Action/Adventure Aficionados discussion
Movies and Television
>
Logical inconsistencies
date
newest »
newest »
Lots of good points there Mike. It's one of the great divides between fiction and non-fiction. Fiction has to make sense, whereas non-fiction often doesn't. Non-fiction just is what it is. In my novels I try hard to ensure that nothing happens that wouldn't ring true.It's interesting, though, as you point out, that there are some very good books and movies that have inconsistencies. Perhaps it's a measure of good acting and storytelling when a project becomes a hit despite logical inconsistencies.
I recently watched "High Plains Drifter" again after many years, and I was struck by the fact that the "hero" commits mass murder plus rape within the first ten minutes! And nobody seemed too upset about it, other than the girl who fell for him anyway. Shows the value of a marquee actor and a good sound track!
Mod
I get that sometimes (especially in movies) they think that things like taking on the bad guys with a nail gin or having to buy a poor cheap gun makes the movie better. Still it can lead to problems.
By the way, speaking of hit stories that make logical sense, I just completed the latest novel in the "Dan Slater" series, "Nailed." If you'd like a free PDF in return for a review, let me know.
You're preaching to the choir here. I can take a few such things, but unless they go all out to make a comedy of it, like in "Red", the stupidity just becomes burdensome. It's why I can't read the Jack Reacher books.
Interesting. I've never read a "Jack Reacher" and perhaps you've saved me some time. Thanks!
Robert, here are my reviews for the first & second Jack Reacher books. See if the same stuff that bothers me bothers you. Spoilers are hidden, click on them if you want. They're not big ones. The second one ends with, "When a Tom Cruise movie is better than the book, then the book is drivel."https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
YMMV, of course. There are some pretty big holes in books that I love anyway.
Thanks for a couple of informative reviews. As you point out, too much coincidence is a close relative of logical inconsistency. When writing fiction I try to follow Ian Fleming's old adage; once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times and it's enemy action!
Mod
However I don't think Charles Dickens ever heard of it.
You could make an entire topic of this kind about the latest Star Wars episode alone.
What? You mean "Star Wars" isn't a documentary?? :-)
Mod
I'd like to interject one thing: I suggest that the town, the townspeople, and the deeds of 'the stranger' (in 'High Plains Drifter') are all so quirky and unusual they may not make the best example to hang a hat on.Lots of other diss-worthy movies to choose from, though--for this kind of exercise...
Unfortunately, as for Denzel Washington--I scoff/scorn/slate everything about him. Never found him convincing as an actor, a citizen, or even as a man.
Mod
Yeah...he's always annoyed the heck outta me. Just being honest.
Mod
Agreed. A list of such figures would be very long indeed. Media lately is filled with people I wouldn't even wanna stand near in a bar.
lol I remember once I was in a bar and the bartender wanted to play like, 'diva music'. You know how some gay men are gaga for divas like Tina Turner, Marilyn Monroe, Sinead OConnor, Kate Bush, Judy Garland, Barbara Streisand, Fiona Apple, and all that?So I wanted to play classic rock on the jukebox and here's what he tells me: "Hate to say it but your taste in music sucks. I mean it really sucks. I'm just being honest with you, okay? It's terrible. Sorry, just being honest".
I looked at him, just astounded. Classic rock is played in 90% of this nation's saloons, any evening of the week.
I was like, "I sure 'ppreciate that pal. Thanks. But its not an issue of you being honest..you're crazy, that's the problem.."
Mod
Well I'm with ya on those tunes. Not my era, but Doo Wop had a very high ratio of quality to production. It impacted everything afterwards, too. So anyone with a breadth of taste for well-done music, should be familiar with that sound. I don't accept any excuses from people for their not knowing music history. Sure, most folks fixate on whatever they heard when they were growing up; but that's no reason to ignore how music in general, came into genesis. We still listen to symphony music and no one living today, was alive when that was being written. Some of my fave tunes are from Motown, but I never heard it as a child.Its just like last month I was on a date with a 21 yr old girl and she didn't know who Sean Connery is. Now that was a tough moment for me. Should I have slammed her for that? I let her slide but it suggested there was a lot more even more crucial info, which she was probably also lacking. She knew what 'James Bond' was, at least.
