Precinct 13 & Suspension of Disbelief

Question

I recently saw the new version of "Assault on Precinct 13" and it is chock full of inconsistencies, illogicalities and fifteen things to disbelieve before breakfast. Nothing in the plot stands up to even a nanosecond of examination, and there's a bonehead deus ex machina in the final reel.
BUT... it's a hell of a ride, and I cut it all kinds of slack

Most films that commit these sins, I wouldn't be so indulgent towards.

I'm thinking I went along with Assault because maybe I was just in the mood for some mindless entertainment with bullets and blondes. But I think I'd probably be willing to cut it the same slack on a second viewing, therefore it can't all be down to my mood...

So what is it that makes us overlook screaming faults in one film, against all our usual standards, and go along for the ride? Is there some secret formula in the writing? Or is it all in the execution?

The two most common elements in the universe
are hydrogen and stupidity.
Harlan Ellison

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]I recently saw the new version of "Assault on Precinct 13" and it is chock full of inconsistencies, illogicalities and ... go along for the ride? Is there some secret formula in the writing? Or is it all in the execution?[/nq]
It's absolutely in the execution. Turn off the sound and watch it again. The lighting, the actors, the sets. Well, turn the sound back on too, because it just might be all in the music. Obviously it's not in the writing.
It's the difference between teaching longform fiction and screenplays. You can tell students to read lots and lots of bad novels. That kind of bad writing is obvious and instructive. You can learn more (and learn faster) about how to write good novels by reading bad ones than you can by reading the great ones. But not so with movies. Sight and sound can go a long way toward masking a bad script.
Caroline

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I recently saw the new version of "Assault on Precinct 13" and it is chock full of inconsistencies, illogicalities and ... go along for the ride? Is there some secret formula in the writing? Or is it all in the execution?[/nq]
I think that, in most cases, it depends on the rules that the filmmakers establish in the film from the start. Last night my girlfriend and I watched "The Transporter 2", which is chock full of completely absurd moments. However, the entire picture is quickly established as a celluloid comic book, so when the hero performs these seemingly superhuman feats or survives impossible situations you find yourself laughing with* the film instead of *at it. You can practically see the filmmakers winking at you from behind the camera.
I find I can cut huge amounts of slack to low budget movies, especially older horror and exploitation pictures. The bigger the budget, the shorter my patience for sloppy filmmaking. I also find that if something has a good solid does of sincerity and/or heart that tends to go a long way for me when it comes to cutting slack.
As for a remake of "Assault on Precinct 13", one of my all-time childhood favorites (I literally watched it every day for close to a year when I was twelve), well, I can't say I'll go out of my way to see it. Especially when it has Ethan Hawke in it! Yech!
Cheers,
B

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I can't say I'll go out of my way to see it. Especially when it has Ethan Hawke in it! Yech![/nq]
Far from a fave actor of mine... but in the opening sequence he really grabbed me.

The only thing Merian C. Cooper would tell me was that it was going to have 'the tallest darkest leading man in Hollywood.' Fay Wray

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I can't say I'll go out of my way to see it. Especially when it has Ethan Hawke in it! Yech![/nq]
[nq:1]Far from a fave actor of mine... but in the opening sequence he really grabbed me.[/nq]
So you're a cheap date?
jaybee

Usenet · Answer

@reader2.panix.com:
[nq:1]I recently saw the new version of "Assault on Precinct 13" and it is chock full of inconsistencies, illogicalities and ... ex machina inthe final reel. BUT... it's a **** of a ride, and I cut it all kinds of slack[/nq]
I saw it yesterday and I'll guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In fact, we'll have to agree that you're a poopie head, Mr. poopie Head!
SPOILERS BELOW!
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
The movie started off on the wrongest of wrong feet when it somehow implied that a handful of crooked cops could have access to tactical weapons, full bulletproof gear, high-tech devices for scrambling cell phones and radio waves (which begs the question, how the **** did they manage to use their own radios for communicating), and even a helicopter ("Uh, boss, we need it a perquisition form for the helicopter to get to a, er... new year's eve party. Yeah, thats it.").

Things went downhill from there. Supposing that no one is going to ask the crooked cops why they checked all that equipment out of the equipment room, and supposing that no one is going to notice the commotion or hear the explosions and shots miles around (and at this point no material known to man is strong enough to suspend my disbelief anymore), why did they wait until the bus had delivered the detainees to a fortified police station, when they could have intercepted them anywhere along the way (as in fact one car seemed to be following them all along)?
Why did Brian Dennehy have to save his own life by selling his buddies out to the crooked cops, when he could have kept the sewer route a secret and let them all escape out that way? For that matter, why the complicated ambush if Brian Dennehy could just let the crooked cops in through the back door, which he left open anyway? And why the **** did Brian Dennehy only "remember" the secret escape route in the last act?

And what it is with Maria Gallo's character, who has a burgeoning love interest in Ethan Hawke but is summarily dispatched? What's the purpose of her death, except to reduce the number of protagonists to two? Was she just window dressing? Did the screenwriter(s) run out of ideas on how to use her halfway through?
And what exactly is Ethan Hawke's character arc? He went from one psychologically-crippled cop who caused the death of his two partners in a failed drug bust, to a psychologically-crippled cop who caused the death of everyone in the station save the hot girl in fishnets. For that matter, the whole reason he did not respond to the demands of the crooked cops at the beginning - thereby allowing everyone else to walk away safe and sane - was as a matter of principle, because he vowed to protect all the detainees in his custody and to bring Bishop to justice. Yet, at the end, everyone is dead - detainees AND good cops - and he lets Bishop go free.
This is a resolution how, exactly? Looks to me like he failed miserably in everything he undertook, except maybe saving his own ***.

There are too many "Say what?" moments in that piece of **** movie to list them all. Suffice to say that I was very much disappointed. This is yet another badly-written script with words thrown in at random to bridge one action sequence to the next.
jaybee

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]@reader2.panix.com:[/nq]
Poopie head?
Go pick on Blair!

The pen is mightier than the sword, and considerably easier to write with. Marty Feldman

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Poopie head? Go pick on Blair![/nq]
I can't. His genie wish for "the same amount of brains as I have" has been granted, and his incredible brain power is now forming an invisible force field rendering him impervious to barbs, mockery or irony (hence wishing for "the same amount of brains"...).
jaybee

Precinct 13 & Suspension of Disbelief

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions