fatchap Posted October 22, 2020 Report Share Posted October 22, 2020 (edited) Do some films not have a genre? Such as Back to the future part III was it a SciFi film or a western? Aliens? War film or Horror/Scifi. Titanic now this is a good one, Romance or factual. Sorry but been arguing with the wife over Titanic she obviously thinks its a Romance totally disregarding that the film is based on fact and actually did happen. I don't know if there was real passengers called Rose or Jack Dalton or they where created for the film. Also didn't know James Cameron actually financed out of his own pocket the expedition that first found the Titanic back in 1985. I find if I'm due an argument with the wife its best to do a bit of research first. Edited October 22, 2020 by fatchap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mice! Posted October 22, 2020 Report Share Posted October 22, 2020 14 minutes ago, fatchap said: Titanic now this is a good one, Romance or factual. Factual with a romantic twist, otherwise people wouldn't watch it. I'm sure many films cross a couple of genres. And no point arguing with the wife you'll never win even when you're right 😁😁 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walshie Posted October 22, 2020 Report Share Posted October 22, 2020 Romantic with a factual twist in as far as a ship called Titanic sank. Other than that, not very factual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjpainter Posted October 22, 2020 Report Share Posted October 22, 2020 1 hour ago, walshie said: Romantic with a factual twist in as far as a ship called Titanic sank. Other than that, not very factual. This. Although if you watch it backwards it becomes the tale of the People of Atlantis who build a giant ship and float it to the surface. Equally factual tale... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmboy91 Posted October 22, 2020 Report Share Posted October 22, 2020 I watched a documentary on the Titanic not so long back on YouTube, would have to agree with walshie when it's comes to the film's factual side of things😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearwater Posted October 23, 2020 Report Share Posted October 23, 2020 If it helps the argument, I've noticed when browsing genres looking for something to watch films are usually is 2 or 3 genres, however, and this might wind the tiff for you; Movies ( ie box office money spinners like Batman, Titanic or anything that has 2+ follow-ups ) as mentioned above are in one genre with an added twist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Prawn Posted October 23, 2020 Report Share Posted October 23, 2020 2 hours ago, Shearwater said: If it helps the argument, I've noticed when browsing genres looking for something to watch films are usually is 2 or 3 genres, however, and this might wind the tiff for you; Movies ( ie box office money spinners like Batman, Titanic or anything that has 2+ follow-ups ) as mentioned above are in one genre with an added twist I would say Films and Movies are interchangeable terms - Films has fallen out of fashion as very few productions actually use film these days so Movies is the more up to date term. Another way of looking at it is all Films are Movies, but not all Movies are Films. In terms of the main debate, I would say it's a period romance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centrepin Posted October 23, 2020 Report Share Posted October 23, 2020 I can't believe you argued with your wife🤭🤐 Braver man than me.🤣🤣🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted October 23, 2020 Report Share Posted October 23, 2020 4 minutes ago, Centrepin said: I can't believe you argued with your wife🤭🤐 Braver man than me.🤣🤣🤣 Do you know his wife? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munzy Posted October 23, 2020 Report Share Posted October 23, 2020 1 hour ago, The Mighty Prawn said: I would say Films and Movies are interchangeable terms - Films has fallen out of fashion as very few productions actually use film these days so Movies is the more up to date term. Another way of looking at it is all Films are Movies, but not all Movies are Films. In terms of the main debate, I would say it's a period romance Interesting you bring this up. I have a very good friend who produces big big movies. He’s German but lives in LA and he always laughs when I refer to movies as films. Apparently “films” is seen as incredibly pretentious in Hollywood where “movies” is the norm. For me, “films” has always been a standard term and “movie” has always felt a bit American. When I hear people say “cinema” when talking about films in general (eg “the golden age of cinema”) I think it sounds a bit pretentious. Either way, movies, flicks, films etc... there is no real distinction other than the fact they don’t really make movies on film anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centrepin Posted October 23, 2020 Report Share Posted October 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said: Do you know his wife? Not that I know of, but presuming she's female then I'm not brave enough to argue.😁 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted October 23, 2020 Report Share Posted October 23, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discobob Posted October 23, 2020 Report Share Posted October 23, 2020 As an FYI - A lot of Science Fiction Films are actually Westerns - Star Wars being a prime example - In fact there was a film with Mr Bond in it (Daniel Craig) called Space Cowboys. I also have a dim recollection that they remade The Magnificent Seven as a science fiction film - had John Boy Walton in it - quick search of IMDB - Battle Beyond the Stars (1980) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatchap Posted October 23, 2020 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2020 (edited) 51 minutes ago, discobob said: I also have a dim recollection that they remade The Magnificent Seven as a science fiction film - had John Boy Walton in it - quick search of IMDB - Battle Beyond the Stars (1980) Remember that film, the main spaceship had a huge pair of breasts for some reason.... Didn't Robert Vaughn have a part in both The magnificent Seven and Battle beyond the Stars? And if I remember correctly the producer of Battle beyond the Stars made another Sci-Fi film called Space Raiders but because he was on a limited budget, he reused the footage from Battle Beyond the Stars for all the space battle scenes in the film. It got crucified by the critics. Daniel Craig was in Cowboys vs Aliens. Edited October 23, 2020 by fatchap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Best Posted October 23, 2020 Report Share Posted October 23, 2020 You lot do watch some carp! Get out more and get some shooting done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discobob Posted October 23, 2020 Report Share Posted October 23, 2020 17 minutes ago, fatchap said: Remember that film, the main spaceship had a huge pair of breasts for some reason.... Didn't Robert Vaughn have a part in both The magnificent Seven and Battle beyond the Stars? And if I remember correctly the producer of Battle beyond the Stars made another Sci-Fi film called Space Raiders but because he was on a limited budget, he reused the footage from Battle Beyond the Stars for all the space battle scenes in the film. It got crucified by the critics. Daniel Craig was in Cowboys vs Aliens. I