- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Creating Tension: The "Oh shite, We're All Going to Die" Scenario
Posted on 4/20/10 at 10:17 am
Posted on 4/20/10 at 10:17 am
Furthermore, it's also the Bill Paxton Complex, "Oh we're fricking dead. fricking toast."
In thinking about the contents of my new fandangled sig image (props to Carpenter's The Thing of course. Fits my name, right? and Thanks timdillinger!) I was drawn to small parts of the film. Not only the seemingly cool LSU reference (I think that's the film where Russell has something LSU on), but also the little things.
So if you remember correctly, Russell's character Macready sits at a very awesome old school computer terminal and types in a probability scenario. The computer, in wondrous 80's style, spits out what seemingly is a QBasic animated blob and some stats. Basically, not only is there a high chance that someone else has been claimed by "The Thing," but also if it gets out of the base, the world is pretty much screwed.
Now, lest we forget, this same position of old school computer using QBasic and ascii animation is used to spit out stats in Ridley Scott's Alien. Again, the computer decides that there is no chance for survival.
Looking back on two of the greatest science fiction films in history, where does this need to blatantly spell out doom through a computer so necessary? Would their tension be any less without it? Can't we infer from Ash's speech about the "perfect organism," that they are all dead anyways? Or from the "spider-head" in The Thing, it looks virtually unstoppable.
I hold both of these films in high regard, they made my top 5 of the science fiction voting, but I see each weakened by this "exact determination of failure."
Now, don't get me wrong, for many movies this works, particularly in dystopian/apocalyptic films, or films where the exact degree of failure is needed (The Andromeda Strain).
Thoughts?
In thinking about the contents of my new fandangled sig image (props to Carpenter's The Thing of course. Fits my name, right? and Thanks timdillinger!) I was drawn to small parts of the film. Not only the seemingly cool LSU reference (I think that's the film where Russell has something LSU on), but also the little things.
So if you remember correctly, Russell's character Macready sits at a very awesome old school computer terminal and types in a probability scenario. The computer, in wondrous 80's style, spits out what seemingly is a QBasic animated blob and some stats. Basically, not only is there a high chance that someone else has been claimed by "The Thing," but also if it gets out of the base, the world is pretty much screwed.
Now, lest we forget, this same position of old school computer using QBasic and ascii animation is used to spit out stats in Ridley Scott's Alien. Again, the computer decides that there is no chance for survival.
Looking back on two of the greatest science fiction films in history, where does this need to blatantly spell out doom through a computer so necessary? Would their tension be any less without it? Can't we infer from Ash's speech about the "perfect organism," that they are all dead anyways? Or from the "spider-head" in The Thing, it looks virtually unstoppable.
I hold both of these films in high regard, they made my top 5 of the science fiction voting, but I see each weakened by this "exact determination of failure."
Now, don't get me wrong, for many movies this works, particularly in dystopian/apocalyptic films, or films where the exact degree of failure is needed (The Andromeda Strain).
Thoughts?
This post was edited on 4/20/10 at 10:22 am
Posted on 4/20/10 at 10:20 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Creating Tension: The "Oh shite, We're All Going to Die" Scenario
Oh, so you've seen An Inconvenient Truth too.
Posted on 4/20/10 at 10:22 am to constant cough
quote:
Oh, so you've seen An Inconvenient Truth too.
Posted on 4/20/10 at 10:23 am to Freauxzen
Directors think some members of the audience will need everything spelled out for them, and they're probably right.
Posted on 4/20/10 at 10:25 am to DanglingFury
quote:
Directors think some members of the audience will need everything spelled out for them, and they're probably right.
Agreed. But we are talking about two of the great directors, especially of science fiction/action films where this kind of scenario is common. You think they would have avoided the pitfalls of that kind of declaration.
Posted on 4/20/10 at 10:39 am to DanglingFury
quote:
and they're probably right.
They are, when I saw fight club in the theater the girl with me never could wrap her head around what was going on at the end. She said "How does brad pitt keep disappearing?"
Posted on 4/20/10 at 10:46 am to Freauxzen
quote:
But we are talking about two of the great directors,
They're great directors because, along with their many talents, they know what it takes to reach a general movie audience.
Posted on 4/20/10 at 10:48 am to Freauxzen
I think in Alien at least, the importance of the scene is not that Mother tells Ripley she has no chance of survival, but that Mother KNOWS the crew had no chance of survival and has essentially been programmed to kill them all. The Company is actually murdering the crew.
I’m not saying there isn’t the side benefit of explaining things to the really dense members of the audience, but is, say, Psycho a lesser film for spelling out multiple personalities in the final scene for those who didn’t understand the rest of the movie? Sometimes a big budget “mainstream” film has to make a few compromises in order to keep the whole audience. The key is to spell things out for the lower 10% without irritating everybody else too much.
I’m not saying there isn’t the side benefit of explaining things to the really dense members of the audience, but is, say, Psycho a lesser film for spelling out multiple personalities in the final scene for those who didn’t understand the rest of the movie? Sometimes a big budget “mainstream” film has to make a few compromises in order to keep the whole audience. The key is to spell things out for the lower 10% without irritating everybody else too much.
Posted on 4/20/10 at 10:49 am to DanglingFury
quote:
They're great directors because, along with their many talents, they know what it takes to reach a general movie audience.
