"Clever" Movie Observations You Need To Quit Making

Armageddon

I’ve seen variations of the following quote floating around the internet, in reference to Michael Bay’s Armageddon:  “A movie that would have you believe it’s easier to train drillers to become astronauts than to train astronauts to use a drill.”  Ben Affleck even mentions it in the DVD commentary track. 

Okay, first off, you’re wrong.  The movie doesn’t ask you to believe that.  The characters in the movie spend a long time lamenting on how bad an idea it is.  So you don’t get to feel smug just for pointing out that these characters aren’t fit to be astronauts.  You’re not clever for repeating points already covered in the movie.  Frankly, it makes you look like an idiot.

More importantly, the movie directly addresses it:  They send out two teams, in the hopes that if the drillers couldn’t do it, the astronauts could.  Now in real life, I’d like to think that every country with a space program would send out dozens of teams, containing all sorts of combinations of astronauts and drillers.  But the movie doesn’t have time for this, and simplifies things by only having two teams.

Also, the movie makes it clear that it takes years of experience to master these particular drills.  Yes, you can train an astronaut to use a drill, but maybe not these specific drills, at least in the time they have left.  The drill team is shown to have a knack for using this machinery, because these drills take as much instinct as knowledge.  When the future of Earth is at stake, it’s better to have the drill experts up there with you and not need them, than to get there without them and discover you can’t finish the job.  

I don’t want to make light of astronaut training – I know they work hard and I respect the training they go through.  But we’ve sent monkeys into space.  These drillers don’t need to be awesome at astronauting, they just need to survive the experience long enough to lend a hand.  Much like the face swapping in Face/Off, if you can’t buy into the concept, you shouldn’t see the movie in the first place.

Which is a good time to bring up the anthropic principle.  This basically says that in order for a movie’s plot to happen, the conditions must exist in that universe that allow the plot to happen.  In other words, if the astronauts in this movie’s universe could be taught to use the drill, then there would be no movie.  “But surely they could have made an interesting movie about actual astronauts that use a drill?”  Well, yeah, and they did.  It was called “Deep Impact.”  It was a smarter movie than Armageddon, but not nearly as fun.  Audiences already complained that two asteroid movies hit the theaters at roughly the same time, did you really want them to be even more similar?

I’m not saying Armageddon is some misunderstood masterpiece, but at least hate it for the right reasons.  I have no sympathy for someone who buys a ticket to a Michael Bay film about an asteroid, and then complains because it had more style than substance.  No one watches disaster movies for their scientific accuracy.

Jurassic World

The observation:  Claire outruns a T-Rex in high heels.  Critics argue that even if she didn’t have an opportunity to grab some boots somewhere, that she’d be better off barefoot than running in heels. 

However, I think that’s the point of Claire’s character.  Her “Corporate Warrior” persona isn’t just a costume she puts on each morning, that’s who she is through and through.  She’s the kind of person who can run faster in heels that most people can in Reeboks.  Having worn high heels myself, I don’t think this is all that unrealistic; it just takes practice.  And she’s definitely had practice. 

Plus she’s had a busy day with a lot on her mind, so maybe stopping to change shoes was never a big priority.  And I kind of disagree about barefoot being better.  Step on one sharp rock and you’re dino dinner.

But once again, this was already mentioned in the movie.  Owen has a line where he criticizes her heels.  I’m not saying that hanging a lampshade on a flaw absolves the sin.  I’m just saying it’s a bit disingenuous to point out a “mistake” that’s already addressed in the movie itself, as if it were your own original idea.

Passengers

This one isn’t even a plot hole or movie mistake.  This one is squarely about reviewers acting smug about noticing something blatantly obvious.  When Passengers first hit the theaters, I must have read half a dozen reviews that said basically the same thing (spoilers ahead):

“Passengers is about a ship full of interstellar travelers, who were placed in suspended animation for a 120 year space flight.  A malfunction causes two of the sleep tubes to open early, and the two awakened passengers have to live out their lives on the empty ship knowing they won’t survive to see their destination.  It’s a wonderfully inventive concept, but I noticed something that none of the other moviegoers seem to have noticed.  Chris Pratt’s character intentionally damaged Jennifer Lawrence’s sleep tube so that he wouldn’t be lonely.  By not giving her a choice, he’s basically condemning her to the same life of near solitude.  The fact that he romances her while lying about this is practically rape.  He destroys her future, all of her hopes and dreams, for his own gain.  I can’t believe nobody else who saw the movie noticed this.”

Okay, for those of you who haven’t seen the movie:  That is the ACTUAL PLOT of the film.  The fact that he woke her is a HUGE plot point.  It’s not some subtle secret for eagle-eyed viewers.  It is the “A” plot.  Yeah, there’s also something in there about a malfunction threatening to make the ship explode, but honestly it feels tacked on for extra drama.  The movie is about the male character’s crime, how it affects them, and whether he should be forgiven. 

You can argue all you want about whether the his actions were justified and/or forgivable.  But don’t expect accolades just for noticing the movie’s main plot.  It’s a simple rule: If a plot point is important enough to be mentioned in the summary on the back of the DVD, you’re probably not a genius for noticing it.

Star Wars

Chewie doesn't get a medal.  He was the co-pilot, get over it.  If the Falcon had a crew of 300, would you still complain that they didn't all get individual medals?  Or would you realize that the captain's medal represents the efforts of the whole crew?