Of course, Connery is hardly mentioned at all anymore, but its like...well neither is Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was still the most important US leader ever, right? So you *should* know him, no matter what. Its all about sorting wheat from chaff. You can't ignore the 'pioneers' who made the difference to history, to focus on the 'followers' who don't matter.
Mod
Sorry, I think we got a bit off subject. LOL
Yeah. Well back to movies, I myself hardly ever notice loopholes or glitches. It shows the power of film that a story can have goofs and snags, but (if it's a strong, emotional, well-acted flick) you're usually carried right over them. Its in the flat, unengaging, unemotional type of flick; the 'dud' and the 'dog' type movies...that's where you find yourself stumbling over them and getting cross. Right now I can't hardly even name a major blunder; maybe because I've long ago stopped watching any movies which might disappoint me. I only go with sure-fire winners.
I have a minor quibble though; with the last bit of the Bond vs Red Grant train cabin scene (FRWL) ...which in every other way is one of my all-time favorite action sequences. Never get tired of watching it. Its amazingly well-edited. Except for the very last shot or so; which is where I wince. Bond has just finished Grant off, its one of the hardest fights he ever fought in his career and he sags against the doorjamb for a moment. My complaint: they just should have held that moment a wee, slight, minuscule few seconds longer. Connery should have been gulping for air, haggard, stunned, disoriented. Instead, its only 3 seconds before he smooths his hair back in place, straightens up, adjusts his tie and moved on. Cripes! Give him a moment to show us just how hard the battle was! Let us soak in what just happened!
Mod
Yes indeed. Less so in books, which is why Ian Fleming is more important to the Bond franchise than Sean Connery. However, it's also true that without Connery's charismatic acting skills the franchise never would have gotten anywhere near this far. Too bad Fleming missed seeing most of the juggernaut he created!
Well said. Someday the books should be filmed exactly 'as written', say in a cable-tv series or something. They wouldn't work as feature films. The writing is very fine...high-quality, quiet, measured, and sober. Not a ton of action. No hi-tech underground bases. Perfect for tv.Its unfortunate that the movies were scripted so 'luridly' but in retrospect ..its probably the only way it would've ever been a hit.
(p.s. I'm not talking about the classic argument about shooting them in the correct chronological order)
Mod
We probably all have our favorite Bond "actors" (though I doubt anyone puts Connery anywhere but first). There are also the "Bond Girls" and who likes who.
I remember as a kid noticing the difference in the book Bond andf the movie Bond. I guess it's good that I read the books before I saw any of the movies as that gave me the more book oriented Bond in my head. I think my clearest "memory" of Bond is holding his wife after she's killed. I doubt a lot of movie only fans know about that.
True, but that scene is in the movie. Although the one and only George Lazenby Bond movie is remembered more for the stunts and less for his acting, or Bond's wedding. However the book is probably the only Bond book that really follows a character transformation in the "Bond Girl". Tracy is less a cardboard cutout and more of a 3 dimensional "Bond Girl" than the others.Writing good action novels requires character driven plot lines where the action is a consequence of character motivation and less a goal in itself, in my opinion.
Mod
Frankly while I have enjoyed some of the more recent movies I don't think of them as Bond. It's more like it became a "code name" for whichever 00 agent is 007.
Yes, and when I watched "Skyfall" it occurred to me that the producers missed a good opportunity to admit that "James Bond" is a nom de plume for the spy, and that each 007 assumed that identity when his predecessor was killed. After all, if Daniel Craig owned the Aston Martin DB5, he certainly didn't own it from new! A logical inconsistency perhaps?And speaking of that, I think that when an author respects his characters enough to allow them to remain true to themselves, the action automatically has less "logical inconsistency" because the plot is driven by the self motivation, and often self preservation, of each character. When the clock ticks, the hands move, but the hands don't care what time it is; they only want the clock to keep ticking.
