|
|
Post by Guest on Feb 16, 2004 2:38:51 GMT -5
In the audience with Father part, the old man said Preston's firearms will be taken. why didn't they take his guns?!?!!?!? only his sword?? are they stupid or something. also where are the snipers who will "put him down"? it is too easy for Preston LOL. and where is the audience chamber located? how did Preston go from there to DUponts office in such a short time?? weird.
|
|
|
|
Post by MAX on Feb 16, 2004 5:51:57 GMT -5
In the audience with Father part, the old man said Preston's firearms will be taken. why didn't they take his guns?!?!!?!? only his sword?? are they stupid or something. Watch those scenes again... Carefully. also where are the snipers who will "put him down"? it is too easy for Preston LOL. That'd be for when he actually meets Father... and where is the audience chamber located? how did Preston go from there to DUponts office in such a short time?? weird. It's almost certain that we don't see his entire journey, this'll be due to the fast paced nature of the narrative's final scenes. |
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Feb 16, 2004 6:00:25 GMT -5
When we see the final released version of any film, it's gone through the whole post production process where scenes are edited or chopped. The firearm /metal detector scene crops up here and there in discussions. Here's what Kurt Wimmer said: (this is from the commentary, but it's also in the Giant Plot Hole thread)  By 'audience chamber', do you mean 'Father's' office? That's not made clear, but perhaps it's located at the top of the Palace of Justice, where DuPont's office is also situated. The Palace is shown as a rotunda and the opulent room seems to be domed, which would fit with it being at the top. Preston wreaked havoc in the screen room on his way back to DuPont's office, where he could get a good view of the ensuing mayhem! His office in with the T-shaped window seems to be just underneath the overhang. The domed chamber could be above this, so it's not too far. |
|
|
|
Post by guest on Feb 17, 2004 15:24:55 GMT -5
hmm I still dont get it....I watched that scene and they only took his sword, why didn't they search his body?
|
|
|
|
Post by TrustKill on Feb 17, 2004 16:32:10 GMT -5
the scene where he would go through the metal detectors was cut out. it was supposed to happen after the polygraph test. since it was cut out, we didnt get to see it, eh?
-they didnt search his body because that would have happened in the scene that was removed and they didnt suppose he would be a threat to them after he had been caught. (i assume)
-the snipers wouldnt be in place because preston probably wasnt supposed to meet father in the office where they fought, but in a different place. besides, none of that matters because they set him up from the get go. the snipers, the polygraph test, etc were all just a large ceremony to make preston think he had it made until they told him he was caught.
|
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Feb 17, 2004 18:53:31 GMT -5
Cheers, TrustKill! ;D I tried to work out how to explain that without terminal brain fry. You did it perfectly.  |
|
|
|
Post by baleheadnutcase on Feb 17, 2004 19:24:57 GMT -5
OH god oh god oh god. How can i get hold of the original version? I'm not exactly understanding this ( I did this test and apparently I'm a visual learner) so is there an extended DVD thingy out there or something?
|
|
|
|
Post by MAX on Feb 17, 2004 22:05:15 GMT -5
No, not yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by baleheadnutcase on Feb 17, 2004 23:08:21 GMT -5
Well don't that totally suck....has it ever been suggested? hinted? anything??? (btw the original version was in the movies right?)
|
|
|
|
Post by guest on Feb 18, 2004 1:23:09 GMT -5
err why would the metal detector scene be after the polygraph scene? whats the point of detecting his weapons if Dupont was going to tell him the truth then and there during the polygraph?
|
|
|
|
Post by MAX on Feb 18, 2004 5:03:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Feb 18, 2004 5:32:51 GMT -5
OH god oh god oh god. How can i get hold of the original version? I'm not exactly understanding this ( I did this test and apparently I'm a visual learner) so is there an extended DVD thingy out there or something? Calm down!!! ;D Don't get your knickers in a twist! ;D. Like MAX says, read the commentaries. The film that was screened in the cinema is the film that's on the DVD. There's no extended thingy (yet). You could put it all down to DuPont's ego. HE thought he'd won. Don't forget the predilection such people have for explaining their cleverness to the hero before trying to blow him away! Just go with the flow! |
|
|
|
Post by TrustKill on Feb 18, 2004 9:37:41 GMT -5
err why would the metal detector scene be after the polygraph scene? whats the point of detecting his weapons if Dupont was going to tell him the truth then and there during the polygraph? -its because all the librians knew that he was feeling. they wanted him to know that he was caught. |
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on Feb 18, 2004 9:43:21 GMT -5
err why would the metal detector scene be after the polygraph scene? whats the point of detecting his weapons if Dupont was going to tell him the truth then and there during the polygraph? Its one of those things that you either buy into how the writer/director has visioned it or you don't. Personally, I never try to second guess a writer because stories have innumerable paths that they can follow. For one reason or another the story was given a certain structure that the writer choose to give it...logical to me or not. I can either accept that or write my own story. |
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on Feb 18, 2004 9:54:22 GMT -5
As an example to what I just wrote is Matrix's Lobby sequence. After the film was released I was on innumerable message boards where people were arguing the fact the Neo & Trinity could have taken a different option to rescuing Morpheous. Sure they could have but they didn't. It was up to the filmmakers to decide what road those characters would take & how they would take it, not us. We either accept it or we don't. It's as simple as that without any apologetics involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrustKill on Feb 18, 2004 10:12:09 GMT -5
amen
|
|
|
|
Post by baleheadnutcase on Feb 18, 2004 10:14:53 GMT -5
Hmm... that's the reason why he had that red bloody scratch on his neck for no reason...and Trustkill...your siggy is bloody awesome
|
|
|
|
Post by TrustKill on Feb 18, 2004 10:21:42 GMT -5
yeah... i think that was supposed to be from the extended mysterious final gun battle with dupont. somewhere in it, a bullet knicks his neck but we dont get to see it.
-thanks... i didnt draw it myself but i wish i did. i used to draw flip books on post-it note pads back in the day sort of like it though. thats why i got it, it reminds me of my youth ::sigh:: haha. that and it is bad-ass.
|
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on Feb 18, 2004 10:45:36 GMT -5
Hmm... that's the reason why he had that red bloody scratch on his neck for no reason... Actually Wimmer explains that one in the commentary...(Second one - Chapter 17... also see my FAQ page) I'm not saying that explanations & interpretations are not important because I believe they are especially when they come from the creators. What I find tedious are endless discussions & arguments on points of logic (I'm sure other people see otherwise.) Logic in films & stories I find usually to be irrelevant. Logic is not fact. One's logic is usually but applied personal experience and/or knowledge which is all too often subjective. Example...I had a friend wonder how Preston knew to light the match. Personally...I don't give a fig...how...when...or...where he learned to do that. I accept the fact that somewhere in his vast life experience he did. The last thing I want is to have my time wasted in a theater with minuet details that are really irrelevant to the story. My deductive reasoning is perfectly able to accept there are some things about the characters we may never know and I really dislike film makers that feel their audience are incapable of filling in the blanks by feeding them pabulum. ***COUGH...Spielberg...COUGH*** |
|
|
|
Post by TrustKill on Feb 18, 2004 10:54:20 GMT -5
your friend questions how preston knew how to light the match?? seriously... it may be in the future and they may be sheltered from emotion, but they arent retarded.
-i agree when you say that sometimes picking things apart in movies is rediculous. i only do it when the movie really really bugs me.
|
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on Feb 18, 2004 11:00:00 GMT -5
i only do it when the movie really really bugs me. I hate to tell you this but it is usually really only an excuse for you to validate your own negative feelings. (teasing grin ;D) All films have them...all stories have them. It's the nature of the beast. Films we love we use apologetics...films we dislike we tear with logic. |
|
|
|
Post by TrustKill on Feb 18, 2004 11:39:47 GMT -5
yeah... most movies i enjoy though. i do it to annoy people who like movies that i think suck.
-i know im a jerk.
|
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on Feb 18, 2004 11:43:39 GMT -5
yeah... most movies i enjoy though. i do it to annoy people who like movies that i think suck. -i know im a jerk. No, don't worry about it. I owe you an apology. I really am in a wicked mood this morning. Must have missed my dose or something.  My kids are coming to pull the keeeyyyy.....booooaarrd....away...from...meeeeee.... |
|
|
|
Post by TrustKill on Feb 18, 2004 12:16:26 GMT -5
ohhhhh... i get it now. i already responded to your PM and whatnot. now it makes more sense. let me explain.
-i have a strange disregard for the smileys and other emoticons in general. so when i said "im a jerk" i wasnt seriously saying i am a jerk, it was sort of tongue in cheek. oops. it makes me wonder how many times i have said things in jest that people took seriously.
-damn the smileys. instead of smell-o-vision, someone needs to work on emoti-o-vision so that people reading can tell what kind of attitude to read things with.
::shrugs::
|
|
|
|
Post by baleheadnutcase on Feb 18, 2004 12:51:52 GMT -5
Oh...yah...well i was rading the post and Jen, you did knock some sense into me. But I really really wanna see an extended version... (good point about the emot-o-vision) :sighs:
|
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Feb 18, 2004 14:35:13 GMT -5
My deductive reasoning is perfectly able to accept there are some things about the characters we may never know and I really dislike film makers that feel their audience are incapable of filling in the blanks by feeding them pabulum. ***COUGH...Spielberg...COUGH*** I so agree with you, Jen! I watched EQ the other day on my TV, whilst relaxing on the sofa. Haven't done that for ages - it's usually in my face on the PC. I tried to go back to the 'first time' feeling - no pausing and rewinding;no looking for points forum people had made; just watching it all the way through and enjoying it. It made perfect sense when I saw it in the cinema and it still does. It's a question of faith. And I have it. |
|
]
