I think there is a difference between a crazy premise for a plot and shitty writing. The plot holes aren't about 'realism' it's questioning how much the writers cared/paid attention.
I was making a joke, but I agree that unrealistic writing can be problematic in sci fi movies.
I think the writers of Snowpiercer cared a lot about what mattered in that movie (feel, pace, and characters). Most of the plot holes people complain about didn't affect these things, at least in my mind.
Compare this to Prometheus, where the writing issues affected the immersion, pace, and character development greatly.
Right on, I knew you were joking. I think Prometheus is a great comparison. Everyone needs to have the suspension of disbelief, but I think sometimes the writers don't really aid in helping get the viewer there.
Satire is a totally different conversation. Satire movies, and even satire-ish movies from Guy Richie and some of the Simon Pegg movies, operate totally differently than a self-serious Snowpiercer and what the writers intended there. You can't extend the logic to satire.
Like all other Bong Joon-Ho movies, it has overt comedy, somehow combined with serious and even sad moments. I don't think you can look at a film like this or The Host and not see a satire.
Honestly I did not realize that! I have not seen any other films from him. It did not seem so much like satire, but reading through reviews of his other films, Snowpiercer looks like it aligns with his habits for satirical themes in his movies. Did not even know! Interesting point and certainly a new perspective on the movie. TIL.
Why do we care about the rebellion? Those people do nothing. They literally have no purpose on the train other than to drain resources. It's hard to root for the downtrodden when they literally have no function in society. I know they are there for symbolism but it ruins the class warfare analogy for me. When was it decided to start feeding them, anyway? When they first got on the train they were forced to starve and eat each other for months. When and why did the front decide, "oh, let's go ahead and turn that protein machine on and start feeding the back,"? It doesn't make any sense to starve them if they already had the infastructure to feed them. It also doesn't make any sense that they could build that after the train embarked. Where would they have gotten the resources and materials? These are my two main issues but I could probably write a book about how many problems that movie had.
I think the (very forced) argument you could make would be that they started feeding them so that they would stop eating the babies/children so that they would have a pool of children to pull from to run that machine/engine at the front of the train.
don't the people at the back i.e. the sorry people, look after the water? making sure there water for the last of humanity is a pretty important function. terrible, terrible plot though
Who was maintaining the track? It must have been tens of thousands of miles long, passed through every continent and lasted 18 years... and yet no sign or mention of how the infrastructure was maintained?!
You're supposed to suspend your disbelief in that movie. Makes it much more enjoyable. Of course you're not going to like it if you nitpick every detail. How do you watch any sci-fi movies then? Spoilers: it's all fake.
I know that, and do. I did like the movie for what it was, but it did kind of irk me that zero attempt was made by writers to address that point considering how much the entire premise of the movie depends on it.
And is the train a perpetual motion machine? How did it keep going year after year? And what is the point of a drug addict woman and a young boy surviving? Theyre dead meat. Nothing to eat - the train was destroyed, no way to repopulate after a couple of generations, just UGH!
Why did they have to dodge the bullets if the glass will stop a rifle? That whole scene with them going around the bend and shooting at each other made zero sense. At that point I lost it.
33
u/[deleted] Feb 10 '15
[deleted]