Major Pandora Plothole!

SeuLunga wrote:

adninsreaction wrote:Sorry Jim...but you are wrong...because last night, while I was cleaning out my closet, I found a small wooden door...upon entry I was sucked into the mind of Tex Murphy...and it was at the very moment he was sneaking up on Dag Horton...I then realized it was more than a game, and that Chandler Ave. is a whole other universe that has not been discovered by humans until now....after the fight, I was thrust from Tex's head and I landed out off of the Jersey Turnpike...

how are your plans of being a master puppeteer coming?

Not very well...I have no coordination and I'm too lazy to put in the effort...but damnit I wanna learn!!

I gotta agree with ya Jim. It's kinda like when people watch certain movies and point of the obscurities from scene to scene...."Did you see that, he was facing east in this frame and when it came back he was turned north..." "Her hair is up in this frame and in the next shot she has her hair down.." WHO CARES?!?!?!

In some films that sort of things ticks me off. Like in Nothing To Lose, when John C. McGinley flicks a lit cigarette at Martin Lawrence and Tim Robbins during a car chase scene. And in the next frame, the cigarette is back in his mouth.

Some things I can take, like someone's hairdo or the way they're facing. But major things screw up the continuity, and by extension, the illusion the film is supposed to be purveying.

Editing is a serious business, do it right the first time.

Also, in Clint Eastwood's The Rookie, the fight scene where Charlie Sheen is fighting some badguy in his own living room, and the camera spins around the fight for dramatic effect? And shows THE ENTIRE CREW IN THE BACKGROUND? Get rid of such things in editing, for heaven's sake!

-Fred

I think MarineDalek was right on about how Horton got onto the rooftops during the chase. Tex made it too easy for Horton by unlocking the door. Tex should have been able to relock the door after unlocking it unless Horton actually got up to the rooftop by being Spiderman, which I dont think was possible due to time constraints. However he could have used a speeder to get up there the time he left his jacket but maybe he wanted to go stealth and climb/pick the lock during those viewfinder sessions.

Also from MarineDalek

"imagine the reason for Tex/Mac not using a speeder to get up was that they didn't need to - in the case of Tex you discover a ladder and think "hey, where does this lead?" - you don't go outside on day one and think "Hey, let's look for Malloy on the roof of Rusty's! How do I get there?". I imagine the same was true for Malden and co. They were searching the Fun House and came across the secret room/ladder before they got around to searching the roof."

I'm fairly certain when you ask Mac Malden about Rusty's Rooftop in the game he says the cops wanted to find a way up there before discovering the secret room with the trap door.

Fred Buer wrote:In some films that sort of things ticks me off. Like in Nothing To Lose, when John C. McGinley flicks a lit cigarette at Martin Lawrence and Tim Robbins during a car chase scene. And in the next frame, the cigarette is back in his mouth.

Some things I can take, like someone's hairdo or the way they're facing. But major things screw up the continuity, and by extension, the illusion the film is supposed to be purveying.

Editing is a serious business, do it right the first time.

Also, in Clint Eastwood's The Rookie, the fight scene where Charlie Sheen is fighting some badguy in his own living room, and the camera spins around the fight for dramatic effect? And shows THE ENTIRE CREW IN THE BACKGROUND? Get rid of such things in editing, for heaven's sake!

-Fred

Couldn't agree more in that... There was a movie just recently that I watched that had a scene in it where there were 3 guys in a canoe and they started splashing each other... In the first scene the guy in the front had a button down shirt on {not buttoned though} with a blue tank top on underneath... They started splashing each other with the paddles and in the next scene the guy in the front was in just his tank top, the button down shirt no where to be scene, then they cut back to a 3rd scene and he was wearing the button down shirt again...
Without A Paddle was the movie and Matthew Lillard is the guy in the front of the Canoe that does the shirt flip-flop...
It happens about 15-20 minutes into the movie, maybe even a half hour... Shortly after they start their Journey down the river...

Just my opinion...but, if you're paying that much attention to details like that, then you really aren't catching the idea watching the movie for the movie...I can understand if you've watched the movie a bunch of times and then you start noticing it...but let's all be honest with ourselves...nobody here has watched without a paddle more than half a time.....

Actually it's the other way around... If you aren't paying attention to Details, you aren't really paying attention to the movie...

Also you can disregard my comment about relocking Rusty's door because Tex should have just used the speeder in the first place. That is until they correct the glitch.

Bafitis wrote:Actually it's the other way around... If you aren't paying attention to Details, you aren't really paying attention to the movie...

That's rubbish.

If by details you mean; what continuity flaws are presented to the viewer in each shot, you are abviously paying attention to the wrong details.

Let's play with a fun example:

Darth Vader Says: "Luke, I am your father"
While at the same time you're thinking: "That light in the background was not flashing in the previous shot..."
And then you say out loud to your friends: "Wait, what did Darth Vader just say?"

