Major mistake!!!!!!!!!!( I think this is a spoiler)
How did the last girl write the address and swallow it in her lipstick tube if she was strapped down?
shareYeah, exactly, and how did it not get wet?? Utter rubbish...
shareit's not impossible to put something in a thing like that and it not get wet, it all depends on how it was placeed, and how much it moved once in the water. if no air escapes, no water gets in. simple grade 6 science...easiest way to test this is take a glass and put it upside down, then put it in water upside down. no water gets in becuase of the air still in the upside down glass. However if you tilt the glass air escapes and water gets in. it's a long shot i know, but that's how it could be done.
couple that with the fact that it's A MOVIE AND NOT REAL, and there's your answer
I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, or insanity to anyone. But they've always worked for me.
Got to love the answer 'It's only a movie!!!'(always punctuated with a thousand exclamation marks).
What's the f&*king point in making anything remotely watchable if it can all descend into abstract nonsense at any time based on the fact that it's 'only a movie!!!!!!'
Because it's not meant to be taken seriously, such is the way of horror movies. (Depending on the plot)
On the other hand, people have the right to discuss whether or not something is ridiculous, and lip stick containers aren't exactly water tight are they.
Oh well, I'm sure some other movie will come along and make you think even more "This is !£#&%"#?! stupid!"
Oh wait, Kingdom of the Crystal skull, anyone?
This film is fiction, not a documentary. Fictions can fictionalize anything they like--not only characters and events, but any fact about the world that they'd like to fictionalize. They can invent new worlds too.
Additionally, films are artworks. If you're watching a film like this to get documentary information about the world, there's a problem, in my opinion. It's not that a film can't give you documentary information about the world, but you should never expect that (and you should never trust that you're getting that from a fictional film--it would always require research into non-fiction sources). You should only expect to interact with an artwork.
The point, in my opinion, is to make an artwork as such.
Maybe you'd enjoy reading non-fiction much more than watching fictional films.
Is everyone in this house a total nutzoid or is it just me?
You've got to be *beep* kidding me...
First of all, yes, movies can create their own rules, worlds, etc. However, all of these things are somehow based off of or grounded in our reality. Without these stories somehow based in reality, and thus, navigating the "suspension of disbelief" bridge, and we accept their premises and/or narratives. If they aren't somehow related to reality, then there is no way for us to relate to or believe what is going on, and, thus, it becomes utterly ridiculous. I could make a movie about flying elephants and invisible lizards, but unless these are things seen by a man on shrooms in a comedy, I WOULD BE A *beep* RETARD TO MAKE SUCH A MOVIE.
Something existing is not a reason for it to exist. It has to have a quality. It has to have some kind of incremental benefit or some message to benefit from understanding, aka the ARTIST'S VISION APPRECIATED OR MIRRORED IN THE VIEWER. That is the justification for art. That's not even approaching the argument that film as a medium is an art form in and of itself, because it may or may not be, but everything drawn is not art, and therefore everything recorded is not art either. Fear dot com is awful, terrible, and doesn't redeem itself at almost any point. You see, your premise can be unbelievable, hence sci-fi (what you are drawing). However, if what you are using to paint this image is not at least somewhat (as stated prior) grounded in reality (like air instead of paint), then it is utter rubbish, and there is no legitimate LOGICAL argument to the opposite.
You've got to be *beep* kidding me...No, not at all.
However, all of these things are somehow based off of or grounded in our reality.It would probably be impossible to create a film like Feardotcom that does not bear some relationship to the actual world. You have to use actors who are obviously going to bear a relationship to people in the actual world (since they are that), you have to use objects that have some identity in the actual world, etc.
If they aren't somehow related to reality, then there is no way for us to relate to or believe what is going on"Suspension of disbelief" is not a phrase I care for due to these misunderstandings. I do not agree that "suspension of disbelief" is about us becoming morons and believing that the film is not a film, where we're not able to distinguish fantasy from our beliefs about the actual world, etc. Suspension of disbelief is about the story working in the context of the film's fictional world; it's about buying whatever the film presents as its fictional world in an "as if" way. You suspend your disbelief and go along with the film's make-believe.
I could make a movie about flying elephants and invisible lizards, but unless these are things seen by a man on shrooms in a comedy, I WOULD BE A *beep* RETARD TO MAKE SUCH A MOVIE.The fact that you wouldn't like it doesn't suggest that none of us would. If you prefer your films to be more like you believe the actual world to be, then at least choose what you watch very carefully in a fantasy-oriented genre like horror ("fantasy" is used in a very broad sense there, not a "swords & sorcery" sense). You might do better sticking with realist drama.
Something existing is not a reason for it to exist. It has to have a quality. It has to have some kind of incremental benefit or some message to benefit from understanding, aka the ARTIST'S VISION APPRECIATED OR MIRRORED IN THE VIEWER. That is the justification for art.I do not buy any of that ideology. Art doesn't need any justification in my view. It again would be wise for you to realize that we do not all agree with that, and so maybe try to avoid works by artists who do not agree with it.
everything drawn is not art, and therefore everything recorded is not art either.There are different senses of "art" that I use, one an interpretational sense (having to do with how the experiencer parses their experience), and one a socio-cultural sense (having to do with how things are treated/classified per conventions, especially with respect to the "artworld"). In the second sense, things like films, drawings, etc. are art whether you parse your experience of them a particular way or not. In the first sense, obviously, not all films would be artworks, but that's to you and to someone else, the films that you do not interpret as artworks may be artworks to them, and there is no objectively correct answer about it.
http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies share
This is hilarious. Good writers worked this out in the early 1800s, which is when the phrase "the willing suspension of disbelief" originated and the earliest modern novels were written.
What they found is that you can write about any crazy thing you want, provided that the crazy part is the "central conceit" of the story. Your job as a writer is to ground that central conceit in the real world as much as possible. When you fail, you have told a bad story.
This film is a bad story.
The worst way a writer can end a story is to use a hard-to-believe plot device to set things right. To do what was done in this movie, the film-maker would need to provide a proper set up; that is, establish that such a thing is possible by demonstrating it beforehand in a similar way. You only get one chance to persuade your audience that the events are possible within the context of the film's reality: in the film iself. Not on a message forum later.
Someone earlier said this was "artwork"...sorry dude, Feardotcom ain't artwork...
share