Unexplained events in movies

TerrorFirmer

You know in a movie, when something of significance happens yet you receive no explanation as to why it did? It's like you need closure...but don't get it and you're left feeling a bit frustrated.

Example. Saving Private Ryan, why does Upham shoot the German he had striven to save earlier on in the film? Ok, maybe it's to do with the affect war has on an individual, and such, but you still wanted to know why in a more conclusive manner.

There are loads, and I was thinking about them today, but I just can't remember now...

copacetic

i had a few really good ones too, but

mneylon

I think some of them are due to bad editing.

If you look at the "extended" versions or the deleted scenes on some of the DVDs you're sometimes left with a sense of "so that's what that was about!" - an epiphany of sorts

Sad Professor

Unexplained how? As in David Lynch unexplained? 'Cause I love that stuff. There's too much talk in movies today, not enough cinema. But if you mean unexplained as in the film got butchered in the editing room and doesn't make sense anymore well that's a different story.

Rhyme

HavoK wrote: »

Example. Saving Private Ryan, why does Upham shoot the German he had striven to save earlier on in the film? Ok, maybe it's to do with the affect war has on an individual, and such, but you still wanted to know why in a more conclusive manner.

I think it was the effect of the war on Upham, his unwavering confidence in the Germans right to life earlier on and then seeing him betraying that trust by rejoining the German ranks and shooting Miller. Hearing Fish stabbed to death and the subsequent breakdown probably had something to do with it too.

It's less obvious in better films though and sometimes the meaning requires a bit of 'working out'. When i saw that scene with Upham for the first time i just thought 'the German lied once, what's stopping him from lying again, BANG!'. It took another two times watching it before i started questioning.

Karl Hungus

Why does everything need to be explained in films? Why can't more be left up to the audience?

TerrorFirmer

I didn't necessarily mean deep issues that require a similar level of thought, but more events that happen, and are significant enough for you to take notice and wonder...now why did he do that/why did that happen whilst not being central to either the film or the storyline of the film.

What actually got me thinking about it was the end of We Own the Night....

when he's up on the Podium and thinks he sees Eva Mendes. It turns out to be an illusion and the film just...ends. Bit random.

Resident Evil: Extinction:

How in the hell did the T-virus dry up all the water?

aidan_walsh

Deleted User wrote: »

Resident Evil: Extinction:

How in the hell did the T-virus dry up all the water?

It was very thirsty.

Owen

In the Fantastic Four, Rise of the Silver Surfer, the Surfer goes around creating craters in the planet, but they're never actually explained in the movie. Bit retarded TBH. They're explained clearly in the comic though!

ned78

ned78 wrote: »

In the Fantastic Four, Rise of the Silver Surfer, the Surfer goes around creating craters in the planet, but they're never actually explained in the movie. Bit retarded TBH. They're explained clearly in the comic though!

It is explained at the start. You can see Galactus draining the energy from the planet before he destroys it .

Wacker

Sometimes it is just lazy film-making that leaves gaping holes in films. Example: Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back,

:when the two heores are caught by a cop having freed all the animals. There is a big explosion, but the cop is unhurt. The next scene sees them walking free as birds a few hours later. There is no explanation as to how they got away.

Sometimes it is cool film making, that trusts the audience and gives an air of mystery. Example: The Bourne Supremacy.

: Bourne is at the house of another Treadstone trained agent. He arrives home, and keys a code into his house alarm system that sends a signal that there is an intruder in his house and to send backup. They never explain how the agent knew Bourne was there; he was just that slick.

Sometimes no amount exposition can justify truly ludicrous events. Example: The Blues Brothers. The flying, back-flipping car! An explanation had been scripted. Thank god it was left out!

Otis Driftwood

I think its good when directors leave stuff open to interpretation.

Examples

Pulp Fiction-Whats in the briefcase?could have been any number of things but it actually represents Marcellas Wallaces soul.There has been alot of debate about this through the years but that came from Tarantino himself.

Reservoir Dogs-who shot nice guy Eddie?Logic would imply it was Mr Pink but was it?

The best thing about having open ended plot scenarios is that everyone will interpret it differently.Thats what makes movies so great IMO.

Eirebear

what about unexplained things that dont happen......how come Gremlins dont multiply in snow? I mean its just water right.......:D

Wacker

Eirebear wrote: »

what about unexplained things that dont happen......how come Gremlins dont multiply in snow? I mean its just water right.......:D

Or what does 'after midnight' mean? For instance, right now, it is 14:59. That's after midnight. As is 19:54, and 23:58. When is it not after midnight?!?

