>There's "suspension of disbelief" and then
>there's just ignoring the obvious.
>I'm willing to go along
>with quite a bit as
>long as something makes sense
>WITHIN the context of the
>movie.

I'm with you so far

>Nit picking for the sake of
>nit picking is when some
>people criticize the make-up of
>the Panic Room - the
>vents, how dude got his
>hand caught (as noted in
>another post here), the electrical
>system used to power the
>room. These are complaints I've
>heard other people make about
>inaccuracies in the movie. But
>within the movie, those things
>are consistent with story logic.


still with you

>The bad guys were down a
>floor (at least), so they
>maybe the would have seen
>the light flash when the
>lamp fell, maybe they wouldn't.

the movie made certain they saw it, theres a shot of them lookin seeing the flash


>But I swear the door
>made noise when it opened
>the first couple times it
>opened. Even if you disagree,

you seem pretty sure about this, so what the hell I'll take your word for it.

>you know her feet running
>on the floor made noise
>because she was running when
>she first saw them in
>the house - and they
>heard her running, and she
>knew they heard her. So
>if the door makes no
>sound (which she would have
>had to realize), why didn't
>she try to tip-toe out
>of the room as anyone
>one would have done? If
>the door was quiet, she
>could have crept out and
>got the phone without anyone
>noticing. But no, she sprints
>out of the room because
>she knew that the bad
>guys should have heard the
>door.


you ever been talkin to someone and been so caught up in the conversation that stuff going on around you didn't seem to matter? Well that is the type of conversation, arugment if you will, the crooks were having. when they heard her running in the house at first the crooks were attentive and completely silent. its amazing how a heated argument can take your focus away, Fosters character saw them arguing and figured her best bet was a mad dash..... get in and get out or rather get out and get back in

>This isn't something I thought about
>later. This is what was
>going through my mind while
>it was going on. Oh
>well.
>
>As far as movies that don't
>"depend" on gaps in logic.
>"Depend" is the operative word,
>because just about every movie
>has them, some intentionally, some
>not. For a thriller that
>doesn't depend on it, see
>pretty much any Hitchcock movie.
>You want something more recent?
>Look at Fincher's own work.
>Is SEVEN a thriller? You
>could nit pick it, but
>there are no gaps in
>logic.
>
>Of course, being logically consistent doesn't
>guarantee a movie will be
>good. WHAT LIES BENEATH, if
>I recall, didn't rely on
>logic gaps to tell the
>story. It was just boring.
>And I could be wrong
>about the logic, but I
>was struggling to stay awake.

What Lies Beneath relyed on over the top supernatural nonsense that was so ridicuolos that by the last scene I had to try as hard as I could not to laugh



>Bottom line, most current thrillers rely
>on the audience to "not
>think too much" and just
>offers some cheap scares and
>thrills as a substitute for
>a good story. So they
>are always heavy on the
>suspension of disbelief. But that's
>not the same as just
>fudging the logic for the
>sake of a thrilling moment.
>Which is what this scene
>in Panic Room did.

I disagree, you take 10 people and put em in the same situation as Foster some will tip toe some will sprint

you take 10 crooks put em in the same situation as the crooks in the movie some will hear footsteps some will be so caught up in their argument to notice

I don't see any logic fudging at all