|
I'm getting really really sick of people yelling "NOOOOOOOO!" when somebody dies. Its a pretty bad cliche but people still keep doing it time and again. Avengers did it too. Nobody does that in real life. Nobody yells "NO!!!" When they find out somebody died. They either get really quiet for awhile and try to processes it, or maybe they start crying. But nobody yells. Murphy Brownback posted:I just watched a fairly bad movie called "Killing Season" with Robert Deniro and John Travolta playing a Serbian guy who is mad about something Deniro did during the war and is trying to kill him. Throughout the course of the movie each of them has the other one completely powerless and ready to kill, but they keep talking and dicking around, giving the other a chance to get the upper hand and escape. This happens like 5 times each. Stop talking, kill the guy. You don't have to get your dramatic monologue in before you do it, just get it over with. Once again, I absolutely love the ending scene from Watchmen. Its like one of the greatest lines in the history of fiction. "Do it? Dan, I'm not a Republic Serial villain. Do you seriously think I'd explain my master-stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting its outcome? I did it thirty-five minutes ago." There's not enough   in the world to respond to that line.The other classic counterexample would be from Austin Powers. "I have a gun, in my room. You give me five seconds, I'll get it, I'll come back down here, BOOM, I'll blow their brains out!" Both work so well only because Hollywood has gotten absolutely insane about that cliche. It just makes no sense.
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Nobody does that in real life. Nobody yells "NO!!!" When they find out somebody died. They either get really quiet for awhile and try to processes it, or maybe they start crying. But nobody yells. I get what you're saying and I also think it's a terrible cliche, but it does happen in real life. My best friend's husband collapsed and after 12 hours in ICU hooked up to every device they had the Dr. came out and told her he had passed, never regaining conciousness, she shouted "NO! NO! NO!", and then this 38 year old, strong woman curled up in her mother's lap and rocked back and forth just crying "no no no" for the next 15 minutes in the ICU sitting room. It totally happens, especially when everything is happening suddenly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Nooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
flosofl posted:I get what you're saying and I also think it's a terrible cliche, but it does happen in real life. My best friend's husband collapsed and after 12 hours in ICU hooked up to every device they had the Dr. came out and told her he had passed, never regaining conciousness, she shouted "NO! NO! NO!", and then this 38 year old, strong woman curled up in her mother's lap and rocked back and forth just crying "no no no" for the next 15 minutes in the ICU sitting room. It totally happens, especially when everything is happening suddenly. Denial is called the first stage of grief for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
flosofl posted:I get what you're saying and I also think it's a terrible cliche, but it does happen in real life. My best friend's husband collapsed and after 12 hours in ICU hooked up to every device they had the Dr. came out and told her he had passed, never regaining conciousness, she shouted "NO! NO! NO!", and then this 38 year old, strong woman curled up in her mother's lap and rocked back and forth just crying "no no no" for the next 15 minutes in the ICU sitting room. It totally happens, especially when everything is happening suddenly. Fair enough, but there's still a world of difference between "NO! HE'S NOT DEAD! NO NO NO NO! HE CAN'T BE!" crying and flailing and being held, veresus "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" while falling to the ground shaking your fists at the sky. Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eal4fep7pK4 (Some of these that aren't straight "NOOOOO" are actually okay) Zaphod42 has a new favorite as of 18:49 on Jun 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:DeNOal is called the first stage of grief for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Everyone complaining about people monologuing or not taking the chance to kill their enemies when they have the chance should watch "Blue Ruin".
