My problem with the idea of using “Wonderful Tonight” would be the verse about having to drive the guy home, undress him, and put him to bed because he got wasted (again). Unless that’s your idea of a good time.
It’s a little like if Spielberg had said “The guys chasing Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark were Hindu priests! You can tell by the swastikas! Just because they though black was fashionable and had German accents, people think they were Nazis? They were educated in Heidelberg, that’s all!”
There were actually two brides in the movie. There was the female monster (played by Elsa Lanchester) that Frankenstein builds as a mate for his original monster. And there was Elizabeth, Frankenstein’s fiancee (played by Valerie Hobson) who rescues and reforms Frankenstein. So it was Hobson, not Lanchester, who played the title character.
Zombies don’t go around calling out “braaaaiiiins” while trying to, you know, eat brains. At least not the ones from the George A Romero “Night/Dawn/Day/Land/Diary/Survival of the [Living] Dead” series of films. They didn’t say anything and just ate whatever they could get ahold of. The zombies from the more slapstick “Return of the Living Dead” series are the ones that say “braaaaiiiins”.
I just looked up the Lucy-staking passage in Dracula, and Van Helsing doesn’t actually say why it’s necessary to cut her head off. He does say she’s truly dead after just the staking. Maybe he just feels it’s better to be safe than sorry, or maybe there’s an explanation earlier that I missed. He also solders the coffin closed, although that may have been to prevent any future exhumation of the body that would reveal the staking and decapitation.
FWIW, the “sisters” do crumble into dust after Van Helsing decapitates them. He stakes them each first, so again it’s not totally clear that both staking and decapitation were necessary or if just one would have done the job. Lucy presumably didn’t crumble because she hadn’t been undead for as long as the other vampire women.
I thought it did. ralph124c seems to be speculating that the reason people get lots of tattoos and piercings is a misperception. We think they do it to be attractive, but maybe their real motivation is that they aren’t attractive, so they want to revel in being grotesque.
But I don’t agree. I think they have a differing view of “attractive”.
Well, the creation wasn’t a monster just because he was created, he was merely ugly. But he became a monster by the end, with his heartless murder of the little girl and all. But the scientist could be perceived as being a monster by his early rejection of his creation.
Having just come off seeing an excellent local production of A Chorus Line…
Michael Bennett might have thought that the finale of ACL is misunderstood. The song “One” is so upbeat and spectacular, and the dancers look so marvelous, that the finale’s ambivalence is easy to forget. Bennett meant there to be a slightly disturbing component to the ending: all the hard work these dancers have gone through amounts to their being completely anonymous and unrecognizable, backing up the show’s big star. He wanted the audience to leave thinking, “They went through all that just to be anonymous?” Instead, they leave humming “One.”
But, then again…it depends on how you look at it. After all, we’ve just had an eleven o’clock number (well, ten o’clock in the production I saw) describing how the dancers felt about their work: no matter the pitfalls or the shortness of their careers, it’s worth it because they’re doing something they love with their heart and soul. That’s their triumph…they don’t need stardom. And maybe the fact that we don’t see the show-within-a-show’s star during “One” is the show’s way of letting the chorus line be the star for once…of seeing the show the way they see it as they’re performing in it. We see it as a triumph because, for them, it is.
[quote=“Just_Ed, post:17, topic:647417”]
Dammit, that’s what I was going to say!
How about a couple of film misconceptions?[ul][li]Jason Voorhees is not the killer in the original Friday the 13thThere are no undead zombies in 28 Days Later[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
Well, the 28 * Later series are zombie films in all but name. Infected creatures chasing you, just they don’t shamble this time. And humans being idiots. So it’s understandable why there’s a misconception, even if they say the word “virus” like 90 times in the film. And AFAIK never use the “zed word.”
Another one: Jason’s iconic mask isn’t there right away, either, 3rd movie I think. The reboot of Friday the 13th seems to condense the antagonists forms from the first three movies into one film. It starts with Mrs. Voorhees (FtT1), then Jason comes with a burlap sack on his head (FtT2), then he finds the hockey mask (FtT3).
And Jason X is the tenth movie, but I believe it’s supposed to be “Jason Ecks.”
Halloween III does not feature Michael Meyers at all. It’s some cockamamie thing about killer robot Irishmen, or something. They went back to the tried and true in the next one.
We do not get the question. We get “God’s final message to creation.” Displayed in huge flaming letters. Marvin gets to hear the message before his system finally shuts down (it is 4x the age of the universe already)… though I think a left-side diode replacement could have saved him.
They just don’t look like greys, the body shape is reminiscent of the tall alien in Close Encounters. That’s how I came to think the robots in AI were actually aliens. “Oh, look - it’s the CET3K aliens, modified for non-copyright violating reasons!” 
It’s a little like a comic book reboot, such as John Byrne’s re-introduction for Superman in the mid-80s: the backstory about planet Krypton, Smalliville, Jimmy Olsen and kryptonite are all there from the start rather than being added on years after the fact.
Anyway, as for the OP - I’d suggest that iconic 70s film Saturday Night Fever. I was a little kid when it was a big sensation, so only knew about it rather than saw it. SNF is well-known as the movie that propelled disco from being a small, insular phenom in NYC to a huge world-wide fad. But a few years ago, I actually watched the flick. I’ll put a plug in for it as it really is a good film, but what struck me most is how anti-disco the movie is; the movie portrays the disco culture as a lurid, vapid vacuum populated by small-time losers. The whole trajectory of the film is that Travolta starts thinking of himself as some hot-shot, but gradually he grows to realize that it is a racist, misogynist, decadent scene and in the final scenes of the movie he abandons it. The movie in no way tries to make disco look glamourous or sexy. In fact it looks cheesy and sleazy as hell.
Great addition, Don Draper.
There’s also an episode where Sam leaps into the life of a woman with a young child. The kid sees Sam and tells people that’s not her mom.
There’s also one where Sam’s a bullied little twerp who eventually decides to just pick up and dangle his only-looks-bigger tormentor over the side of a well.
Yeah, it’s not like the song gives any hints at all. It’s a love song. The inspiration for it may have been Clapton being a prick, but the song is 100% a love song.
Except the entire movie A.I. is about Artificial Intelligence, not aliens.
I haven’t read much Superman, but I’ll also guess that they started him with all his powers, instead of the piles of retcons in the early day. IIRC he only had Super-Jumping early on, and they changed it to flight. Then there’s all those one shot powers, (okay, found Wikipedia’s page). Like “Superhuman control of face muscles” (okaayy…), Super-ventriloquism, etc. Sounds like Byrne curtailed his powers more than before or after.
Yeah. My local comic book guy is something of a Superman expert/historian, and he said the whole point of the Byrne Superman reboot was to rein him in because his powers had become completely ridiculous. He told me the crowning example was an issue in which Superman flew into space and literally blew out a star, the same way a kid would blow out a candle on his birthday cake.
Or I Will Always Love You (the singer is leaving) or Saving All My Love For You (extra-marital “other woman” whining about how the cheater hasn’t kept his promise to break up his family for her).
Actually, that started well before Byrne. The famous “Kryptonite Nevermore!” storyline was written in 1971 by Dennis O’Neil, largely to do away with a lot of the silver-age nonsense, including how even dime-store thugs could get ahold of kryptonite, and how Superman kept falling for it, despite being able to juggle planets. The end result was a sharp reduction in Superman’s powers (several dozen orders of magnitude below the “blow out a star” Wayne Boring era, though still at at a level well above Byrne’s reboot).