stand corrected on that Good Sir!! I don't think I ever saw Space Raiders but it wouldn't surprise me - and yes - Robert Vaughn was in both as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatchap Posted October 23, 2020 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2020 (edited) Always had concerns about The Terminator. What would have happened if John Connor had sent someone else back instead of Kyle Reece. And that person did not sleep with Sarah Connor, John would not have existed. The only way this works is if John knew Kyle was going to be his dad, but how could he? At no point in the film Does Sarah say she must remember to tell her son he is going to be the leader of the resistance in the future oh and by the way make sure you send Kyle Reece back in time to save me and not a woman or you won't exist but you do because your here so this must already have happened before you met Kyle and the terminator in the first place......... Even Kyle didn't know what Sarah looked like so he had no idea he was about to get his leg over and save the future of mankind. But he should have known what she looked like because in one of the flash backs he has a picture of her that gets burnt. Also if this has happened more than once which the film leads you to beleive why is the Terminator not waiting for Kyle to come through and just kill him there and then. no need to go after Sarah anymore, or even better kill him in the future but then there would be no film... Don't you just hate time travel? Edited October 23, 2020 by fatchap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Prawn Posted October 23, 2020 Report Share Posted October 23, 2020 22 minutes ago, fatchap said: Always had concerns about The Terminator. What would have happened if John Connor had sent someone else back instead of Kyle Reece. And that person did not sleep with Sarah Connor, John would not have existed. The only way this works is if John knew Kyle was going to be his dad, but how could he? At no point in the film Does Sarah say she must remember to tell her son he is going to be the leader of the resistance in the future oh and by the way make sure you send Kyle Reece back in time to save me and not a woman or you won't exist but you do because your here so this must already have happened before you met Kyle and the terminator in the first place......... Even Kyle didn't know what Sarah looked like so he had no idea he was about to get his leg over and save the future of mankind. But he should have known what she looked like because in one of the flash backs he has a picture of her that gets burnt. Also if this has happened more than once which the film leads you to beleive why is the Terminator not waiting for Kyle to come through and just kill him there and then. no need to go after Sarah anymore, or even better kill him in the future but then there would be no film... Don't you just hate time travel? The predestination paradox - it has to happen because it already happened The Terminator films are to time travel what a riot is to ballroom dancing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discobob Posted October 23, 2020 Report Share Posted October 23, 2020 1 hour ago, The Mighty Prawn said: The predestination paradox - it has to happen because it already happened The Terminator films are to time travel what a riot is to ballroom dancing! What - it isn't real!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatchap Posted October 23, 2020 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2020 3 hours ago, The Mighty Prawn said: The predestination paradox - it has to happen because it already happened The Terminator films are to time travel what a riot is to ballroom dancing! Just googled predestination paradox I'm no better off, you need a phd in Temporal physics to even understand the first word. Makes my head hurt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Prawn Posted October 23, 2020 Report Share Posted October 23, 2020 28 minutes ago, fatchap said: Just googled predestination paradox I'm no better off, you need a phd in Temporal physics to even understand the first word. Makes my head hurt. If you really want to blow your mind read this... https://www.sciencealert.com/a-physicist-has-come-up-with-the-maths-to-make-time-travel-plausible Short version for those that don't want a melted head - if you go back in time anything you change will just happen another way and the present will therefore remain the same Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatchap Posted October 23, 2020 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2020 (edited) Yep punching well above my weight believing I understood any of that. Interesting it mentions Back to the Future. Another dodgy bit of time travel, Marty goes back stops the first meeting of his mum and dad, so has to put that right. Marty goes back to the future now should his mum and dad remember him for 1955 or not? And if they do how will his mum live with herself when she remembers she tried to get off with her own son. The Doc in the future remembered Marty being in the past so why didn't Marty's parents in the future remember him from the past..........I think?? 3 minutes ago, fatchap said: Edited October 23, 2020 by fatchap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Prawn Posted October 23, 2020 Report Share Posted October 23, 2020 3 hours ago, fatchap said: Yep punching well above my weight believing I understood any of that. Interesting it mentions Back to the Future. Another dodgy bit of time travel, Marty goes back stops the first meeting of his mum and dad, so has to put that right. Marty goes back to the future now should his mum and dad remember him for 1955 or not? And if they do how will his mum live with herself when she remembers she tried to get off with her own son. The Doc in the future remembered Marty being in the past so why didn't Marty's parents in the future remember him from the past..........I think?? I feel such a tragic nerd but in for a penny... There’s an ongoing internet debate with back to the future as to why Marty’s parents don’t notice that Marty looks like the mysterious stranger who turned up at their high school - I think the answer is as simple as how well do you remember what someone looked like 30 years ago who you only knew for a few days. Also they have known Marty since birth so they would arguably not notice that at a specific time in his life he resembled the stranger. interestingly back to the future 1 is often cited as a good example of theoretical time travel and the rules of such Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatchap Posted October 23, 2020 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2020 Theoretically speaking if the technology existed or you have unlimited access to a DeLorean with a flux capacitor fitted as standard you could only travel to the past as it has happened, forward in time would be impossible as it has not happened yet, be a bit like driving over a bridge before its built. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpringDon Posted October 23, 2020 Report Share Posted October 23, 2020 Time travel to the future is possible; I do it all the time. Altering the past the explained in the multiverse theory by simply creating a new timeline/universe as a result of any change thus paradoxes never occur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.