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:
If you're talking about the movie I hate how they had him knock ozy down and punch him a bit, just to ease up on the blue balls they gave the audience expecting a climactic showdown. Yeah, well, i hit you some, so don't do it again, jerk!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:If you're talking about the movie I hate how they had him knock ozy down and punch him a bit, just to ease up on the blue balls they gave the audience expecting a climactic showdown. Yeah, well, i hit you some, so don't do it again, jerk! The whole film was full of ham handed scenes like that. Hollis Mason fighting back and knocking the teeth out of the Top-Knots who attack him for one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
ChogsEnhour posted:Everyone complaining about people monologuing or not taking the chance to kill their enemies when they have the chance should watch "Blue Ruin". I feel like when I go to canistream.it the answer is no for literally every movie I try lately but for some reason this is on netflix so i'm 20 minutes in and this is a good movie so far but drat this guy is leaving evidence everywhere. I couldn't tell if you wanted people to watch this movie because he'd say nothing when he killed someone or because 80% of the movie was him explaining why he was going to do it but now I know. Like if someone said they hated mexican stand offs I'd tell them to watch a few dollars more because it has the best mexican stand off in it. e:haha goddamn I've never seen someone who attempted field surgery from a wound they can't go to the hospital or police for, give up because it hurts so goddamn much and go to the hospital anyway. In every movie when an Anton Chigurh type bears down and starts digging out a bullet and sewing up a wound they grimly and stoically continue until the job is done and they're back on the hunt. This guy gets 80% through it and passes out in the emergency room. This movie is great. Krinkle has a new favorite as of 11:37 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 11:06
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:Yeah, well, i hit you some, so don't do it again, jerk! Super stole this shamelessly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 11:27
|
|
|
Oh yeah, sorry. WATCH Blue Ruin, it's great and the guy is a super goon so him loving up is kinda the point. I didn't explain why I mentioned it in regards to monologues, because it's kind of a spoiler? But for those interested... The monologue bit comes at the end. A long lost pal of his gives him a gun and tells him to just shoot the people he's out to kill. He specifically says DON'T MONOLOGUE... but as you can guess he does and then he gets flanked.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:Super stole this shamelessly. Do you mean the movie from 2010? How so? The wikipedia plot summary just says he delivered a monologue at the end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 11:56
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:Do you mean the movie from 2010? How so? The wikipedia plot summary just says he delivered a monologue at the end. I was mostly being joke-y, but Super has a sequence where the hero whacks thieves, drug dealers and child molesters with his wrench and tells them "Don't steal/deal with drugs/molest children!" as they are lying bleeding on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 12:02
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:I was mostly being joke-y, but Super has a sequence where the hero whacks thieves, drug dealers and child molesters with his wrench and tells them "Don't steal/deal with drugs/molest children!" as they are lying bleeding on the ground. ChogsEnhour posted:Oh yeah, sorry. WATCH Blue Ruin, it's great and the guy is a super goon so him loving up is kinda the point. I didn't explain why I mentioned it in regards to monologues, because it's kind of a spoiler? But for those interested... I feel like he was going to end it later anyway, he wanted to be dead, he just wanted to make sure his sister wasn't going to be collateral.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 12:22
|
|
|
Mentioning Super made me think of an irrationally irritating movie moment: I am irritated that most superhero movies kill off their villains. Recurring villains are great in comics, not just because they're fun characters but because it's a pretty direct indictment of the effectiveness of the heroes. Batman punches some schmuck and foils his plans, then the schmuck gets send to prison/hospital. Five issues later the schmuck is back again, highlighting how utterly pointless the whole thing really is. I feel most movies chicken out on commenting on this by just killing off all the schmucks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
They left the Joker alive in Dark Knight and look how that worked out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:They left the Joker alive in Dark Knight and look how that worked out. I know you're joking, but they could have at least dropped a line about Joker's whereabouts in Dark Knight Rises, even if it was just to tell us that he got shanked in prison. I liked that he wasn't a focal point of the movie because his story was done and the actor died and whatnot, but glossing over his existence completely ignores all the wonderful  of recurring villains in comic books.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
