When the bad guy captures the good guy and instead of executing said good guy on the spot, allows him to remain alive long enough to watch said bad guy's evil plan come to fruition. Everyone except said bad guy knows that said good guy will escape captivity and foil said evil plan.
On a related note, if said bad guy does decide to execute said good guy upon capture, said bad guy doesn't stick around long enough to verify that said execution was actually effective. Classic example (though just one of many): in Live and Let Die, the bad guys put James Bond in the alligator pit, assuming the gators will eat him alive. But said bad guys don't actually wait around to verify that said consumption occurs: rather, they go back inside and Bond escapes. We're supposed to believe (I guess) that said bad guys were so busy that they couldn't stick around a few minutes to enjoy the sight of their arch-rival being torn apart by gators, and to stand around with guns to ensure that if he escapes the gators, he won't escape the guns. I, for one, don't buy it...
Well, watching a guy get torn apart by gators is pretty gruesome. Maybe they had delicate stomachs. :)
As far as leaving the good guy alive for even a short time, the villain also does it for the monologuing opportunity it presents. I know that if my plans for world domination ever come to fruition, I plan to be guided by the tips found here: http://www.proft.org/tips/evil.html
I know that it's done for editing and narrative purposes, but the following scenario annoys me:
Character 1 reacts to something off camera, saying, "Oh no! Look!" Character 2 looks that way, cut to where they're looking to, and THEN the thing comes into view, out from behind a wall, over the horizon, out of the fog, whatever. I know it's intended to show you what the character saw, but it irritates the hell out of me that s/he is reacting to something that hasn't happened yet.
7
I have a similar pet peeve. I hate it when a person starts a sentence (in a conversation with someone else), and then they change scenery (as if it's later, and they're still talking), but the sentence continues right where they left off. Drives me crazy.
9
Really? I thought that was a great episode, but I don't recall if I noticed the mockery to which you refer. Maybe I did, but I'm not sure now. I'll have to watch it again...
10 - Moe is the one who does it. He says half a line, then they cut to the next scene and says the other half. And I believe Superintendent Chalmers says, "Why did you just say that sentence fragment?"
The Simpsons, by the way, continues its decade-long run of just not being funny. I heard people talk up this week's episode, and the laughs were as sparse as usual. No comparison to the early years.
Moe said his sentence fragment to the Army general voiced by Kiefer Sutherland. Superintendent Chalmers was in an enclosure that the Army built to hold "fat, bald men". Chalmers protested that he was bald-ING, not bald and no one respected the "ING". Except for Principal Skinner.
11
I found the line on second viewing. I also found the episode less funny the first time around. The Simpsons is an interesting case study. Even though it's not really funny anymore, I can't see not watching it.
Along the lines of the sentence fragments, i've always found it irritating the way a TV couple, upon returning home from a particularly memorable date, will practically jog up to the front door, still laughing and reminiscing animatedly about said date.
Man: "I still can't believe you jumped right onto that mechanical bull! You really are one crazy girl, you know that?"
Woman: "Me? You're the one who told them I was the 1994 South Texas Bull-Riding Champ! If it takes me all year, I'll find a way to get back at you!"
Man: "All I can say is a year with you would be worth it..."
And....they kiss.
In reality, at that point in the night, it's usually more along the lines of:
Man: "So, um, what's the rest of your weekend look like?"
Woman: "I'm probably going to have to go into work tomorrow. You?"
Man: "Same. Hey, it looks like the azalias are starting to bloom."
8 - Then do yourself a favor and avoid the Soderbergh film "The Limey." Much of the movie is edited that way, with conversations spanning multiple locations and times of day. Overall I liked the movie, but by the end I couldn't decide whether this split-dialogue technique was interesting or gimmicky. Probably, to quote Abe Simpson, "a little from Column A and a little from Column B."
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.
On a related note, if said bad guy does decide to execute said good guy upon capture, said bad guy doesn't stick around long enough to verify that said execution was actually effective. Classic example (though just one of many): in Live and Let Die, the bad guys put James Bond in the alligator pit, assuming the gators will eat him alive. But said bad guys don't actually wait around to verify that said consumption occurs: rather, they go back inside and Bond escapes. We're supposed to believe (I guess) that said bad guys were so busy that they couldn't stick around a few minutes to enjoy the sight of their arch-rival being torn apart by gators, and to stand around with guns to ensure that if he escapes the gators, he won't escape the guns. I, for one, don't buy it...
As far as leaving the good guy alive for even a short time, the villain also does it for the monologuing opportunity it presents. I know that if my plans for world domination ever come to fruition, I plan to be guided by the tips found here: http://www.proft.org/tips/evil.html
Awesome.
Character 1 reacts to something off camera, saying, "Oh no! Look!" Character 2 looks that way, cut to where they're looking to, and THEN the thing comes into view, out from behind a wall, over the horizon, out of the fog, whatever. I know it's intended to show you what the character saw, but it irritates the hell out of me that s/he is reacting to something that hasn't happened yet.
I have a similar pet peeve. I hate it when a person starts a sentence (in a conversation with someone else), and then they change scenery (as if it's later, and they're still talking), but the sentence continues right where they left off. Drives me crazy.
Really? I thought that was a great episode, but I don't recall if I noticed the mockery to which you refer. Maybe I did, but I'm not sure now. I'll have to watch it again...
The Simpsons, by the way, continues its decade-long run of just not being funny. I heard people talk up this week's episode, and the laughs were as sparse as usual. No comparison to the early years.
I found the line on second viewing. I also found the episode less funny the first time around. The Simpsons is an interesting case study. Even though it's not really funny anymore, I can't see not watching it.
Man: "I still can't believe you jumped right onto that mechanical bull! You really are one crazy girl, you know that?"
Woman: "Me? You're the one who told them I was the 1994 South Texas Bull-Riding Champ! If it takes me all year, I'll find a way to get back at you!"
Man: "All I can say is a year with you would be worth it..."
And....they kiss.
In reality, at that point in the night, it's usually more along the lines of:
Man: "So, um, what's the rest of your weekend look like?"
Woman: "I'm probably going to have to go into work tomorrow. You?"
Man: "Same. Hey, it looks like the azalias are starting to bloom."
And....the woman hides a yawn behind her hand.
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.