And you just ruined Star Wars!

Kapiche?


I agree, it is good practise to ensure your continuity is mastered when producing a film... but if you have a tendancy to get distracted when watching a film by minor continuity flaws, then you are obviously not immersed enough in the main story to allow your brain to omit irellevant imformation (becuase scientifically, a brain which is paying close attention to certain events would automatically disregard those items of information it deems un-important, thus exemplifying undivided attention to the topic at hand).

Hypothetically, if you were banging Jessica Alba I highly doubt you would be thinking about the cheese sandwich you had for breakfast becuase, let's face it, your mind would otherwise be pre-occupied with more important matters. And if you are thinking of a cheese sandwich, I would seriously get help!

...but, if it is any consellation, you would make a good team member at trivia nights, but that's about it.


-Cub. =o)

To quote the great Luxan warrior Ka D'Argo - God is in the details.

-Fred

It is possible to watch a movie, look for the details and listen to the dialog at the same time... If you are able to pull everything you get a better since of the movie...
Granted in Without A Paddle, Lillard having his shirt on one moment in the canoe and then off the next and then back on has nothing to do with the story line...

Just because your eyes are paying attention to physical details doesn't mean your ears are turned off to what is being said... Not everyone is capable of Keen Observation, usually it is either a given talent or a hard learned one... Which is why only certain people become things like Lawyers, Detectives, and such, because they are capable of Keen Observation while not losing sight of what is going on around them...


To touch on what Fred said, I do a lot of Detail watching in my career and I don't think I've ever seen god in any of them... So I'm not sure what D'Argo was looking at when he said that... Details in a Stain Glass Window of a Church maybe???

Fred Buer wrote:In some films that sort of things ticks me off. Like in Nothing To Lose, when John C. McGinley flicks a lit cigarette at Martin Lawrence and Tim Robbins during a car chase scene. And in the next frame, the cigarette is back in his mouth.

Dood! Don't get me started on Nothing to Lose! What about after Tim Robbins blows a hole in and destroys those two hoodlums' crappy old car? The hoodlums carjack a station wagon from some dude, right? But lo and behold, when they arrive in town seeking revenge they're back in their crappy old car! Sheesh! Sorry, just had to get it out, didn't think you would have missed that one

Bests, Rockefeller

Actually, I did miss that one, because it's not in your face the same way, it's not shot-by-shot flaws, it's a continuity error that occurs a long time after a lot of other stuff happens. Granted, it's a bad flaw, but I didn't miss it because, like the Cubster says, my brain was too wrapped up in story.

If you want another, worse continuity error, check out the graphic novel / comic book series Transmetropolitan, by Warren Ellis and Darick Robertson (which also happens to be my very favorite comic) - It has a MAJOR continuity flaw, which I won't discuss here, but it's BIG.

However, I discard such trivialities because A) the story kicks more ass than six-legged spastic donkey-jockey and 2) Spider Jerusalem is king, pope and god rolled into one foul, cigarette-smoking, hard-drinking, cursing, morally bankrupt yet truthseeking bastard. And *he's* the good guy.

The only comic I know of that reaches the heights of Transmet, for purely my own sake here, is Preacher. Also, it would seem, that HBO has picked up Preacher for the small screen. I await more news eagerly.

Jen, you're a comics nut same as me, heard any word?

Also, about the Mac Malden and his cops not finding the way up to the roof, "Forever" in a cop's sense of the word is very relative. It can take "forever" to open a box of donuts. Therefore it may not have taken them as long as it might seem to find the hidden doorway. Also, it's only mentioned because in UAKM there is no doorway to the backroom, hence the game developers had to find some way to excuse the fact that the doorway had to be hidden. Making games isn't all about making stories, it's about making the stories work with both established fiction AND gameplay mechanics.

Finishing up, I'd like to add that the Access boys did a helluva job in that regard.

-Fred

Alright....I got one...and it's not one that I discovered..it's one that was was shown on DVD on tv ( I think )...

I've seen Back to the Future about a million times....in the scene where marty dresses up like "Darth Vadar" and makes George McFly listen to Van Halen at really loud volumes, trying to get him to ask Lorraine to the dance, it was pointed out that he has a hair dryer on his waist outside of his Bio-suit...well, someone actually emailed in and said..."THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!! Hair dryers weren't even invented back in the 50's!!!" So they proceed to show a cut scene from the dvd extras where Doc Brown is looking through Martys backpack and finds the hair dryer packed inside. But that scene was cut out because it didn't really need to be in the final version of the movie. Point being...who gives a crap about noticing a hair dryer that wasn't invented in the 50's being in a scene set in the 50's in a movie? IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!!!!! WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!

I'm hungry now.