Mod
I mean probably my 2nd favorite Bond is Pierce Brosnan, still some things happen that strain belief, LOL. I mean riding an ejection seat from low altitude is very iffy in itself.
In a lot of cases (including the ones I listed first) we buy into the logic problems just because they give us dramatic situations. Dr. Evil was built on that and everyone goes on about the weird death traps Bond is left in. I don't care for the Austin Powers films but I did love "Scott Evil" going on about, "just shoot him, I've got a gun in my room, I'll go get it."
Then there's the "hanging onto the outside of a supersonic jet thing that some heroes do....
When they re-booted the series I swore up-and-down that they should have done a true-reboot, newly filming the stories in publication order, with each movie set in the timeperiod expressed in the book's setting. That would have been superb, thoughtful, and exciting. Authentic period cars and wardrobe, why not? A true remake, not this silly 'updating'.
Mod
Gotta break some eggs to make an omelette. . Gah! Despise this miserable 'whitewash' society we have...
You could probably write a sociology thesis just by tracking the evolution of societal norms evident when watching the James Bond movies in chronological order. And good concept, Feliks, with the idea of remaking the books into movies in period detail. I'd watch them, but I think it may be hard to find a studio willing to bet the money on it.Like Mike, I read all the books as a kid and loved them. But I suspect that re-reading them might hurt the magic they had for me back then. One detail that I always liked about Fleming, though, was that he went to the trouble of putting a title on each chapter. An eccentric little touch, but it showed the poet in the tough guy, and I suspect it was a tiny ingredient that helped them become best sellers.
My favourite Bond is still Sean Connery but I think that the best actor who has ever played the role is Daniel Craig. It's not such a stretch for Connery, in the day, to play a good looking super spy, but it is for Craig and he pulls it off masterfully. The only Bond actor I ever met is Roger Moore, and he is a consummate gentleman, humble, with a great sense of humour and that perfect Saville Row voice. I guess that's why they call it "acting" and not just "talking in front of a camera"!
another fun anecdote: some dweeb standing next to me in a bar was praising some fluke/unusual song of recent vintage--maybe a live version of a song--or a concert he had been to --where the performer had extended the song out to 11 or 15 minutes. This seemed astounding to him, unheard of, unparalleled in history. Beyond the pale. He honestly seemed to think that no songs were never any longer than 3 minutes, at most. I looked at him for several good long moments after taking in what he said. Not even really knowing what to say to such statements as he was making. Simply mind-boggling to me. I just sat there and sipped my beer for a while, marveling at this stooge.
If anything, it was like something a girl would say (unless Dead-heads, girls are rarely fans of extended jamming, they're more into dance music, especially EDM these days)
Anyway. I'm sure both you guys could name a few rock songs longer than 21 minutes!
I don't even wanna mention how the rest of this conversation went because its just too depressing.
Feliks wrote: "Yeah. Well back to movies, I myself hardly ever notice loopholes or glitches. It shows the power of film that a story can have goofs and snags, but (if it's a strong, emotional, well-acted flick) y..."An aside: In reality Who would have won: Connnery or Shaw?
Ali or Foreman? A great story always requires the winner to be the underdog in the fight!
Mod
That said anyone want to vent on logical inconsistencies...like laptop computers planting a virus into an alien computer??? Or in books things Like Jack Reacher working at digging swimming pools by hand, not showering or changing clothes for a week and the beautiful female protagonist falling into his arms at their meeting???
Mod
That said anyone want to vent on logical inconsistencies...like laptop computers planting a virus into an alien computer??? Or in bo..."
So for me, I don't care at all about logical inconsistencies when reading or watching movies. I actually get upset sometimes watching movies with my husband, because he is constantly pointing out all the inconsistencies to me. For me, this is an escape from reality and anything goes. That's part of the fun!
