[number3fac]

well... as soon as you do "time travel" in a terrestrial setting, you have a logical consistency issue right there.
We tend to think of the earth as a stationary thing, and imagine that time travel would somehow stay stuck to a terrestrial location. But... the earth is rotating at about 1500 mph (at the equator), it's orbiting the sun at about 75,000 mph, and the solar system is moving around the milky way at about 700,000 mph, and the milky way itself is moving through space at a couple hundred thousand mph ...so, if you travel through time for more than a second or two, you will arrive at your destination time, in the same location you left, except that spot will not be where the planet earth is currently located.

Not to mention the fact that time travel fiction is almost universally flawed in it's depiction of the physics of time. (though that's a somewhat theoretical statement)

So, you know, when watching films (or reading books) I take time travel as a "high fantasy" plot device, and try not to apply logic too much
If I don't hold it against H.G.Wells, I can't really hold it against MIB3 either

Oh, it's not the time travel itself I have a problem with, it's the consistency in how the time travel device (whatever it is) functions.  The DeLorean needs to go 88mph and have 1.21 gigawatts available (and no troubles with the "same place" issue either, despite the concerns you listed), that's all fine and it works in that way every time (though I even have a nit or two to pick from that series).  Even the TARDIS, which only really works reliably when it's convenient, still operates in roughly the same way, and the impact of time travel is mostly treated the same way (well, not so much in Moffat's era, but that's a complaint that I believe I already addressed in the Doctor Who thread).

In MIB3 (SPOILER ALERT), the bad guy and Will Smith (in 2012) both use the same kind of doohickey to travel to 1969, where they coexist with their earlier, 1969 selves.  But then in the big fight scene, Will Smith-2012 uses the doohickey to hop back in time 1 minute to defeat the bad guy...but he doesn't end up next to his one-minute-earlier self, and in fact the wounds that happened during that 1 minute have been negated somehow.  Both the physical "reset" and the supplanting-one's-earlier-self aspects of time travel are things that I'm prepared to accept in a story, but not in direct contradiction to the previously-established way in which the exact same plot devices operate.  And then, after the bad guy is defeated, we find out that Tommy Lee Jones-1969 decided to become a mentor to Will Smith-1969, leading to Will Smith-2012 being part of MIB...so in the altered timeline where Tommy Lee Jones-1969 was killed, how did Will Smith-2012 end up in MIB (and for that matter, with the memories of the original timeline)?  While I get that the intent was probably to add some dimension or depth to the relationship between the characters, I didn't think it was necessary (we've already had 2 movies that were basically about their mentor/mentee, father/son style relationship) and it fouled the already-logistically-shaky time travel hijinks.  (END SPOILER)

In short, I can actually buy into a lot of hokey plot twists and such, but there still needs to be some coherent rules--preferably ones that get onscreen explanations (and preferably not ones that boil down to "a wizard did it").  Without that, those elements can detract from and even ruin an otherwise decent piece of storytelling, and it irks me when it seems like someone (or multiple someones) didn't spend even that minimum amount of thought and effort for such things (especially when they're a main part of the movie/episode's premise).  For me, there was actually a LOT I liked about MIB3, but the sloppy time-travel-logic/gizmos made it unsatisfying, and I probably won't be watching it again.

[Bad Kitty]

In short, I can actually buy into a lot of hokey plot twists and such, but there still needs to be some coherent rules--preferably ones that get onscreen explanations (and preferably not ones that boil down to "a wizard did it").  Without that, those elements can detract from and even ruin an otherwise decent piece of storytelling...

When hollywood attempts to handle the subject matters of science, history, or philosophy, I never *ever* expect anything more than "a wizard did it".

Saves me from about a 99.99% aggravation rate

But then, I'm often not entirely satisfied when a scientist or philosopher are handling those subjects.

For hollywood, I'm thrilled to death if the story makes 'some' kind of sense, has anything I hadn't anticipated before seeing it, doesn't screw up anything too blatantly obvious and easily checkable (like setting tokyo in china or something), and the characters have reasonable consistency in their motivations and such.

I guess I just shut off my left brain for the sake of entertainment at the movies. Although, if a movie (or show, or book, etc) manages to not require that measure to be enjoyable, all the better.

So, I go with "the time thingie does things thisaway" and just roll with it. If I sit and get technical about the theoretical physics of time, I could end up finding something to nitpick and argue about with stephen hawking.

