How so?
On Seinfeld, George uses the line while having dinner at the Rosses’. Susan tells her father, who doesn’t get the joke, “George was doing Johnny Carson, Daddy.”
The IMDB description says Two business executives–one an avowed misogynist, the other recently emotionally wounded by his love interest–set out to exact revenge on the female gender by seeking out the most innocent, uncorrupted girl they can find and ruining her life.
Which, I think, missed the point. Chad and Howard did conspire to do just that. In the end Howard regretted what he done and was destroyed by it. But that was Chad’s play all along. Chad wanted to destroy Howard from the get go. He set him up by playing on his anger and guided him into an action that was truly evil only to advance himself in the company by hamstringing Howard. This was the actual plot. Hurting the deaf girl was a means to an end.
I just saw a clip of Carson saying “i did not know that” so in the very least both Carson and McMahon may have said it.
so, Avatar?
With emphasis on the “not,” correct?
THANK YOU!!! Confidence in my failing memory has been restored.
I haven’t seen this movie but… isn’t the IMDB blurb then doing a good job, as it accurately describes the initial premise and overall plot without giving away what sounds like a somewhat surprising denouement?
Chad is an avowed misogynist. The blurb is accurate.
I’m the person who said in that other thread that it was McMahon not Carson who said, “I did not know that.” Based on many people here who believe it’s Carson, I might have been wrong. Somebody here claimed to have found a clip but didn’t provide it. (I’m too lazy to provide a quote.)
On the third hand, some people here & in that other thread mention Dana Carvey’s impression of Carson saying that phrase. That is a source of confusion “at the minimum.”
In my recollection, Carson said the phrase quite frequently, and in a distinctive style. No confusion with Carvey. McMahon may have said it, but not as memorably as Carson.
The point wasn’t that Westley beat Vizzini in a battle of wits. The point was that Westley saw he was fighting an unarmed opponent.
Look at Vizzini’s plans and how they fall apart. Or listen to what Vizzini is saying as he explains his reasoning to Westley. Vizzini isn’t a genius. He’s an idiot who’s too dumb to realize he’s an idiot.
Westley saw this. He realized there was no way Vizzini could perform any actual intelligent reasoning. He would just jump through a series of random thoughts and convince himself he had brilliantly mastered the game and picked the right cup. But he would actually just be picking at random.
So Westley set things up so it didn’t matter which cup Vizzini picked at random. The point was just to get Vizzini to drink from either one of the cups.
If this is the case, and I agree, then it doesn’t matter how smart Vizzini actually is. All that matters is he drinks from one of the cups. Whether he does it because he is too stupid to realize he is being played, or because he is a tactical genius and is sure he has outsmarted Westley. The only job Westley has to do is keep Vizzini from thinking about an immunity to the poison.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
If Vizzini was actually as smart as he thought he was, he would have known that a person could build up an immunity to iocane and figured out that if Westley was suggesting a game involving drinking iocane, there was a good possibility he had such an immunity. At that point, a real genius would have figured out a way to change the rules and bypass that possibility.
Or even if he didn’t know the specific details of iocane, a real genius would have figured out that when the other person is suggesting a game of life or death and laying out all the rules, they probably have rigged things to their advantage.
But Vizzini was locked into his belief that he was smarter than everyone else and could outthink any situation. All Westley had to do was play into that belief.
How about a nice game of chess?
Inconceivable
I think you’re selling Vizzini very short. His plan was actually quite clever. (1) Spout a bunch of nonsense (2) distract opponent (3) switch cups (4) pick up your cup, wait for opponent to drink first from what they think is the non-poisoned cup
(5) That verifies that, because the cups are switched, you are in fact winning
Westley’s plan turned out to be even better. But Vizzini’s was good.
Which follows the pattern. Westley outfought his giant, outdueled his Spaniard, and then outthought Vizzini. But that wasn’t because the giant was puny, the Spaniard was a bad fencer or Vizzini was dumb. Westley was just better at all three.
In The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, it was John Wayne’s character, NOT Jimmy Stewart’s character, who performed the titular action.
While I’m on the subject, I must mention the song, performed by Gene Pitney and written by Burt Bacharach & Hal David, which inexplicably was not used on the soundtrack. I tell people that when they watch the movie, have the song ready. When the closing credits start, turn down the movie and play the song until it finishes.
I continue to be impressed by Hal David’s lyrical craftsmanship in summarizing a 123 minute movie (a bit long for that era) in a 2:49 song without revealing my above spoiler.
My favorite couplet is:
Ev’ryone heard 2 shots ring out.
A shot made Liberty fall.
Here is my version:
Ev’ryone heard 2 shots ring out,
But it was really three.
Also…Im pretty sure “Alfie” does not appear in Alfie
According to Wikipedia:
The title song, "Alfie,” written by Burt
Bacharach and Hal David, was sung by Cher over the film’s closing credits….
NOTE: Same 2 guys