Mod
Have you read many of the Reacher books? He constantly does things that just make his life harder, or should, LOL. It always works out for Reacher where if I tried that stuff I'd be in jail somewhere.
I couldn't make it past the halfway point of the 2d Reacher novel. I'd like to blame it all on the logical inconsistencies, they do really bug me, but I think every series has a format, tone, or something. When it works for me as it does with the Matt Helm, Parker, & Prey series then it's great & a few inconsistencies can be ignored. When it doesn't it's just grating & every little thing is a major ordeal.
Mod
Mod
Have you read many of the Reacher books? He constantly does things that just make his life har..."
I have to admit that I have never read a Reacher book. Somehow they still sit on my tbr pile!
Lisa P wrote: "I have to admit that I have never read a Reacher book. Somehow they still sit on my tbr pile!"When a Tom Cruise movie is more logically consistent & better than a book, there are a lot better books to spend your time reading. Read my review of second book Die Trying here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Logical inconsistencies are worse when the reader knows a subject. They become unbearable when it's obvious that the author knows nothing about it. That's the biggest problem with the Reacher series. I know a little about guns & I don't think Child has ever seen one except on TV.
In contrast, Hamilton writes guns into his Matt Helm series very well. He went to Sweden, hunted there, & wrote several articles for 'Field & Stream' or its ilk. The Wrecking Crew, the second Matt Helm book, has a few scenes that were cribbed directly out of those articles. The sense of realism makes the fictional world far more engaging.
Of course, reading Hamilton's books sets a pretty high bar for writing about guns for other authors. On Guns and Hunting is a collection of some of his nonfiction articles. He developed a bad shoulder & still wanted to hunt, so 3 of the articles ("Block that kick!", "Caliber catastrophe", & "Test patterns are necessary") are all about finding a shotgun that delivered within his constraints. Even if you've never used a shotgun yourself, if you read those articles & you'll never be able to read a Reacher story with a shotgun in it again.
Mod
But I thought I stop and say I agree about the Matt Helm books. They are some of the top action thrillers out there. I suspect more people don't realize that because of the unfortunate movies that used the name back when. If you haven't tried Hamilton's Matt Helm books I'd highly recommend them along with Jim.
Mod
I will have to check out the Matt Helm books.
Action/Adventure Aficionados
Books mentioned in this topic
Die Trying (other topics)The Wrecking Crew (other topics)
On Guns and Hunting (other topics)
I was just watching a movie (I'll say which later) and there's a logical inconsistency in it that has always bugged me. Now it's a good movie...it just has this point of. "what the...???"
But I want to start with an older movie. It's one I like a lot but there's this one point...
In Silverado the movie opens with Scott Glenn's character being awakened by attackers. He shoots his way out killing 3 men, we see them fall. Now, 2 of the horses run off but the third stands and in recovered by Glenn's character thus later in the movie when he comes on Kevin Kline in the desert he has a horse for him.
But what about the dead men's guns? There was at least one rifle, I believe a shotgun was seen and then 3 handguns. Did Emmett (Scott Glenn) just leave them with the bodies? I mean the guy just got out of prison, he couldn't be that flush. Maybe $150 worth of hardware (in 1880 dollars I might add) not to mention whatever they had in their pockets.
Back then a man wouldn't simply have left the hardware to rust nor the money in their pockets for others to take or to lay in a rotting corpse.
Makes no sense.
Now the newer movie I was watching. This is another movie I like but....
In The Equalizer with Denzel Washington they go to great lengths to show us he doesn't need a firearm. Okay O get that and he does a great job killing people with his hands, shot glasses, cork screws, a hammer, barbwire, a drill...a nail gun and so on.
But by choice? He's being stalked by a small army of guys and he leaves firearms all over the floor and takes people on with broken glass???? I mean I get it, he's one basa** SOB and doesn't NEED a gun. But why when they're laying around all over the place as guys are stalking you with automatic weapons decide to take them on with a shard of morror?
Again, makes no sense.