MovieChat Forums > A Quiet Place (2018) Discussion > Good idea but badly executed.

Good idea but badly executed.

posted 5 years ago by BruceBanner (58)
2 replies | jump to latest

The Happening, Bird Box and this. These themes of losing a sense to stay alive in an apocalypse is a pretty cool idea, however they all feel a little 'dumb' at times.

Here in this film we actually have a fairly easy creature to destroy. You could easily set traps, lure the monsters to a sound far away and BOOM! remote blast them.
With the study of the family about to have a child, there seemed to be some pretty bad dumb mistakes. We're shown that living near a waterfall provides a great deal of security, even just to sleep there with security doesn't sound like a bad idea to me, but nope let's instead live in fear of the slightest accident which surely will happen.

I wouldn't have minded to see this film take on a more 'World War Z' type vibe where the military still have some control and are working on ways to attack them. It's just pretty unrealistic in a post apocalyptic world that only random civilians are left alive. Could we not kill them from the skies? I mean if we had the chance to put out newspapers alerting to what they are and how they attack (via sound), it doesn't sound like they wiped out 99% of humanity in 2hrs...
The military have nuclear bunkers etc, there would be key government figures still safe for sure, and if Emily Blunt can kill one with a shotgun after it's had a bit of a headache... I'm some marines could do a good job with some sound traps.

[–] leader (1738) 5 years ago

You are correct. It has been discussed in depth how the movie requires a lot of suspension of belief and looking the other way, more than many other movies.

However, the creator of the movie promised to fill in the logical holes in the sequel so these issues will be dealt with.

[–] BruceBanner (58) 5 years ago

I think with all these post apocalyptic 'weird paranormal' style films, the biggest gripe is the idea or concept that average joe bloggs will survive. I dunno... if it was me vs Bear Grylls to survive this kinda event my money would be on him. Military people are trained (not necessarily for these kinda events) but just trained to survive and have far better offence skills. Combine that with high levels of defensive weaponry, bunkers, scientists, communications... i dunno it just makes better sense to me for these kinda films to centre around these people as the survivors.
Once again World War Z showed that even during a fast zombie apocalyptic event, there was still a government, military powers in control, countries talking to one another and the film revolved around those surviving characters which seemed a little more sensible and plausible. I'm not saying some civilians wouldn't survive, but just the movies always seem to focus around that aspect which I find a little tiring.

It's funny how we can suspend disbelief over magical entities or an alien attack, but then we fail to suspend belief when it comes to common sense stuff in a film. A bit more writing, a bit more thinking about things as we can have some plotholes filled.

For example, these monsters seem actually really easy to kill. Could the main character not make sound traps, lure the aliens on a daily basis to a place and then remotely from afar (up on his silo) detonate some TNT? It could be that there are just too many of them, but it's a daily task he needs to do in order to keep the herd under control or something. A simple 5min scene like that would throw a different light on the film. Or that if one does get in your home you have the power to remotely set off some noise in some other place to draw them away from your location. We see they have power, electricity, bluetooth, ipods. Start a playlist off and stream to a BT speaker 10m away etc... I dunno... thinking out loud here but you get idea.