Joking aside part of the reason why it doesn't happen more often is probably because actors need to be available, and anyway having a recurring villain in film is on a whole other scale than in comics. To some extent superhero stories are all about the villains. You don't like Bane, you can skip a month of Batman comics or two until another storyarc starts, but in the movies it's tough luck, buster, because there won't be another Batman film for three years and Bane's the only game in town. (X-Men did a pretty good job of it, incidentally. But then again, in the words of Monica Rambeau, X-Men come back from death more than Jesus anyway.) But another part of the reason and one I also find irrationally irritating is this convention that villains in action movies die at the end, because prison is too good for them and anyway they'd get away with it (probably assisted by a slimy attorney) so it needs a red-blooded man with common sense to put the bad guy down. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
I actually forgot about the X-Men movies, which are funny for almost always having a secondary villain besides Magneto who dies. And in the case of Stryker they brought him back anyway, twice, even though it happened in prequels.quote:To some extent superhero stories are all about the villains. You don't like Bane, you can skip a month of Batman comics or two until another storyarc starts, but in the movies it's tough luck, buster, because there won't be another Batman film for three years and Bane's the only game in town. This makes a lot of sense, I hadn't thought about it that way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
Just look at the reactions when they announce one. It's all "who's going to be the villain, it needs to be X, X needs to be in the next one"... the audience as a whole wants to see the entire rogues' gallery on screen and for most comics there's a lot of choice. It's already the standard to have at least two villains per film. (Although that doesn't force writers and directors to kill off the villains, per se...)
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:(X-Men did a pretty good job of it, incidentally. But then again, in the words of Monica Rambeau, X-Men come back from death more than Jesus anyway.) Jesus has only come back from the dead once (to date), so how is this unique to the x-men? What comic book characters haven't died and come back at least once? It's got to be a pretty small list.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
The old saying was "Nobody stays dead except Bucky, Jason Todd and Uncle Ben." The first 2 are alive again. One notable one though is the Thor character Skurge, who was killed in a heroic sacrifice in 1985 and is still dead today. Though being part of the Thor comics with Valhallas and Hels he has made appearances since.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:Mentioning Super made me think of an irrationally irritating movie moment: I am irritated that most superhero movies kill off their villains. Recurring villains are great in comics, not just because they're fun characters but because it's a pretty direct indictment of the effectiveness of the heroes. Batman punches some schmuck and foils his plans, then the schmuck gets send to prison/hospital. Five issues later the schmuck is back again, highlighting how utterly pointless the whole thing really is. I feel most movies chicken out on commenting on this by just killing off all the schmucks. Its a flaw with the movie format. You get 2 hours of intense action and story building with an audience that is there every second of the ride, but then you have to end it and you can't pick it up again for a couple years. It inherently limits the story format and prevents you from doing a comic-book style serial. Which is why comic book tv shows are popping up now. That's how you can actually do a serial with recurring villains and see how it impacts the characters over time. You just don't have time to fit that in a movie, you need a breath between episodes and more overall runtime. Its the same thing with zombies. All the zombie movies would have the zombie outbreak, the initial survival, a few people die, there's a struggle, and then in the end the hero survives, the end, roll credits. Which is why the creator of The Walking Dead comic made it, in the preface to the comic he explained he wanted to see more, he wanted to find out what happened to the people you grew familiar with in zombie movies, what do they become after they survive? How do they change when that's not just one bad day, but instead becomes the day-to-day? So he made a comic instead of a movie (which then spawned a show). I've only watched Daredevil, not The Flash or Arrow (because they look a bit cheesy) but TV shows are where comic book stories really belong. The only other alternative is with massive cinematic-universe style productions, which sometimes works