Are the three seashells in the movie Demolition Man just a McGuffin or did the author/s have some sort of idea how they would work?
One up, one down, one for polishing up?
I vote for McGuffin. But, if it isn’t, I think they would be controls for a bidet-like system.
…I have no clue. It’s been driving me crazy for years, though. I’m guessing they’re a McGuffin, though. I mean, come on…“he doesn’t know how to use the three seashells” is probably one of the funniest lines in the movie, mostly because we’re trying to figure out how to use them ourselves.
I hope they’re artificial shells, because scooping with real oyster shells is HELL!! Not only can they cut really deep if you’re not carefull, all the bumps and crevases catch hair pretty easily (if you’ve ever plucked out a nose hair, it’s NOTHING compared to losing the cushion from your butt cleavage).
…ummm aren’t we missing using Macguffin?
The three shells were a gag. Not a faux-plot point .
GAGAGAGAG!
misusing… not missing using.
Maybe there are bio-engineered living creatures inside each shell. You position yourself and they come out and lick you clean. One for fecal matter. One for urine. And the third kills bacteria and dries you off.
Squirms at thought of tentacles sliding over my nether regions
Ewwww, I would ansolutely hate that.
Well, I personally had imagined that the shells used some sort of ultrasonic “cleaning” method, 'though my father subscribes to the “scraping” school of thought.
I’m going to Hell for posting here, aren’t I?
The toilet in my apartment has three buttons on the armrest: the first aims a water jet toward the anus, the second aims the water jet a little farther forward toward the urethra for women, and the third activates a hot-air dryer. I figured the seashells were just a more decorative version of the same system.
We still have paper, though.
You’re probably right; they had little bearing on the plot; what is the correct term for a point of detail that is deliberately left unexplained to tease the viewer? anyone?
maybe poor script writing? -“this is a sci-fi movie, right?” -“right.” -“so, how do they go do numbers 1 and 2 in the future?” -“well, 1 and 2 make 3…” -“yeh, good. 3 what?” -“well i… shells?” -“sea shells!?” -“why not?” -“why not indeed. ok, next point, wesley’s hair and wardrobe. any ideas?”
The “shells” are made out of metal. I use them all the time. They work great.
I don’t think I’d put it down to poor writing, quite the contrary in fact and I’ve often seen it done in SF literature too; some incidental device is mentioned but the detail deliberately left tantalisingly incomplete; the audience avidly watch in the hope that all will be revealed.
I read the book many years ago, and even there they were not explained. (But they did have Spartan asking about them like in the movie, so I think it was an intentional ‘head scratcher’.)
But how knows. They probably evolved from the mystery object in the briefcase. 
I agree, what’s “poor” about this writing? McGuffins and leaving things to the imagination of the viewer/reader is a perfectly valid and fine writing technique.
Mr. Kitty, who watched this for the first time last night (despite me repeatedly begging for the remote and stabbing forks into my eyes) suggested “Wash, dry, and wax.”
Though I imagine that last one might hurt a bit. :eek: