
Essential for the plot ...?
I agree with your assessment and I have to point out that we have long said that second guessing the director without specific facts is not a basis for a nitpick.
But of course, who cares anymore?
Title : Silver Shoes
Category : Drama
Movie : Twelve Monkeys - 1995
Detail :
The woman psychiatrist clearly wears silver shoes at the begining of the movie. However when she walks through the police station ( perhaps an hour later, at the most) she is wearing black shoes. If continuity prevailed they would be silver. This cannot therefore be a trick of lighting. Therefore this nitpick is valid.
"Therefore this nitpick is valid." = Plea?
Other submissions on Twelve Monkeys refer to time travel controversies:
Title : time travel
Category : Drama
Movie : Twelve Monkeys - 1995
Detail :
Fact: time travel does not involve movement. You travel in time and through time but your body does not move. Time travel is a temporal only travel. So, logically, if JC travels in time, which he does, then he should always find himself in the cellar, or even worse, twenty feet underground.
"Fact: time travel" in the real world (cf., science fiction world) is not yet known. Because it is fictional, the writer can define his own time travel "reality".
Possible within the techo / magic of the movie?
Essential / reasonable?
Title : metaphysical doubles.
Category : Drama
Movie : Twelve Monkeys - 1995
Detail :
Fact: There is and can only be one JC. Change his clothes, his hair, his voice, his time his place. But you cannot change the essential phyisical identity of the person. This is called "ridgid designation." But in the movie we see TWO JC's. But this is not possible, although its quite easy to say and imagine. But this is merely sleazy metaphysical thinking. What did the boy see at the airport? Well he either saw nothing at all, for it was all a dream, or he saw a man, not himself, fall and die. Could there be two JC's in the the same universe? No. For there is only one JC, although, perhaps he could be a Quinean time-worm. Hence the assasination was not paradoxical, it was impossible.
"Fact:" This is a sci-fi thriller. "Could there be two JCs in the same universe?" If the writer's Hollywood time travel physics allows or requires more than one JC, then the answer is "Yes!" The movie appears to prove that.
If the submitter will also submit their time travel machine and experimental results as proof of the claimed "facts", I think the nitpick could be more easily validated. In the meantime, "Possible within the techno / magical"? (We need another new vote:) "This is a nitpick website, not a philosophy class at Princeton."
>"This is a nitpick website, not a philosophy class at Princeton."
Um...Princeton? I think you give that dude a bit too much credit. That's some community-college level philosophy right there. Maybe even PennCo Tech.
> >"This is a nitpick website, not a philosophy class at Princeton."
>
> Um...Princeton? I think you give that dude a bit too much credit. That's some community-college level philosophy right there. Maybe even PennCo Tech.
"Rigid designator" is out of the work of
Saul Kripke, his 1970 Princeton Lectures which became
Naming and Necessity (1980).
This would have to be the work of a not-very-good Princeton philosophy student. As far as I know, Saul Kripke's work doesn't address the mutability of physical objects. This is just someone quoting a term Kripke used. And, to say it's worthy of a lower-echelon community college implies it's not worthy of a Princeton philosophy class.
By nitpickabc
Date 2008-09-07 07:08
Edited 2008-09-07 07:10
> > > Um...Princeton? I think you give that dude a bit too much credit. That's some community-college level philosophy right there. Maybe even PennCo Tech.
> > "Rigid designator" is out of the work of Saul Kripke, his 1970 Princeton Lectures which became Naming and Necessity (1980).
> This would have to be the work of a not-very-good Princeton philosophy student. As far as I know, Saul Kripke's work doesn't address the mutability of physical objects. This is just someone quoting a term Kripke used. And, to say it's worthy of a lower-echelon community college implies it's not worthy of a Princeton philosophy class.
Princeton was not a random choice; it was to acknowledge the connection between rigid designator and Kripke at Princeton, not to imply that it was grade A nitpicking or philosophical reasoning. I then replied to geode with the links just in case he had not made the connection. But I agree with both you and geode about the quality of the reasoning and the writing. However, at Harvard it would still get an A.
(Back handed reference to grade inflation in the Ivy League.)
By geode
Date 2008-09-07 17:55
>However, at Harvard it would still get an A.
Well-played...