out great (Avengers) and sometimes not so great (Avengers 2). I still think Days of Future Past is the only movie or tv show to really feel like a comic-book story in its pacing and plot, though. My Lovely Horse posted:But another part of the reason and one I also find irrationally irritating is this convention that villains in action movies die at the end, because prison is too good for them and anyway they'd get away with it (probably assisted by a slimy attorney) so it needs a red-blooded man with common sense to put the bad guy down. This also creates a really childish black and white morality system which is super boring. That's what makes things like Batman the comics so fun, his eternal struggle. If he just puts bad guys in jail, they just break out. But if he kills them then he's not really much better than they are. Sure, he would be killing criminals while they kill innocents, but its a thin line. That itself forms pretty much the backbone of Batman. That's the challenge of being a 'good guy' in the real world instead of the Adam West cartoon world. And yet in movies we don't have time for that. We need the payoff of seeing the bad guy get his, and Hollywood thinks that grey morality is too much for American audiences which need everything in the plot to be spelled out in neon letters. Zaphod42 has a new favorite as of 17:07 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
I recently watch this terrible, but entertaining, movie called Last Knights. It stars Clive Owen and Morgan Freeman and takes place in a fantasy medieval world. Morgan Freemen is killed by the bad guy so Clive Owen and his knights plan an assassination/heist. This is a very elaborate plan where the have to do it stealthily and not alert any guards. A man on the inside gives the bad guy a mirror as a gift. One of the knights is hiding in. This knight has to open the main gate from the inside so Clive Owen and the rest of the knights can get into the castle and kill the bad guy. It would've saved a lot of trouble if they just hid Clive Owen in the mirror to begin with. There was even a time where the bad guy was standing in front of the mirror admiring it without any guards around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Ego-bot posted:I recently watch this terrible, but entertaining, movie called Last Knights. Isn't this just a re-telling of The Forty Seven Ronin? (not the Keaneu Reeves movie, the actual Japanese legend)
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:The old saying was "Nobody stays dead except Bucky, Jason Todd and Uncle Ben." There's also the fact that nobody knows who the hell Skurge is. Also Gwen Stacy stayed pretty dead, although there is now an alternate universe version of her running around as Spider woman.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
In Over the Top, Stallone's truck has a "Passing Side" mud flap on the left and a "Suicide" mud flap on the right. But the movie shows the close-up of the Suicide mud flap first and fucks up the whole joke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 13:00
|
|
|
Pneub posted:In Over the Top, Stallone's truck has a "Passing Side" mud flap on the left and a "Suicide" mud flap on the right. But the movie shows the close-up of the Suicide mud flap first and fucks up the whole joke. This got me thinking about Arm Wrestling which in turn got me thinkign about "In Time" and the stupid arm wrestling thing they do in that film. Now, let's just get this out of the way from the get go... The whole drat film is stupid as poo poo. It's be an interesting idea if somebody, ANYBODY put a few seconds(hah) thought into how the world would work and function, but anyway... In Time tells the tale of Justin Timberland living in a dystopian future where you are paid in "time" theres a wee chip or something in your arm that is constantly counting down and when it hits 00:00 you die. You want to buy a soda? That's twenty minutes. New album? Two hours. Someone probably came up with this idea when someone told him, "Hey man, you know like, smoking a cigarette takes twenty minutes off your life span y'know." Now two people are able to give each other time. They do a kind of "Roman Handshake" where you both grab the other persons lower arm so your arms interlock and the "chips" or whatever touch. Whoever is on top "absorbs" the time from whoever is underneath. Thing is you can't turn this feature off so peopel can be "drained" and it's how Justin gets a million years or something. Either way, Justin is an expert at this kind of arm wrestling because he has a special technique. What he does is he lets the other person drain him until he has, maybe a minute left, then he turns their arms over and drains them instead! How? How does that work? Justin says it's because when the person who is winning is about to kill him they take their eyes off his face to look at their "time stamp" growing and when they're distracted he gains the upper hand. (so to speak) But here's the problem. If Justin is strong enough to wrestle his opponants arm over to gain back all his time AND the opponants, why not just do that from the begining? It's not like the time speeds up the more it's transfered. I