3 ms·
I don't think it's a fair characterization. I think just about everyone can infer how shields work after watching this movie. I think the issue is you can wat
by skohan 5y ago
I don't think it's a fair characterization. I think just about everyone can infer how shields work after watching this movie. I think the issue is you can watch the film as many times with as much attention as you want, and without extended context there will be a lot which goes over your head.
- marcellus23 5y agoCan you give an example of something that goes over one's head? > I think just about everyone can infer how shields work after watching this movie. If you re-read my comment, my point is not that people can't infer how shields work (they actually don't need to infer it, because it's told to them explicitly in the first 10 minutes), but that they can't infer why swords are used instead of guns. That requires an inferential leap that the movie doesn't spoonfeed you. I've had people IRL tell me they were confused by the swords, so no, it's not a given that people can infer that.
- CRConrad 5y ago> my point is not that people can't infer how shields work (they actually don't need to infer it, because it's told to them explicitly in the first 10 minutes), but that they can't infer why swords are used instead of guns. Isn't that utterly obvious from how the shields are supposed to work? > That requires an inferential leap that the movie doesn't spoonfeed you. What, "...and bullets move fast, so of course guns won't work" is a "leap"? Come on! And here I thought I was pessimistic and cynical about the average IQ of the populace at large...
- platz 5y agoI hadn't read the books. If you think about it for about 5 seconds, it makes sense swords are the only thing that are effective against shields and the explanation about fast vs slow is very clear.