Storylines you wish you could change when thinking back.

Tools    





His name is Robert Paulson, His name is Robert...
HUGE potential topic here, but I'm really curious here about what others think in various movies over time that stick out in their minds as mistakes that were particularly very easy to fix.

In non-rant form.

There are many times when all of us see a story unfold and are jarred by what we consider to be a plot mistake, whether it's an inconsistency or simply just not a sensible thing to have happen.

Most recently I thought of this in two movies:

(movies are older, so I don't think spoilers are necessary).

Django: Unchained:

Two scenes I would have changed. The story of Shultz would not have ended with a silly "I couldn't resist" when he clearly had a 2nd bullet in his sleeve-gun. Simply a head-scratcher. PARTICULARLY when he knows that would condemn Django and Hildy back to slavery and/or death.

Didn't make any sense.

I could see the story enfolding better as Butch Pooch looking and ready to shoot Hildy with King Shultz diving in the way to protect her while shooting him (Pooch) at the same time. At that point him dying would at least make some sense.

Also the ending was too campy for me. He could never possibly carry enough dynamite to level the house all at once. Blowing up Stephen would have been enough.

Small nit: Using later century terms in the 1800's was distracting to me. I'm willing to let it go 'cause, well, Tarantino and it's almost a superhero style movie anyway. If you're interested, see attachment.

The Godfather: Part II:

Great movie, and it's a waste of time even saying that; no one with more than one brain hemisphere working would disagree. And one scene caused disagreement back and forth among my friends; they're split 50/50 about the following:

IMO, there's only one knuckleheaded plot silliness. Having Michael kill Fredo doesn't make any sense. He was clearly too stupid to truly know it was a hit, and he seemed believable when he said it. In GF1, killing Carlo made sense to me and the story. Killing a capable brother would make sense. Not Fredo though. He's far too ineffective a threat.
Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	FireShot Capture 212 - Google Ngram Viewer - books.google.com.png
Views:	18
Size:	22.1 KB
ID:	59850  



"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



Since a Tarantino film has already been referenced, I will go ahead and say that if it had been up to me, I would have deleted Christopher Walken's scene in Pulp Fiction. I understand that Tarantino wanted the viewer to know how important the watch was to Butch, but the scene went on WAY too long and I think the film could have survived without it.



As with the first couple of posts it's difficult to find fault with some of the most celebrated and beloved movies of all time. But here is one from a movie that I've yet to meet anyone who hates. And it isn't so much a plotline, but a slight editorial choice - to cut the final scene from:

The Shawshank Redemption

At the risk of spoiling, cutting the last 30 seconds or so from this movie would have made it absolutely perfect. The film finishes with Red (Morgan Freeman) walking along the beach toward where Andy (Tim Robbins) is working on a boat. It's a nice moment, and a satisfying conclusion but there is a way the film would have been made even better, by cutting that one final scene.

Prior to that Red has made up his mind - to get busy living, or get busy dying. As he makes the conscious decision to skip bail he talks about hoping the Pacific Ocean is as blue as it is in his dreams, hoping to see his friend,and finishes with the words "I hope."

For a film that is all about hope, that is the perfect note to finish on. Having the credits roll at that moment would have left the viewer uncertain... Hoping that Red can make it across the border, hoping that he can meet up with friend, hoping that nothing has happened to Andy in the meantime. Left with a degree of ambiguity... but filled with hope.



Personally, I never understood what purpose the live action scenes serve in End of Eva except a distraction so yeah, I think it could have survived without them.
__________________
Look, Dr. Lesh, we don't care about the disturbances, the pounding and the flashing, the screaming, the music. We just want you to find our little girl.



