Movie scenes that bug you (in movies you like)

[Vandal]

Similar to the lyrics thread, what are some movie scenes that may give you pause for whatever reason, even though the movie may be a winner.

You may want to spoil your scenes, just in case. I'll start with one of my favorite movies:

In The Shawshank Redemption,

Spoiler

Andy escapes through a tunnel in his cell and somehow manages to tightly affix a Raquel Welch poster over the hole from the inside. The "Fuzzy Britches" poster is so tight it rips when the warden later throws a rock through it.

[littlebeast13]

Picking on the Back To The Future series for plot inconsistencies is really low hanging fruit, but Part II threw even the simplistic timeline rules the series was guided by out the window...

I can't believe I'm spoilering 30 year old movies

When 2015 Biff goes back to 1955 to give his younger self the almanac, it dramatically alters the timeline, as Doc and Marty find out when they try to travel back to 1985. However, it should have wiped them both out of existence because of this tidbit...



All of the events that happen in the trilogy are predicated not just on Doc and Marty testing out the DeLorean in the mall parking lot in October 1985, but on the time traveling DeLorean existing and working in the first place. Something which we'd have to assume does not happen in the post-almanac timeline since Biff had Doc committed to an insane asylum in 1983. That would create a hell of a bigger paradox than Biff's goons ambushing the original Marty in the 1955 redux scene that has Doc so concerned...

lb13

[frogman042]

Todd Haynes lifted 2 great speeches from Budd Schulberg's classic "A Face in the Crowd" for his movie, "I'm Not There". I thought it was really an interesting reference and made for a richer movie, basically implicating that Dylan was akin to Lonesome Rhodes (if you don't get these references, see both of these movies, they are great and "A Face in the Crowd" may even be more relevant today then when it was made) - but it always bugged me that Todd Haynes didn't give either writing credit or at the very least an acknowledgement to Budd Schulberg - he should have done that in the credits. I found that very disappointing.

[triviawayne]

Picking on the Back To The Future series for plot inconsistencies is really low hanging fruit, but Part II threw even the simplistic timeline rules the series was guided by out the window...

I can't believe I'm spoilering 30 year old movies

When 2015 Biff goes back to 1955 to give his younger self the almanac, it dramatically alters the timeline, as Doc and Marty find out when they try to travel back to 1985. However, it should have wiped them both out of existence because of this tidbit...



All of the events that happen in the trilogy are predicated not just on Doc and Marty testing out the DeLorean in the mall parking lot in October 1985, but on the time traveling DeLorean existing and working in the first place. Something which we'd have to assume does not happen in the post-almanac timeline since Biff had Doc committed to an insane asylum in 1983. That would create a hell of a bigger paradox than Biff's goons ambushing the original Marty in the 1955 redux scene that has Doc so concerned...

lb13

I just want to know what speedometer was in that DeLorean. A real DeLorean speedometer only went up to 85mph.

[Bob Juch]

In Braveheart, William Wallace has an affair with Isabella of France, the wife of Edward II.

In reality, she was five years old when Wallace was executed and had never set foot in England.

The real Isabella married Edward II when she was twelve. She later became the de facto ruler of England as her son, Edward III, was not of age. She was known as "the she-wolf of France" due to her imperiousness.

She's my 20th great-grandmother.

[SportsFan68]

Mine is also Shawshank Redemption. After you've seen it 20 or 30 times, you start to notice stuff.

The scene that really bugs me, and I won't watch it, is where Hadley shoots Tommy for saying he'll provide testimony to prove Andy's innocence. They changed that from the book where Tommy just gets shipped to a different prison and never seen in the book again.

So here's the scene that doesn't bug me: Andy and Red are talking by themselves in the prison yard, the one where Andy tells Red about Zihuatanejo and where to find the box. I read that the director recognized the pros he had in Freeman and Robbins, gave them the script, set up the shot, and let them go. I could watch that scene a dozen more times, back to back to back etc. I think both of them shoulda been nominated for best actor and Freeman shoulda won, but he lost out to a box of chocolates.

[mellytu74]

Field of Dreams.

The movie is based on the book, Shoeless Joe. That's Shoeless Joe Jackson, of the Chicago White Sox. And, in 1919, the Black Sox.

Shoeless Joe Jackson is one of the central characters of the movie.

Shoeless Joe Jackson was one of the best left-handed hitters of his era, arguably the best-left-handed hitter of his era.

Ray Liotta, as Shoeless Joe Jackson, bats right-handed.

DRIVES ME UP THE WALL!!!!

[BackInTex]

This one always bugged me as being kind of creepy.

[Vandal]

This one, too:

Spoiler

[Spock]

Mine is also Shawshank Redemption. After you've seen it 20 or 30 times, you start to notice stuff.

The scene that really bugs me, and I won't watch it, is where Hadley shoots Tommy for saying he'll provide testimony to prove Andy's innocence. They changed that from the book where Tommy just gets shipped to a different prison and never seen in the book again.

So here's the scene that doesn't bug me: Andy and Red are talking by themselves in the prison yard, the one where Andy tells Red about Zihuatanejo and where to find the box. I read that the director recognized the pros he had in Freeman and Robbins, gave them the script, set up the shot, and let them go. I could watch that scene a dozen more times, back to back to back etc. I think both of them shoulda been nominated for best actor and Freeman shoulda won, but he lost out to a box of chocolates.