Eirebear

Wacker wrote: »

Or what does 'after midnight' mean? For instance, right now, it is 14:59. That's after midnight. As is 19:54, and 23:58. When is it not after midnight?!?

i always too that to be 12 noon untill midnight you were safe to feed them..... it is a little non-specific though.
Theyd never pass EU health and safety laws with guidlines like that nowadays..

Otis Driftwood

Lol

bluto63

If you need everything explained to you I'm guessing you weren't a fan of 2001: A Space Odyssey

Scootay

Eirebear wrote: »

i always too that to be 12 noon untill midnight you were safe to feed them..... it is a little non-specific though.

But what if you cross timezones? Does their inner body clock doomsday switch thing know and adjust accordingly?

pwd

I like the dreamlike feeling that can be evoked sometimes by not explaining what is going on. I dislike it when that feeling is dissolved by expostulation. Better to say "oh wow" than "ah ha" in my opinion.

Eirebear

Scootay wrote: »

But what if you cross timezones? Does their inner body clock doomsday switch thing know and adjust accordingly?

That does pose an interesting question....must do some research before finding a "witty" answer to that one

el dude

nedtheshed wrote: »

I think its good when directors leave stuff open to interpretation.

Examples

Pulp Fiction-Whats in the briefcase?could have been any number of things but it actually represents Marcellas Wallaces soul.There has been alot of debate about this through the years but that came from Tarantino himself.

Reservoir Dogs-who shot nice guy Eddie?Logic would imply it was Mr Pink but was it?

Eugh!! that whole soul thing. Bollocks and Tbh, whats in the briefcase is something I've never given any serious thought to. But In my eyes it's heroin.

didn't they completely cock up the ending in Reservoir Dogs, when the three of them have the guns pointed at each other, someone dies despite not getting shot.

Pigman II

Yeah like in Bryan Singers Superman where ..... well just Bryan Singers Superman. Explain that one!

Otis Driftwood

el dude wrote: »

Eugh!! that whole soul thing. Bollocks and Tbh, whats in the briefcase is something I've never given any serious thought to. But In my eyes it's heroin.

didn't they completely cock up the ending in Reservoir Dogs, when the three of them have the guns pointed at each other, someone dies despite not getting shot.

Thats what I was saying,who shot nice guy eddie?
Joe was aiming @ Mr Orange,Mr White was aiming @ Joe and nice Guy Eddie was aiming @ Mr White,all 4 got shot by 3 guns.
Mr Pink isnt in that final scene until after all 4 get shot.
We dont see him shoot Eddie but logic would suggest he did.

Call Me Jimmy

HavoK wrote: »

You know in a movie, when something of significance happens yet you receive no explanation as to why it did? It's like you need closure...but don't get it and you're left feeling a bit frustrated.

Example. Saving Private Ryan, why does Upham shoot the German he had striven to save earlier on in the film? Ok, maybe it's to do with the affect war has on an individual, and such, but you still wanted to know why in a more conclusive manner.

There are loads, and I was thinking about them today, but I just can't remember now...

Well the reason he didn't want to shoot him initially was because the guy had surrended, but the second time he was fighting in a battle no?

Sad Professor

The briefcase in Pulp Fiction is just a mcguffin. Tarantino doesn't know or care what's in it, nor should the audience. I see a lot of idiots over at imdb asking what it is, analysing it, etc, they're completely missing the point of the movie. Pulp Fiction is basically just a series of conversations about Royales with cheese, foot massages, tasty beverages, etc. Who gives a **** about the silly plot device.

Wacker

nedtheshed wrote: »

Thats what I was saying,who shot nice guy eddie?
Joe was aiming @ Mr Orange,Mr White was aiming @ Joe and nice Guy Eddie was aiming @ Mr White,all 4 got shot by 3 guns.
Mr Pink isnt in that final scene until after all 4 get shot.
We dont see him shoot Eddie but logic would suggest he did.

Chris Penn's squib detonated prematurely. White turns his gun on him, but the squib had already gone off, hence the confusion. Mr White was supposed to have shot Eddie, but it got messed up. Tarantino noticed this, but decided to leave it in, figuring that people might debate it for years.
He was right on the money too!

I completely agree that the Pulp Fiction 'soul in the briefcase' notion is boll*cks; the original idea was that it was the diamonds from Reservoir Dogs, but Tarantino rejected it. I doubt it could have been heroin - Pumpkin describes it as 'beautiful'. Gold is the obvious choice, which might also explain the yellow glow.