Welcome to the human race...
But the whole point of The Godfather Part II is that Michael's gotten so ruthless during his time as the Don that he would go so far as to kill his own brother - we can believe that Fredo didn't know it was going to be a hit, but it's the fact that he would go against Michael like that (and he clearly goes through with it because he feels resentful about being "stepped over") that informs Michael's decision to disown him and ultimately have him killed. It's consistent with Michael's psychology that he feels the need to eliminate any potential threat, even one as supposedly ineffectual as Fredo. It doesn't matter if we the audience can see how this "doesn't make sense" from a purely logical standpoint because the character/film does not operate on that level. Likewise, Django Unchained makes sense given the character's psychology and the events of the film where he is pushed to a breaking point by the antagonist.

It's why I tend to regard the idea of "changing" certain plot and character developments with a certain skepticism - it's one thing to be critical, but trying to think up preferable alternatives doesn't seem like an especially effective form of being critical about a film's faults.
__________________
Way too much stupid talk on the forum. Iroquois, Iím thinking about you.



Also... if I remember correctly, Fredo's not completely ineffectual. Wasn't it his selling out the family that enabled rivals to try to commit the hit on Michael and his family (Fredo's own niece and nephew) at their Lake Taho residence? If so, then Fredo could be considered a liability and a danger.



HUGE potential topic here, but I'm really curious here about what others think in various movies over time that stick out in their minds as mistakes that were particularly very easy to fix.

In non-rant form.

There are many times when all of us see a story unfold and are jarred by what we consider to be a plot mistake, whether it's an inconsistency or simply just not a sensible thing to have happen.

Most recently I thought of this in two movies:

(movies are older, so I don't think spoilers are necessary).

Django: Unchained:

Two scenes I would have changed. The story of Shultz would not have ended with a silly "I couldn't resist" when he clearly had a 2nd bullet in his sleeve-gun. Simply a head-scratcher. PARTICULARLY when he knows that would condemn Django and Hildy back to slavery and/or death.

Didn't make any sense.

I could see the story enfolding better as Butch Pooch looking and ready to shoot Hildy with King Shultz diving in the way to protect her while shooting him (Pooch) at the same time. At that point him dying would at least make some sense.

Also the ending was too campy for me. He could never possibly carry enough dynamite to level the house all at once. Blowing up Stephen would have been enough.

Small nit: Using later century terms in the 1800's was distracting to me. I'm willing to let it go 'cause, well, Tarantino and it's almost a superhero style movie anyway. If you're interested, see attachment.

The Godfather: Part II:

Great movie, and it's a waste of time even saying that; no one with more than one brain hemisphere working would disagree. And this caused disagreement back and forth among my friends; they're split 50/50:

IMO, there's only one knuckleheaded plot silliness. Having Michael kill Fredo doesn't make any sense. He was clearly too stupid to truly know it was a hit, and he seemed believable when he said it. In GF1, killing Carlo made sense to me and the story. Killing a capable brother would make sense. Not Fredo though. He's far too ineffective a threat.
To the first, the simplest answer is he let his anger cloud his judgement. People do dumb things without thinking quite often, and in the west, shooting someone out of anger was quite common. Regardless of the consequences.

The second instance regarding Fredo:
Michael realized that, although his brother was used, he showed a severe lack of judgement, and as such, couldnít risk having it happen again. Another issue was that there was some doubt he wasnít complicit, especially since he lied about it to begin with, and couldnít be trusted. If he allows him to live under those conditions, he would be perceived as weak, and thatís fatal to a mob boss.



Also... if I remember correctly, Fredo's not completely ineffectual. Wasn't it his selling out the family that enabled rivals to try to commit the hit on Michael and his family (Fredo's own niece and nephew) at their Lake Taho residence? If so, then Fredo could be considered a liability and a danger.
You beat me to it as I was typing out my response haha. I share the same sentiment.



Since a Tarantino film has already been referenced, I will go ahead and say that if it had been up to me, I would have deleted Christopher Walken's scene in Pulp Fiction. I understand that Tarantino wanted the viewer to know how important the watch was to Butch, but the scene went on WAY too long and I think the film could have survived without it.
Completely agree.
Tarantino has a habit of overwriting certain scenes, where they become a little drawn out.