could understand if it sped up so you want to conserve your energy for the last seconds so you get a million years in the space of a second... But no. It's a constant rate. It gets even STUPIDER because this whole thing comes from a gangster who is a "time thief" who enters bars and arm wrestles dudes to steal their life. because there's no button or failsafes to turn off (the rich guy who gives Justin a million years does it when jusitn is asleep) so why doesn't the mobster just take the time by gunpint, or find drunks passed out in alleyways. You COULD argue that it'd be like an expert poker shark threatening you to put your life savings into a game he knows he'll win, but I'm sure THAT's illegal... Maybe. I don't know. gently caress it, whilst I'm on a roll here's another thing. We meet the big bad guy. The dude who is like, five thousand years old because he invented this way of life back in the day or whatever and he looks about 12. NOW, maybe other people will disagree but what if instead of remaining perfectly pristine at the age of 22 these "in Time" chips just really, REALLY slowed down the aging process instead and this big, evil dude was played by an older actor. Immediately you have a visual cue of "Oh hey, something's hosed up here. Why is he old?" with the additional bonus of a villain who doesn't look like he's late for his afternoon nap. You could say that I waste to much time thinking about IN TIME. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
ChogsEnhour posted:Someone probably came up with this idea when someone told him, "Hey man, you know like, smoking a cigarette takes twenty minutes off your life span y'know." Have you never heard any proverbs that liken time to money? Like the classic "Time is money"? Because that's all there is to it, I think. The people behind In Time heard somebody say that, looked at each other and then spent two hours patting each other on the back and filmed that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
Yeah I was already full rambling by that point though plus that's how my mate explained it to me to get me to watch the film, which actually ended up like a coolder sounding film. "You know how long you have to live but every time you do something to gently caress up your innards like drinking a beer or smoking you can see the end date reduce in real time." As opposed to bitcoins in an arm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
ChogsEnhour posted:It gets even STUPIDER because this whole thing comes from a gangster who is a "time thief" who enters bars and arm wrestles dudes to steal their life. because there's no button or failsafes to turn off (the rich guy who gives Justin a million years does it when jusitn is asleep) so why doesn't the mobster just take the time by gunpint, or find drunks passed out in alleyways. You COULD argue that it'd be like an expert poker shark threatening you to put your life savings into a game he knows he'll win, but I'm sure THAT's illegal... Maybe. I don't know. I'm pretty sure he spent more time mugging people and stealing their money. We definitely see him jump a few people and eventually shoot a guy that wouldn't cooperate. I think there was a thing with the arm wrestling where it ticked faster if you turned the arms more. So he'd let the guy barely win while his last seconds ticked down, then slam his arm on the table and hold it while they went faster. It's been a few years though. My irritating thing is that I saw it at a theatre in Japan and the subtitles didn't bother translating all the little time/money jokes, so I was the only one chuckling in a silent theatre. Dr_Amazing has a new favorite as of 15:07 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
I haven't seen it since it came out but I'm sure it doesn't tick fast the longer the game goes on which is why it annoyed me so much. See, I could understand if that was how it worked but it didn't appear to happen. Maybe it was bad direction, but there were no visual cues and the only thing that Justin says is, "Everyone takes their eyes off you to look at their clock when it get to the end, they lose concentration." And again even if the ticker DID speed up he'd still need to win back all HIS time AND the other guys time and no "lack of concentration" trick would assure he'd have a stronger arm for all that time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
ChogsEnhour posted:gently caress it, whilst I'm on a roll here's another thing. We meet the big bad guy. The dude who is like, five thousand years old because he invented this way of life back in the day or whatever and he looks about 12. NOW, maybe other people will disagree but what if instead of remaining perfectly pristine at the age of 22 these "in Time" chips just really, REALLY slowed down the aging process instead and this big, evil dude was played by an older actor. Immediately you have a visual cue of "Oh hey, something's hosed up here. Why is he old?" with the additional bonus of a villain who doesn't look like he's late for his afternoon nap. The rest of your complaints seem pretty valid and that movie sounds both interesting and terrible so I kinda wanna watch it now. But this part, without having seen the movie makes no sense to me. Its actually a pretty cool twist to have the big bad eons-old villain be a 12 year old kid. (If I'm understanding you right) They pulled the same thing in Cowboy Bebop with Giraffe, Zebra, and Wen. And I thought it was a really cool twist. Or in Interview with the Vampire, sorta.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