I get what you're feeling though. Sometimes I am better at chaining up my left brain for a story telling experience than others.

[DruulEmpire]

Just saw a particularly kick-ass movie (IMHO) today -- and I'm struck that I never mentioned "Zero Dark Thirty" here before.  I think ZDT fell into a political abyss, no proper precautions against torture for the Left, no Toby Keith jingoism a la that crazy Chuck Norris movie "The Delta Force" for the Right -- a movie with problems but in the final assessment unusually honest.  "Argo" was nice, but c'mon.

Anyhow, I'm fascinated by a growing subgenre of movies about real life espionage, such as "Breach" about the worst mole the FBI ever had or "Fair Game" about Richard Novak "burning" the cover of CIA agent Valerie Plame.  ("Fair Game," an insane and stupid thriller starring Cindy Crawford, is occasionally worth wasting time with, but for entirely different reasons.)  Now to that I add "The Gatekeepers."

The maker of this documentary was greatly (and obviously) inspired by Errol Morris's extended interview with Robert McNamara, "The Fog of War."  Dror Moreh interviewed various spymasters of the elite Israeli intelligence unit Shin Bet.  These are, you can imagine, very tough men, well aware that they have made many decisions over the years with mistaken outcomes and violent repercussions.  Yet, for all this, they are not simply hawkish.  I was impressed by the relentless clarity and intelligence of these men, any single one of whom handily outclasses the whole Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Perle-Feith gang.  I got clued in as never before on a plot by an Israeli underground TO BLOW UP THE DOME OF THE ROCK, and all in the name of some mystical belief in Armageddon, and also the deep hurt of Rabin's assassination.  One confessed to finding himself now a bit of a leftist.  I appreciated another invoking Clausewitz (he jokes that he was a very wise man and yet not Jewish -- so far as we know) and one of the best and most useful definitions of "victory" I've ever heard.  I have to admit, over so many years the whole Middle East has become a kind of blur for me, and this really helped bring a lot of it back into sharp focus.  For those willing to sit down seriously to a sub-titled documentary, I can not recommend this movie enough.  

[pedonbio]

 For those willing to sit down seriously to a sub-titled documentary, I can not recommend this movie enough.  

Thanks, Druul. I'm trying to find a place showing it.

[prinz]

BattleStar Galactica Blood and Chrome.... This was the pilot for a Galactica preqil  that the Sci-Fi channel chose not to pick up.. As a real fan of the series Im sad that they didn't .. Worth the DVD or Blueray if your a sci-fi fan.. We get to see Galactica as a new armed to the teeth Battlestar and a lot of the smaller fleet units.. Good stuff for us military sci-fi types..

[DruulEmpire]

Just saw a movie.  Very slick, well-done, diverting.  I don't think it's particularly great though.  So why am I bugging you about it?  Because it has Rosario Dawson.  Whoopdeedoo, you figure, you've seen Rosario Dawson before.  Yeah, but I don't know that I've ever seen her like this.  I went to this thinking, eh, it's directed by Danny Boyle, it has Rosario, and McAvoy and Cassel don't suck either, give it a shot.  But I don't think I've ever seen Rosario look so sleek and luminous, like a moonlit pool I just want to dive into.  Yeah, I've got it bad.  I figure surely Boyle has felt this enchantment.  Plus you get to see her naked a couple of times -- now that was a pleasant surprise bonus, since the reviews barely touched on her (even though she has a huge and crucial role) and just said, Heh, a real head-scratcher.  It's all about bad people doing bad things, so sadly there was no one to root for, not McAvoy -- not even Rosario, really.  It was a quick trip through a side alley of Hell.  But oh, it was scenic.

PS: Oh, the movie is called "**104**."  Damn, but Rosario has me woozy ...    

[solvegas]

Just saw " The Croods "  and it was a hoot. Well written, original and the voice characters were done very well. In my opinion some of the best comedies in the last 15 years or so have been animated ones. Nicolas Cage and Emma Stone will be doing a sequel on this for sure.

[rtpoe]

Is anyone else looking at the trailers for "Gatsby" and wondering why? Why make it in 3D?

[DruulEmpire]

I like to think it's a conspiracy by Dr. T.J. Eckleburg.

There should probably never be any movie at all of this.  Some stories work best simply as books.

[gOOber]

A must see.