His name is Robert Paulson, His name is Robert...
Since a Tarantino film has already been referenced, I will go ahead and say that if it had been up to me, I would have deleted Christopher Walken's scene in Pulp Fiction. I understand that Tarantino wanted the viewer to know how important the watch was to Butch, but the scene went on WAY too long and I think the film could have survived without it.
Completely agree.
Tarantino has a habit of overwriting certain scenes, where they become a little drawn out.
Interesting. I never would have thought that anyone would object to that scene....I actually thought it was great, and the fact that Walken was pulled in for such a quirky cameo seems far too Tarantino to remove. Walken is one of my favorite "icky" actors (an actor that always seems typecast into someone off-putting). He's always got that thing about him that somehow always puts me just a little on edge.

The scene I always fast-forward past is the stupid dancing thing (the twist, at the restaurant).



Since a Tarantino film has already been referenced, I will go ahead and say that if it had been up to me, I would have deleted Christopher Walken's scene in Pulp Fiction. I understand that Tarantino wanted the viewer to know how important the watch was to Butch, but the scene went on WAY too long and I think the film could have survived without it.
Completely agree.
Tarantino has a habit of overwriting certain scenes, where they become a little drawn out.
Interesting. I never would have thought that anyone would object to that scene....I actually thought it was great, and the fact that Walken was pulled in for such a quirky cameo seems far too Tarantino to remove. Walken is one of my favorite "icky" actors (an actor that always seems typecast into someone off-putting). He's always got that thing about him that somehow always puts me just a little on edge.

The scene I always fast-forward past is the stupid dancing thing (the twist, at the restaurant).
I should specify I wasnít agreeing about that scene in particular, but rather Tarantinoís penchant for overwriting a scene in general. A few scenes in Kill Bill, the bar scene in Inglorious Basterds, and more.



His name is Robert Paulson, His name is Robert...
To the first, the simplest answer is he let his anger cloud his judgement. People do dumb things without thinking quite often, and in the west, shooting someone out of anger was quite common. Regardless of the consequences.
Fair enough. But I suppose as dumb an initial move as it was, I'm not quite as much at odds with him losing his temper and shooting Candie. After all, Tarantino made sure that we saw how he was tormented by remembering the graphic shredding of d'Artagnan----it's clear that he's thinking emotionally.

It's immediately afterward that bothers me: Him not using his obvious high-speed killing ability to shoot Pooch (who has a shotgun). Given everything we knew about him to that point, it didn't make sense to me. He's got 2 bullets in that sleeve gun (as we saw when he killed Willard Peck).



His name is Robert Paulson, His name is Robert...
The last 10 years of my life.
That's what crappy sequels are for. Just make it TV-MA this time, and fill it with the eye-candy girls...



I should specify I wasnít agreeing about that scene in particular, but rather Tarantinoís penchant for overwriting a scene in general. A few scenes in Kill Bill, the bar scene in Inglorious Basterds, and more.
It's OK, nobody agrees with me about the Christopher Walken scene



As much as I loved Annihilation from a year or two ago, the ending is still somewhat unsatisfactory for me. The audio and visuals were astounding, but the actual source of the madness was much more alien and abstract than I was hoping for. Maybe something more....bacterial?....would have made me feel better....I think I remember hearing there was some kind of alternative ending



Completely agree.
Tarantino has a habit of overwriting certain scenes, where they become a little drawn out.
OMG, you're the first person to agree with me on this.



His name is Robert Paulson, His name is Robert...
It's OK, nobody agrees with me about the Christopher Walken scene
OMG, you're the first person to agree with me on this.
LOL. Which is it?
__________________
Despite the hoopla, no, Wikipedia is not peer reviewed. Peer reviewed means reviewed by peers only, not peers and some drunk 19 y.o. in college with an axe to grind.



The last 10 years of my life.
Ha. Iíll raise you for 20.
__________________
Iím here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. Thatís why Iím here now.