True.
Posted on 4/20/10 at 10:49 am to Freauxzen
Star Trek seemed to do this some too. Seems like Spock and Data were the built-in tension builders in a lot of episodes and movies. It may not be the main plot line in a lot of them, but there always seemed to be some task that had a very low chance of being successful that they had to complete. More often than not, their lives were in mortal danger during these tasks.
BTW, I don't really have a problem with it in these examples. They have so many good qualities that outweigh whatever is diminished by this 'laziness factor'.
BTW, I don't really have a problem with it in these examples. They have so many good qualities that outweigh whatever is diminished by this 'laziness factor'.
This post was edited on 4/20/10 at 11:03 am
Posted on 4/20/10 at 10:50 am to ccla
quote:
They are, when I saw fight club in the theater the girl with me never could wrap her head around what was going on at the end. She said "How does brad pitt keep disappearing?"
I hope she had some other redeeming quality to make up for the lack of brain power.
Posted on 4/20/10 at 10:54 am to DanglingFury
quote:
James Cameron thinks every member of the audience will need everything spelled out for them, and he is probably right. Unfortunately.
FIFY
Posted on 4/20/10 at 10:56 am to Baloo
quote:
I think in Alien at least, the importance of the scene is not that Mother tells Ripley she has no chance of survival, but that Mother KNOWS the crew had no chance of survival and has essentially been programmed to kill them all. The Company is actually murdering the crew.
Was it more Mother or Ash programming Mother? Haven't seen it in about a year.
quote:
I’m not saying there isn’t the side benefit of explaining things to the really dense members of the audience, but is, say, Psycho a lesser film for spelling out multiple personalities in the final scene for those who didn’t understand the rest of the movie?
Not at all. When I look at that scene, I think that's what Hitchcock had in mind when he started the project. Seems like a place you want to get to, imo.
quote:
Sometimes a big budget “mainstream” film has to make a few compromises in order to keep the whole audience. The key is to spell things out for the lower 10% without irritating everybody else too much.
Seems to be the overall consensus. Anyone think of a movie where, at least in this, not spelling out destruction works to it's advantage?
Posted on 4/20/10 at 12:00 pm to Freauxzen
Doesn't this touch on a standard sci-fi theme, especially for the time period, of man's fear of losing control to computers? It may be subtle, but by having the computer spit out the odds for doom, it specifically sets up the "human will to survive" as something extraordinary, even mythic.
I wonder if this device is less effective for those who were raised in the age of computers? I don't mean to upset anyone, but I wonder how old some of you guys are? Freauzen?
I wonder if this device is less effective for those who were raised in the age of computers? I don't mean to upset anyone, but I wonder how old some of you guys are? Freauzen?
Posted on 4/20/10 at 12:25 pm to Jimbeaux
quote:
Doesn't this touch on a standard sci-fi theme, especially for the time period, of man's fear of losing control to computers? It may be subtle, but by having the computer spit out the odds for doom, it specifically sets up the "human will to survive" as something extraordinary, even mythic.
Nice segway into something different.
This could definitely be the case. As at the time, computers were efficient, logical, and correct. The exact determination of failure was then a certainty. We couldn't say the same thing now.
quote:
I wonder if this device is less effective for those who were raised in the age of computers? I don't mean to upset anyone, but I wonder how old some of you guys are? Freauzen?
28
Posted on 4/20/10 at 1:07 pm to Freauxzen
quote:I think you've hit on it. At the time, computers were seen as being infalliable to an extent -- if the computer says you're dead, then you're dead.
This could definitely be the case. As at the time, computers were efficient, logical, and correct. The exact determination of failure was then a certainty. We couldn't say the same thing now.
Hell, even today there are people who believe anything they read on the internet.
Posted on 4/20/10 at 1:20 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
Anyone think of a movie where, at least in this, not spelling out destruction works to it's advantage?
This is a reach for this one but I will go with the D-Day scene from Saving Private Ryan. Now granted that everyone at this point knew what D-Day was and a vast majority had some idea of how deadly and hazardous that invasion was. However, I think that movie did a great job by just cutting to the scene of them on the boat in route to the beach instead of having old man Ryan spell out to his grandkids "You know blank many men landed on Utah beach and only blank many survived." I don't think any of us could really appreciate the horror of that invasion until we saw a very good reenactment of it in that movie.
Posted on 4/20/10 at 1:32 pm to Longbaugh
quote:
I think you've hit on it. At the time, computers were seen as being infalliable to an extent -- if the computer says you're dead, then you're dead.
It's not implied by the original post, and I think it's been explained that this device of exact determination merely exists for the casual movie watcher or for someone that doesn't want to read between the lines.
I would go with Carpenter again and talk about something like In the Mouth of Madness where world destruction isn't necessarily determined or inferred even. The ending is rather ambiguous especially considering... SPOILERS...
He is watching himself in a movie apparently.
This post was edited on 4/20/10 at 1:40 pm
Posted on 4/20/10 at 1:39 pm to Freauxzen
What about the movies where all tension would be gone if you knew the truth of what you were watching... like
SPOILERS
High Tension, where the killer is just chasing herself really
SPOILERS
High Tension, where the killer is just chasing herself really
Popular
Back to top

4