He's not literally 12. Everyone stops aging when they're 22, I think. He just looks really young and yeah, just a personal thing. I got a bit visually bored by everything and thought it would have been a bit of a change. even if he was maybe, played by a 40 year old or had a wrinkle or two. I guess you'd have to see the film to get the fatigue after seeing everyone is young and beautiful (and I get what they were going for) but when the bad guy is revealed and he's... Oh, another young and beautiful person. It just felt like it could have had a bit more weight behind it. I know what you mean with Kirsten dunst in Interview, but imagine if ALL Vampires were babies but if they were born in the prehistoric times they were I dunno, 18 or something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
In Time was an awful movie, but out of all the impossibly stupid things about it, for some reason the one that bugs me the most is that at a certain point in the movie they make a big deal about the fact that running is a sign of being poor because the poor people need to run everywhere since their time is so precious whereas rich people can stroll around because they'll live forever. The idea itself is kind of cool, but if you watch the people around the main characters whenever they're in a poor area, they're never running. Never. They're just strolling around like average real-life 21st century people do. I think it bugs me because it could have been a cool cultural difference but actually it's just something that's convenient to the plot that no one involved in the movie actually thought about carrying through.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
ChogsEnhour posted:He's not literally 12. Everyone stops aging when they're 22, I think. He just looks really young and yeah, just a personal thing. I got a bit visually bored by everything and thought it would have been a bit of a change. even if he was maybe, played by a 40 year old or had a wrinkle or two. I guess you'd have to see the film to get the fatigue after seeing everyone is young and beautiful (and I get what they were going for) but when the bad guy is revealed and he's... Oh, another young and beautiful person. It just felt like it could have had a bit more weight behind it. Yeah if everybody is that way then its not a twist, so that defeats it. I gotcha. That movie sounds like a weird take on Logan's Run.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
The thing that irritated me the most about In Time was the ridiculous poker scene where he makes idiotic moves and gets all smug about how he knew the other guy was weak the whole time (despite the fact that he had the second best possible hand and was winning before the final card). Actually pretty much all movie poker scenes, especially when it involves "reading" the other person, irritate me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Murphy Brownback posted:The thing that irritated me the most about In Time was the ridiculous poker scene where he makes idiotic moves and gets all smug about how he knew the other guy was weak the whole time (despite the fact that he had the second best possible hand and was winning before the final card). Actually pretty much all movie poker scenes, especially when it involves "reading" the other person, irritate me. Yeah almost all movie poker is horribly designed and only works on people who don't even understand the rules. Its one of those things like movie hacking terms and science where they could just hire one guy for one day to approve some lines and make sure everything sounds good, but nope, gently caress it. I think when it comes to hacking stuff Hollywood Writers are intentionally trying to antagonize programmers with bullshit. I don't remember the exact hands but I think I was pretty disappointed in the poker in Casino Royale, for instance. Its a pretty big plot element and yet its pretty clumsy with the bets and hands. Le Chiffre is supposed to be a math genius and he HAS to win, and yet he makes some really stupid plays against Bond. And Bond is also pretty careless even though he's some poker savant apparently. Anybody who has played texas holdem once or twice should be able to spot how this poo poo doesn't make sense. Which in the days of internet poker is like 80% of America. You'd think the writers could come up with something a little better. But its all poo poo like betting big and early on weak hands, getting super lucky cards on the river, etc. Really dumb play that just happens to work because its a movie. Zaphod42 has a new favorite as of 16:37 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
No I'm pretty sure better poker players just get better cards. World Champion Poker basically always ends on a royal flush.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 18:03
|
|