Recently released films

[jack]

Stupidest title and tagline

The Unborn. "It wants to be born"

Content warning so stupid its actually physically painful:

The runner up was "Contains one use of strong language and moderate sex references", which was originally going to win the "stupidest content warning" category, on account of making me laugh out loud. That was a British content warning. Then I read an American content warning.

"Rated R for frenetic strong bloody violence throughout, crude and graphic sexual content, nudity and pervasive language.

OK, so being specific in warnings could be a helpful concept, but it just sounds, you know, really stupid. I actually assumed the second was a pardoy, and that IMDB had become completely open content, and went off to find a citation (MPAA).

Apparently those are ACTUAL categories. "Frenetic strong bloody violence throughout, crude and graphic sexual content, nudity and pervasive language" excluding bloody violence, sounds like my love live. The point being, to me, pervasive language sounds like a good thing. Have these people ever, you know, read a book? Or seen a play? Or listened to the radio? Those are nothing BUT language. I can understand that people under the age of 18 might conceivably want to avoid a film where the language is not carefully confined to small self-contained segmants, but I don't see any point in legally requiring them to!

Premise so stupid it's actually physically painful:

Crank: High Voltage.

"The first ‘Crank’ movie, saw Jason Statham poisoned then forced to keep his adrenalin up to stay alive, This time, Chev is in a spot of bother with a Chinese gangster, who has removed his heart and has replaced with a mechanical one that needs to be jolted with an electric charge to stay pumping."

Crank: High Voltage also received honourable mention in the "stupidest title" category. Come to think of it, I think that was the film the "content warning so stupid it's physically painful" came from too. Not that that means it has to be a bad film.

Comments

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

That sounds about right.

I'm not sure if my conception was too strict. I remember being very firm that it should be a hole in the plot, ie. sequence of choice, rather than the premises, but maybe the premises should count too. Eg. if you postulate cheap teleportation, but have no explanation why R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z don't happen to the economy.

Perhaps the distinction I was searching for was (to borrow complex analysis terminology) between removable plot holes and essential plot holes. A removable plot hole is something like a McGuffin: the explanation *given* for Q doesn't make sense, but there any number of explanations which would have done perfectly fine, and it occurs early enough we can accept it as a premise and not have the ending ruined. Conversely, an essential plot hole is one where the essential elements of the plot conflict each other and pretty much can't be removed.

something unbelievable in which you're supposed to suspend disbelief, and something unbelievable which is a plot hole

Yeah. I guess some of the rows about this come because different people are willing to accept different cues to believe something.

[simont]

but have no explanation why R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z don't happen to the economy

That's an interesting field in itself. One thing that occasionally strikes me about certain SF books is that part of the premises they require you to temporarily believe are in the nature of consequences rather than axioms. So a great deal of SF and fantasy postulates counterfactual (or sometimes maybe-factual, in cases where the true answer isn't yet known) things about the nature of the physical world – hyperspace exists, the Force exists, some physical phenomenon exists on which one can build force fields, magic works – and then explores the consequences which can be deduced from those axioms in the ordinary way.

But some SF injects its counterfactuals or maybefactuals in the middle of the deductive process, rather than by injecting premises at the start of it. For instance, I recently re-read "A Deepness In The Sky", which has among its required maybefactuals some rather specific ideas of what is and is not feasible when it comes to maintaining civilisations over long distances and/or long times. One cannot just dismiss this as "author's opinion which I don't have to share", because it's critical to the plot – one has to temporarily believe Vinge's ideas of what sorts of society can and cannot hold together, because otherwise the main characters' experiences and motivations don't even make sense. And yet it's not a premise in at all the same sense that "the laws of physics permit force fields" would have been a premise. I think the way to look at it is that between the reality of what we know about human nature and the conclusions Vinge draws is a very complicated and subjective reasoning process which we so far haven't enough experience or skill to be confident of the answer to, and Vinge is asking us to assume that the answer will turn out to be a certain thing. Much as Ted Chiang might ask us to accept for the sake of a short story that the axioms of arithmetic turn out to be inconsistent, without asking us to accept any actual change in the axioms to cause this to be the case.

I think you put it nicely with the phrase "cues to believe". The difference between Vinge's unsupported conclusions about long-term interstellar sociology and your example above of teleportation mysteriously not revolutionising the economy is that Vinge lays out his maybefactuals with a clear air of "this is what I'm asking you to accept for the sake of the story", whereas in your example the author gives the impression not of having set it up deliberately that way but of having failed to think it through properly. In much the same way, come to think of it, as you can accept unproved assertions in an argument much more easily if they're stated up front (so they can be checked) than if they're introduced half way through or in a way that makes it look as if they were sneaked in dishonestly.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's very well put.

Indeed, I've often described something that bugs me almost exactly like that: sometimes I have the feeling that, eg. a Christian sect has at some point adopted an axiom that blah-de-blah is implied by the bible, rather than just assuming it right out, and though I know all the reasons why, it jumps out at me as annoying that it looks like they introduced this extra layer of indirection to make it seem superficially more plausible (because, after all, the bible is a complex document and implies all sorts of things, it's conceivable it implies whatever abstruse thing they imagined).

Contrariwise, I'm not sure where to draw the line between "assume new premise" and "assume new conclusion from existing premises". It seems to depend how clearly the conclusion is or isn't obvious to us, which of course is ever so subjective. Imagining that there's a new law of physics, or an obscure already-implied loophole in the old ones, seem about equal in suspension-of-disbelief, even though they're different physically. The difference with the sociology example is that we have some intuition, and hence can say "blah de blah does NOT sound like a plausible consequence, but I'm sufficiently unsure to accept it for the moment."

(Of course, it falls down completely when the conclusion is sufficiently obvious and also sufficiently entwined you can't imagine the consequences at all, eg. 1=2)

I think you put it nicely with the phrase "cues to believe".

Thanks. I think that's very much what makes it palatable or not palatable: you can accept it, but hate it if it's slipped in under the rug somewhere and makes you say "is this really obvious??"

[gareth-rees.livejournal.com]

I discuss similar ideas about how a fictional work can encourage the suspension of disbelief (with respect to Stephen Baxter's novel Time) in this post. I think there are two aspects to this: first, the presentation of evidence for the counterfactual within the fictional world, and second, a narrative payoff for suspending disbelief: a mystery that is explained by the counterfactual, or a plot development that it enables, or simply something cool.