Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Cracked and plot holes
The articles on plot holes in movies seem like the laziest and most uninspired ones, and it seems like there's a new one every week. And every month, one of them will be about Back To The Future.
Does anyone really like these more than the weird animal, or weird historical person, or weird event in recent news articles?
Comments
movie buffs, probably.
I just skip the movie articles cuz I've never seen half the movies they always talk about, which seems to be the same pool of about two dozen.
still better than the "profound" articles though, and way better than the "I am now going to use this numbered list format to rant about my political views for two pages" articles.
If all else fails, resort to nerd shit.
they have plenty of articles on sports for the manly men in the audience.
granted, no one reads them, but whatever.
Why are you reading Cracked? Like at all man?
Myrm seems to be unable to look away from things that are terrible.
But man do I not miss people using Cracked as a reliable source.
I remember one Cracked article that was about movie characters who got killed by implication, without most of the audience noticing. One of them was that guy the Joker lights on fire onscreen in The Dark Knight.
I'm gonna have to say you're wrong about that one. You never actually see (or hear) Lau himself on fire at any point, just the giant pile of money he was sitting on. And it certainly would make sense to claim that most of the audience wouldn't take that much notice since they'd obviously be too mesmerized by Heath Ledger's disturbingly compelling performance as the Joker.
In other words, very poor choice of example.
I mean, it's not that large of a stretch of the imagination. There's a guy, sitting on money, and the money gets lit on fire. Ledger or no Ledger, if you didn't think that that guy was burned to death, then you wouldn't notice your own nose in front of your face.
Missed the point, you did.
It doesn't matter how big or small the logical gap between what we see and what we only imagine is, the guy still isn't seen burning to death, so it still falls under the definition of "implication".
Again, it isn't whether the audience thinks the guy burned to death, it's whether they noticed or even cared, and I guarantee you that the majority didn't since no further attention is paid to the issue on the movie's part and it quickly moves on to something else. Plus, the guy was an asshole anyways.
V Which is why I removed that bit before even seeing your post.
Dark Knight is by no means a 'leave your brain at the door' action movie.
it was the entire point of the scene
I thought that it was the money burning, not so much Lao (though the scene certainly is added to once you see him there), that was the point of that scene? To show that the Joker just did not care about the same thing as the other mobsters (Alfred's "some men just want to watch the world burn" speech springs to mind)? Or am I misreading your post/everybody else's post/everything?
Okay, not the entire point, but still, they put a lot of effort into showing the Joker putting him on top of the money and then setting it on fire. It's about as subtle as...being set on fire.
Blame 3 AM if I'm posting poorly.
I disagree. There's a few shots of Lao on top of the money (if my memory serves, in the first one the Joker is pouring oil on top of the pile near him, but Lao is only partly in the shot, and the second one is just a shot of the money pile in general - neither of them draw specific attention to Lao), but nothing else - no scene of the Joker putting him there, no dialogue referring to it, no scenes of Lao burning. Even the other mobster (whose name escapes me) seems more distraught at the money (that's what, 50 million dollars?) burning in front of him - and although it could certainly be that he's distraught at Lao being burned alive, there's never anything (in my opinion) suggesting that it's this other than the money. It can be taken either way, but I feel that the movie never deliberately draws the attention to Lao in particular.
EDIT: For reference, here's the (what I hope is full) scene.
I'd say that the mobster being burned just adds to the point.
It's the Joker saying, no, I don't care. I don't care about your money, I don't care about your power, and I don't care about you.
It takes away the mobster's sense of security.
After having properly watched the link I edited in to my above post, I noticed that I forgot about the shot where the Joker throws money at Lau's head. I retract my arguments about his presence there not having attention deliberately drawn to it.
But that's the most attention they pay to him, though. For the rest of the scene, he might as well not be there.
As for that video, it's deliberately putting the spotlight on Lau, so that's no good. Here's the actual whole scene so you can judge for yourself.
But anyways, just to make sure we haven't lost the basic point of this little de[rail/bate], all I'm trying to do here is play a little devil's advocate. While I agree with the opinion that Cracked is an overall pretty crappy site (besides their Photoshop competition thingies), I still think the particular example ClockworkUniverse chose to illustrate their crappiness was a bad one for reasons already stated.
Seanbaby!
... Who now only post thinhs only once every two months nodaway, smh.
Meh, even when Cracked's commentary bores me or I think it's wrong, I still find the subject matter interesting (that's why I clicked on the article in the first place), so...
I haven't read it in months, though.