MovieChat Forums > Winter's Tale (2014) Discussion > Two things that insulted my intelligence...

Two things that insulted my intelligence!

posted 10 years ago by ffattahi
42 replies | jump to latest

Ok, I didn't hate this movie. In fact, as modern fairy tale, I rather liked it and accepted all the fantasy elements. But I can't get past the following two problems:

1- Willa's age in the modern days should be well over 100. This is also a subject of another thread so I won't get into it much.

But specific to this thread:

2- There is an early scene where the parents lower the baby protagonist onto the ocean in a miniature ship. OK, I will go as far as accepting that the tides will eventually takes him to the shore, but COME ON(!!!) those miniature ships where for display and not sea worthy. They were not sealed for the purpose of floating on real water. In a matter of minutes the ocean water would have filled it up and sunk it. Right before the stupid parents' eyes!

Are you with me?!

[–] capcanuk 10 years ago

here's a third thing that will insult your intelligence: it's just a movie. it's even a "fantasy" movie. there. consider your intelligence insulted.

[–] ffattahi 10 years ago

I enjoy wise-ass replies as much as the next guy. But only when they are delivered in a smart fashion. Yours, my friend, was quite the opposite. I know it flew over your head, but I did acknowledge and accept the element of fantasy in my post. These two, however had nothing to do with fantasy. And this was not a 3 stooges flick.

[–] billnadsley 10 years ago

I have a third thing that insulted your intelligence, and that's that you paid somewhere around 10 bucks to watch this garbage heap of a film.

And maybe a fourth - you insulted your own intelligence, if you didn't hate this movie.

This film is an absolute mess, and is not, in any way, acceptably good.

[–] ffattahi 10 years ago

You are wrong on both accounts. I saw this at a dollar theater at a mall near my house. Also you are stating your own personal opinion of a movie as FACT. That's insulting to both your and my intelligence. This movie had some redeeming values. Not enough for me to collect the DVD, but then you don't arrive at such conclusions unless you actually do see a movie, which I did for a mere dollar.

[–] billnadsley 10 years ago

To be fair, while I overestimated the price you paid to see this, I still think the statement stands. I think you insulted your intelligence even paying a buck for this. But know that I'm insulting myself here as well, as I, too, paid money to see this thing.

As far as me stating my opinion as fact here, I have to say, I think you might be off there as well. It's not just because I thought it was bad, that makes me say it was bad. I feel that it's accurate to factually state that it was bad. Aside from the questions it left you with, it had a terrible and muddled plot line, things in the film didn't even make much sense (why did Colin Farrell have that accent, as one minor note), the acting, for the most part, was not very good, and it had bizarre casting in spots (Will Smith?). I have to admit, I don't know that the film did have redeeming values, aside from the chuckles one might get from noticing all of the terrible portions of this film. If you think that's just my opinion, then, go for it, but as far as I know, that's kind of the definition of a bad film.

To be truthful, there are certainly films that I enjoy, but know are bad. Just because I like them, or have a good opinion of them doesn't make them good movies. My opinion on this movie is that I thought it wasn't worth the money, and I didn't feel it was enjoyable. The fact is, that it is simply a badly done film.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wiltshire-kimberly 10 years ago

I really liked it.

[–] fvazquez-1 10 years ago

Another: Peter Lake should have 140 or somthing around it, how comes he looks like in his 30s that's mind shocking don't you think so? :)

[–] wiltshire-kimberly 10 years ago

Holy crap it's fantasy. Get over it.

[–] mgs4real 10 years ago

When I was a little girl, my mother gave me a set of books, there were two books in the set: Anderson's Fairy Tales, and Grimm's Fairy Tales. I read them over and over and over. They still sell them on Amazon in a two-volume boxed set. You just don't get it. Antagonist. Protagonist. Unrequited Love. The guts of the best stories ever written or told. Just know --- IT'S A FAIRY TALE....and quit trying to make it R E A L !!!! Oh, by the way, I had NO trouble following the story whatsoever. Loved "Horse." :o)

[–] beat 10 years ago

here's a third thing that will insult your intelligence: it's just a movie.

fantastic argument i guess you accept just about anything a movie delivers, because you can always say "it's just a movie". do you even like movies?

[–] shempXIV 10 years ago

Only TWO things?!?!?

Almost the entire MOVIE is full of stuff like that! A solitary, beautiful but sickly girl discovers a BURGLAR in her house -- how does she react? She invites him for tea! The girl's father is surprisingly OK with the burglar-character being a professional thief too.

[–] ChazzJazz 10 years ago

it s called suspension of (dis)-belief

i mean you accepted horses could fly? and not a boat the parents could have tested?

http://myimpressionz.tk

[–] kannita 10 years ago

We who watch Korean dramas and other foreign movies are very familiar with this practice. Now I'm curious.

[–] powellthegreasy 10 years ago

You're absolutely right. There are countless moments of stupidity in this movie. Any *beep* who says "it's a fantasy movie" doesn't know what they're talking about. Lord of the Rings is a fantasy movie, it doesn't have moments that defy all logic and reason.

[–] ffattahi 10 years ago

Obviously this *beep* knows fantasy movies. LOTR has absolutely no "moments that defy all logic and reason!!!" .... Got it.

Thank you for clarifying that.

LMFAO...

[–] d-rex-t-rey 10 years ago

its just too good too pass

LOTR has absolutely no "moments that defy all logic and reason!!!"

how about a creature that dies turn into thin air, and return as a shadow and then again as a giant eye fireball and dies when a stupid ring cast into a molten lava. Its true it has little moments that defy the rules set in the world of middle earth(not real earth). Don't get me wrong, I loved LOTR collect all the movies and games(not much for books, my loss right? they price it insanely high) but in order to enjoy a fantasy you need to let go any logic and perhabs reason and just enjoy the ride, else you'll find them very annoying. a fantasy is where unicorn-farting-rainbows exist so get over it.

[–] ffattahi 10 years ago

Methinks d-rex-t-rey missed my sarcasm.

[–] keOron2010 10 years ago

Me thinks so too.

[–] heshamwhite 10 years ago

i like "yer" accent :)

[–] nimrond 10 years ago

Logic means it follows the rules of that fantasy world - how does the destruction of the ring not logically affect the 'fiery eye' of Sauron? It wouldn't happen in our world as you said, but that doesn't make it illogical. You yourself mention that but then you contradict your own argument's logic.

Apart from that, claiming absolutes is of course seldom hard to attack - and seldom correct.

[–] Judge_Hellfire 10 years ago

Magicians who use magic, ghosts who suck the life out of you, dragons, and walking and talking trees, along with elves, kinda does have a lot that defies all logic and reason.

[–] powellthegreasy 10 years ago

Extremely different. Those are fantasy elements that exist in a world where they are set up. The things in Winter's Tale are illogical based on poor writing that defy any reason in the world it's in.

[–] Judge_Hellfire 10 years ago

It's set in a world where there are angels and demons and miracles and the old good vs evil. You can't say LOTR is ok because it is set in a world with its fantasy element and then say Winter's Tale is not ok because it's got it's fantasy elements just because it's called new york and not the shire. Winter's Tale showed us the rules and limitations and fantasy almost immediately, setting up the rules for the movie. Overall it was a decent fantasy flick that never claimed to be anything else. My only gripe with it was Old Willa looking nothing like 107 years old.

[–] powellthegreasy 10 years ago

Don't think you're getting me. I have no issue with the Angels and stuff, none at all. That's completely fine. I'm talking about the decisions the characters make and what they do. That's the stuff that's stupid. Also. Crappy dialogue is crappy dialogue, regardless of the genre.

[–] Judge_Hellfire 10 years ago

Ah ok, got ya now, not insulted by the fantasy, insulted by the crappy writing, got ya.

[–] Neo_v7 10 years ago

So it didn't defy logic that Gandalf didn't just fly his giant eagle to Mordor and destroy the ring himself? Would have saved much time and lives and would have been the most LOGICAL thing to do. But then you wouldn't have a movie to watch..

Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken

[–] powellthegreasy 10 years ago

That is illogical, i agree. People try to defend the Eagles but they're full of illogicality. But as you said, if that didn't happen there'd be no movie. Winter's Tale is full of stuff like that that is inconsequential. And Lord of the Rings is well made in general, Winter's Tale has laughably bad dialogue and story elements.

[–] ciprianl 10 years ago

There may be an explanation for that: Gandalf feared to hold the ring for any length of time, knowing that he would be tempted to use it himself, for all the good reasons, and that it would corrupt him.

[–] AtheistRevolution 10 years ago

I think you have bigger problems if you paid to see a movie about a heiress falling for someone that tried to rob her.

- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

[–] fallenone 10 years ago

It's ... a fairy tale, you realize that, right?

[–] jhbadger-848-279135 10 years ago

In terms of 1) you have to understand that this based on a book that came out in the 1980s. For some reason they decided to make the modern day scenes set in 2014 rather than 30 years earlier which made more sense. Yes, this is a fantasy with demons and flying horses, but I don't think there is supposed to be anything magical about Willa's age.

[–] nekonax 10 years ago

In a movie where a dog spirit manifests itself as a white horse and creates hard-light wings to fly. On-screen. Several times. Your intelligence is insulted when a baby survives in a model ship? Off-screen? Is it so hard to assume that some magical light ray guided the ship to safety? o.O

As for Willa, did anyone in the movie claim she wasn't over 100? Unless they did, and in so doing created a plot hole I must have missed, what does it matter? You don't need angels, demons, miracles, and magical light rays to live over 100 years only good genes, a good life, and luck.

--Shrödinger's Cat

[–] ffattahi 10 years ago

Jeez nekonax you missed the irony of my thread. Most everything was within the acceptable parameters of a fantasy. This was supposed to be a realistic scene, not a fantasy. There lies the irony I was trying to point out.

[–] nekonax 10 years ago

This was supposed to be a realistic scene, not a fantasy.

In the timeless words of the Dude, "That's, like, your opinion man."

If you recall, Peter Lake's father was guided to the model ship by one of those magical light rays. The movie operates under fairy tale rules of symbolism, synchronicity, and divine providence. It takes exactly zero extra effort on my disbelief suspending muscle's part for me to swallow the 'miraculous' survival of baby Peter Lake.

... but of course that's just, like, my opinion man.

--Shrödinger's Cat

[–] Kariann1964 10 years ago

The movie operates under fairy tale rules of symbolism, synchronicity, and divine providence.

Bravo! Yes, that is correct. Also, the belief of reincarnation explains age differences throughout the film. I really enjoyed this lovely tale.