KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,192
- Reaction score
- 758
I think it makes more sense with driving than walking. By driving, it allows the location to change quickly between scenes. It would be weird to have, for example, three scenes that would occur within 5 minutes, in which each individual walked. If they walked, people would assume that, either a large portion of the walk was left out, or the locations are incredibly close. Having a car allows the audience to think logically, okay so the two work fairly far apart or far enough that the two can't just check up on each other (a major factor since John gets caught skipping work).Saw it last night, very good entertainment though maybe not MacFarlane at his comedic best (some slow points, overwritten and unfunny dialogue, flopping one liners). Still great fun.
One bit of the way Boston was portrayed disturbed me a bit - cars, cars, cars. Main character works at a car rental. Girlfriend drives to work ("no space in the garage today")... from the South End to the FiDi. Even the Hatch Shell is portrayed as having an adjacent parking lot (and I don't mean Storrow at rush hour). Car chases over the Zakim (which somehow leads to Fenway Park).
Anyway - I don't know how much has been written about Hollywood's obsession with cars as facilitating plotlines. I know I've read a few things on this. But it seems very clear that the Hollywood standard is car, car, car - based on familiar tropes (car chases, etc) and audience familiarity (most people drive).
Thoughts?
The usage of the parking lot and car at the Hatch Shell was to emphasize Rex's wealth. Who in their right mind wouldn't drive their fancy car everywhere, especially to impress a girl, if you had the wealth to do it.
Kidnapping wouldn't really be kidnapping if they ran and walked. How many kidnappings have you seen, real or fictional, where the person wasn't using a vehicle?