TerrorFirmer

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Well the reason he didn't want to shoot him initially was because the guy had surrended, but the second time he was fighting in a battle no?

He shoots him dead after he has surrendered, when he (the German) recognizes him and shows affection towards him. Then he lets the rest of the Germans escape.

supertramp

HavoK wrote: »

You know in a movie, when something of significance happens yet you receive no explanation as to why it did? It's like you need closure...but don't get it and you're left feeling a bit frustrated.

Example. Saving Private Ryan, why does Upham shoot the German he had striven to save earlier on in the film? Ok, maybe it's to do with the affect war has on an individual, and such, but you still wanted to know why in a more conclusive manner.

There are loads, and I was thinking about them today, but I just can't remember now...

.....I was going to try to think of an explanation, but the example you gave of why Upham shot the German, is so easy...I'm just not going to bother.

el dude

nedtheshed wrote: »

Thats what I was saying,who shot nice guy eddie?
Joe was aiming @ Mr Orange,Mr White was aiming @ Joe and nice Guy Eddie was aiming @ Mr White,all 4 got shot by 3 guns.
Mr Pink isnt in that final scene until after all 4 get shot.
We dont see him shoot Eddie but logic would suggest he did.

It was just a cock up. After the take and they realised it, Tarantino just said sometihng like, 'doesn't matter, they'll be talking about this for years'

el dude

Wacker wrote: »

I doubt it could have been heroin - Pumpkin describes it as 'beautiful'. Gold is the obvious choice, which might also explain the yellow glow.

Ah, but like Sad Professor said, it's not really anything. So i choose to believe it's heroin.

Was Pumpkin not a drug user? I'm sure someone who uses Heroin could see it as something beautiful, like Vincent did. And surely they'd have struggled to carry it if it was gold.

Wacker

el dude wrote: »

Ah, but like Sad Professor said, it's not really anything. So i choose to believe it's heroin.

Was Pumpkin not a drug user? I'm sure someone who uses Heroin could see it as something beautiful, like Vincent did. And surely they'd have struggled to carry it if it was gold.

Nothing in the movie suggests that he was a drug user.

If the case was packed to the gills with bars of gold, yes, it would be very hard to carry the case. If there was a smaller amount, then it wouldn't be an obvious problem.

No point debating it though. I like the way the case in Ronin blatantly tries to imitate the idea.

Here's one for you all to ponder: How did Van Damme's character get from the water into the forklift truck when the villian was standing right there the whole time in Double Impact?

Anyone care?

Rhyme

Tarantino won't confirm or deny the contents of the briefcase anyway, as Sad Professor mentioned, it's just a McGuffin.

Popular theories lie with Wallace's soul*, Wallace's dirty laundry, gold, a yellow bulb and a 12 amp battery :rolleyes:, something to do with Jackie Brown or drugs. The film is about the characters anyway, us not knowing what was in the case is a good thing.

*the combination lock was set for 666.

red dave

Rosebud

Gloopy

Okay, first off, I have loved the movie An American Werewolf in London since childhood. The transformation scene was the coolest and scariest thing I had ever seen, and I still watch it on a semi regular basis.

But one thing that really bugs me when watching this movie as an adult, is the scene in the porno theatre.

One moment David, Jack and David's undead victims are discussing how David must take his own life, to sever the werewolf's bloodline. They are all too happy to offer suggestions on how he does this.

Then there's a cut scene of the full moon rising over Picadilly Circus (some time has obviously passed). Cut back to the theatre and Jack and his undead pals are nowhere to be seen, just David wolfing out in the porno theatre. Bloody annoys me :rolleyes:

Otis Driftwood

1-budgetary reasons

or


2-they are a figmant of his imagination,or ghosts.Why would they be there?

faceman

Yeah i have a few of those ponderings although they only bother when a film is really good, but here's a mix anyway:

Heat: In the diner, why the hell does Sizemore get out of his seat move and sit back down again? (the scene where de niro wants to whack gringo)

Transformers: Where the hell does Prime ago after his scrap with bonecrusher? And when barricade is chasing bumblebee early on, why does he let him drive by him??? (when it gets dark)

Alien: Why does Ash stop his colleagues from catching the alien after it rips out of hurt's chest? the only thing i can think of is so he can catch it for "the company" but that doesnt make sense.

el dude

Wacker wrote: »

Nothing in the movie suggests that he was a drug user.

Anyone care?

Who was a drug user? Marsellus? Heroin = Money, baby!!

Vokes

faceman wrote: »

Transformers: Where the hell does Prime ago after his scrap with bonecrusher?

Eh...sure he drives down the freeway to catch up with his buddies in the city.

unreggd

Resident Evil Extinction


Who the hell dressed the uber-zombies in matchin overalls?????

DirkVoodoo

For me, being a massive spiderman fan...

When Tobey Maguire develops his home made costume it looks crap, which was great! Just like you would make yourself: tracksuit bottoms and an old jumper with a spray-painted insignia.

BUT THEN, as soon as he goes to New York he gets an amazing new latex/spandex costume and we are never told who made it or how!?!

I know the reasons why, but its just that they glossed over it almost hoping no one would notice.

Oh, and spiderman 3....all of spiderman 3....explain that to me!

DublinWriter

HavoK wrote: »

Example. Saving Private Ryan, why does Upham shoot the German he had striven to save earlier on in the film?

Popular misconception - it wasn't the same German. I read an interview with Speilberg where he stated that.

Tarintino 'borrowed' the technique of throwaway dialog from French cinema, i.e. not every line in the script should be used to serve the plot, but instead be used to give a little insight into the character and/or the human condition. This was a revelation to Hollywood when Tarintino used it.

Another example of an unexplained event in a movie is the suicide squad that appears at the end of Life of Brian. They were in-fact a group of 'Jewish Nazis' who had most of their scenes cut from the original print.

DirkVoodoo

DublinWriter wrote: »

Popular misconception - it wasn't the same German. I read an interview with Speilberg where he stated that.

Tarintino 'borrowed' the technique of throwaway dialog from French cinema, i.e. not every line in the script should be used to serve the plot, but instead be used to give a little insight into the character and/or the human condition. This was a revelation to Hollywood when Tarintino used it.

Another example of an unexplained event in a movie is the suicide squad that appears at the end of Life of Brian. They were in-fact a group of 'Jewish Nazis' who had most of their scenes cut from the original print.

Does he not address Upham by name just before he is shot?

EdgarAllenPoo

At the beginning of Pirates of the Carribean three why do all the people start singing before they're about to be hanged? It was explained that the singing was a signal for something(which escapes me at the moment) but not exactly why a bunch of people about to be killed would suddenly break into a little tune.

Mind you it's probably best not to think too hard while watching that film.

A-Trak

bluto63 wrote: »

If you need everything explained to you I'm guessing you weren't a fan of 2001: A Space Odyssey

LOL:D

"I'm sorry Dave, I can't explain that"

robby^5

GDM wrote: »

At the beginning of Pirates of the Carribean three why do all the people start singing before they're about to be hanged? It was explained that the singing was a signal for something(which escapes me at the moment) but not exactly why a bunch of people about to be killed would suddenly break into a little tune.

Mind you it's probably best not to think too hard while watching that film.

I suppose because they were all pirates and apparently really loved the way of life and believed in pirates morals and codes and stuff. So they decided to give testament to their way of life by going out singing a good old pirate tune.

That film was so stupid.

Oh and the German Upham shot wasn't the same one? I was under the impression he was, since that German came forward as if he knew Upham. Upham then killed him probably because he felt betrayed and he had a bunch of prisoners who could have easily hopped him, shooting that guy also kept the Germans under control.

Victor

The German - a surrender isn't a surrender until it is accepted. I think the scene is meant as a coming of age thing - the clerk becoming a soldier

Wacker wrote: »

Nothing in the movie suggests that he was a drug user.

Isn't he just back from Amsterdam and he compliments the drugs?

Aren't they his drugs that are ODed on?

GDM wrote: »

At the beginning of Pirates of the Carribean three why do all the people start singing before they're about to be hanged? It was explained that the singing was a signal for something(which escapes me at the moment) but not exactly why a bunch of people about to be killed would suddenly break into a little tune

Its a pirate song of solidarity against the oppression of officialdom. I think it is also some sort of call for help.

delly

Further to the Saving Private Ryan issue ---> Link

Victor

delly wrote: »

Further to the Saving Private Ryan issue ---> Link

Indeed, there are 3 scenes

(a) At the radar tower near the start of the film, where Uphams saves the German from being executed.
(b) In the house where Mellish is killed.
(c) On the bridge at the end of the film.

(a) and (c) are the same German, (b) is a different German.

Click on the numbers under Screen Shots here: http://www.sproe.com/s/steamboat-german.html

People are confusing the confusion.

War of the Worlds:

In one scene the son is shown running over the crest of a hill, followed by an explosion, and yet at the end

he is at the grandparents house. How?

mneylon

Deleted User wrote: »

War of the Worlds

That's such a terrible film. The biggest mystery is that anyone went to see it