Yep, it is a good scene-where to find the box-but it bugs me because Andy has been in prison for 20 years (or however long it was) and he is assuming that the tree is still there. That is a pretty big assumption. It all falls apart if somebody cut it down-or even if lightning struck it.

[SportsFan68]

Mine is also Shawshank Redemption. After you've seen it 20 or 30 times, you start to notice stuff.

The scene that really bugs me, and I won't watch it, is where Hadley shoots Tommy for saying he'll provide testimony to prove Andy's innocence. They changed that from the book where Tommy just gets shipped to a different prison and never seen in the book again.

So here's the scene that doesn't bug me: Andy and Red are talking by themselves in the prison yard, the one where Andy tells Red about Zihuatanejo and where to find the box. I read that the director recognized the pros he had in Freeman and Robbins, gave them the script, set up the shot, and let them go. I could watch that scene a dozen more times, back to back to back etc. I think both of them shoulda been nominated for best actor and Freeman shoulda won, but he lost out to a box of chocolates.

Yep, it is a good scene-where to find the box-but it bugs me because Andy has been in prison for 20 years (or however long it was) and he is assuming that the tree is still there. That is a pretty big assumption. It all falls apart if somebody cut it down-or even if lightning struck it.

It's true that when Andy escaped, it had been about 20 years since he last saw the box. But then he got out, dug up the box, wrote Red the note, left him the money, and replaced it. The tree was still looking good at that point, or Andy would have done something else and would have found a way to let Red know. Anybody with the presence of mind to send a postcard from Fort Hancock, Texas, would have figured something out. But it wasn't necessary. Red got out about a year later.

[Earl the Squirrel]

Mine is also Shawshank Redemption. After you've seen it 20 or 30 times, you start to notice stuff.

The scene that really bugs me, and I won't watch it, is where Hadley shoots Tommy for saying he'll provide testimony to prove Andy's innocence. They changed that from the book where Tommy just gets shipped to a different prison and never seen in the book again.

So here's the scene that doesn't bug me: Andy and Red are talking by themselves in the prison yard, the one where Andy tells Red about Zihuatanejo and where to find the box. I read that the director recognized the pros he had in Freeman and Robbins, gave them the script, set up the shot, and let them go. I could watch that scene a dozen more times, back to back to back etc. I think both of them shoulda been nominated for best actor and Freeman shoulda won, but he lost out to a box of chocolates.

Yep, it is a good scene-where to find the box-but it bugs me because Andy has been in prison for 20 years (or however long it was) and he is assuming that the tree is still there. That is a pretty big assumption. It all falls apart if somebody cut it down-or even if lightning struck it.

It's true that when Andy escaped, it had been about 20 years since he last saw the box. But then he got out, dug up the box, wrote Red the note, left him the money, and replaced it. The tree was still looking good at that point, or Andy would have done something else and would have found a way to let Red know. Anybody with the presence of mind to send a postcard from Fort Hancock, Texas, would have figured something out. But it wasn't necessary. Red got out about a year later.

Really? It's always been my assumption that Andy gave him that specific description (I think that's where he and his wife first made love in the book so he remembered a lot of detail) and then set about putting the scene together once he got out. So he set about getting the obsidian rock, getting a box with a picture of a boat on it, etc. and then taking it to that spot.

[Spock]

Yep, it is a good scene-where to find the box-but it bugs me because Andy has been in prison for 20 years (or however long it was) and he is assuming that the tree is still there. That is a pretty big assumption. It all falls apart if somebody cut it down-or even if lightning struck it.

It's true that when Andy escaped, it had been about 20 years since he last saw the box. But then he got out, dug up the box, wrote Red the note, left him the money, and replaced it. The tree was still looking good at that point, or Andy would have done something else and would have found a way to let Red know. Anybody with the presence of mind to send a postcard from Fort Hancock, Texas, would have figured something out. But it wasn't necessary. Red got out about a year later.

Really? It's always been my assumption that Andy gave him that specific description (I think that's where he and his wife first made love in the book so he remembered a lot of detail) and then set about putting the scene together once he got out. So he set about getting the obsidian rock, getting a box with a picture of a boat on it, etc. and then taking it to that spot.

I agree with Earl. The box and the obsidian rock weren't there when Andy told the story. He put them and all the stuff Red needed to travel there after. IIRC, there was a lot of cash in the box.

And while it is easy to send a blank postcard (Port Hancock, Texas) to somebody in prison; it would have been harder to send new specific directions on where to find cash. Andy would have had to find outside people who would smuggle it in etc and the last thing Andy wants to do is hang around prison supply companies and so forth.

[Vandal]

While we're on Shawshank, I was always in awe of the plastic bag that Andy drags along with him during the escape. He has the ledger, a suit, some shoes and other items for later. It manages to stay intact the entire trip.

Also, narrator Morgan Freeman says "500 yards. That's the length of five football fields, just shy of half a mile."

500 yards is not even 60% of half a mile.

[Vandal]

In “The Fugitive” when Tommy Lee Jones spots Kimble visiting a one-armed incarcerated man in Chicago and is chasing him... and then when Kimble is caught in the emergency exit door for no reason decides to empty his whole magazine at an unarmed guy who he’s realizing may be innocent (it’s why Jones and his crew went to visit the same convict).