MovieChat Forums > Pánico en el Transiberiano (1974) Discussion > Neat idea or ridiculous?

Neat idea or ridiculous?

posted 13 years ago by Jasons_Argonaut
6 replies | jump to latest

What am I referring to? Why, the ability to see imagery from the past in the creature's eye fluid, of course! I think this idea is truly a goofy one, but no more so than some of the crazy ideas that always seemed to pop up in older horror and science fiction films. I accept it because I really enjoy the film, and I guess I am willing to suspend disbelief for the sake of it being an alien. But if you really get down to it, though, the eye fluid is nothing more than that of a regular Earth creature, as the alien itself is a form of energy. I think the idea stretches credibility quite a bit, but oh well.

I just wondered if any of you had ever thought about this part of the film or winced at how silly the idea is. This is by no means an attack, as I do very much enjoy the film. But I would like to hear your opinions!

[–] !!!deleted!!! (1688273) 13 years ago

As a plot device, it sure made it easy to see where he'd been, didn't it? It would be absurd under normal circumstances... but here we have a supernatural entity/alien creature that can not only commandeer and inhabit another being's brain, but sap the minds of others through the eyes. So I'd imagine that after leaving long-time host "Cro-Magnon Charlie", after inhabiting him for millenia, the eyes remained very unusual, with special properties.

[–] holbrookp 13 years ago

The idea that the retina preserves the last image it saw at the moment of death is actually an old one. I haven't read THE KLANSMAN, the book that BIRTH OF A NATION was based on, but I've heard that the retina plot device figures strongly in the story. I guess a hundred years ago or further back, this method of detecting the identity of a murderer was considered as reliable as DNA is today.

Of course, it's ridiculous. Imagine all the poor innocent souls who were sent to prison based on what some doctor or coroner reported was visible in the eye! I'm assuming it must have been used as proof in murder cases, though.

"Truth is its own evidence." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

[–] Jasons_Argonaut 12 years ago

That's interesting, holbrookp. Thanks for sharing. I think I could better live with the idea of the eye retaining the last image before death, but as we know, the movie showed us the view of Earth from the heavens, which of course would not be the last image. As phogroian stated, it is easy enough to write off since the creature is alien and can sport abilities beyond what we can understand, but it is so out there that it is difficult to swallow. It's a great film, though, but I just wondered if anyone else had given this idea any thought.

[–] holbrookp 12 years ago

I didn't remember that the movie showed the view of Earth from the heavens, etc. I watched PROJECT X (1967) last night, a science fiction film about the government using high-tech equipment to probe a spy's mind to retrieve some vital information he'd learned at the moment he died. They hooked up wires to his head and watched his memories on a big monitor. Again, as in HORROR EXPRESS, they saw all sorts of scenes, not from his viewpoint, but from yards away, different camera angles, etc.! They saw his space vehicle flying and crashing, and lots of other stuff. It was implausible as could be, but it did remind me of the scenes in HORROR EXPRESS.

Hey, weren't there similar scenes in FIVE MILLION MILES TO EARTH (1967)? The remains of an ancient space craft and alien were found beneath London and scientists figured out a way to probe its brain and see what the alien had seen and remembered.

"Truth is its own evidence." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

[–] Jasons_Argonaut 12 years ago

Good call. Quatermass and the Pit (aka, Five Million Miles to Earth) did indeed do this exact same thing. I had forgotten about that, and I always found the scene there to stretch credibility as well, as they just so happen to have a device that can do exactly what the plot requires!

I watched that terrible GI JOE movie from a couple of years back on TV not long ago, the one with Channing Tatum, and there was a scene where they were going to use a device on a dead bad guy that probed his brain and could see the last images he had seen before death. Of course, he self-destructed or something before they could get into the detail of actually showing us the results of their magical technology that can conveniently do anything. I was astounded that a movie in the 2000s would use this plot device! It's more forgiving 40 years ago, but now?

[–] Kammurabi 9 years ago

Movies have regressed. It seems more probable now for a movie to reuse plot devices. Happens all the time...rarely is there a new idea now, especially in Hollywood.
The movie you referenced, GIJoe, is itself a perfect example of the normal state of movies today. Technologically advanced, certainly. But it has the writing and acting and numbness that could be found in the more unappealing 50s and 60s B-movies, yet it is a mainstream blockbuster.

.