Movie scenes / plots that you've never understood

[ThelmaLou]

@Capitaine_Zombie

In the Star Wars movie series ( a set of three films released in the 70-80s), there’s a point where there’s a masked character named Darth Vader that claims that he has killed the main character’s father. Yet; somehow, later on, the same guy says he is in fact the father of the hero. Does it mean he considers that by killing the hero’s father he has, in fact, become his father?

I always took this to mean that when Luke’s father took to the dark side and became Darth Vader, in effect, he HAD killed Luke’s father. The good guy had turned into a bad guy, so the bad guy “killed” the good guy. The good guy was no more.

So if I take to a life of crime, by doing so, I’m “killing off” the Good ThelmaLou and replacing her with the Bad ThelmaLou (who, of course, will have to get a newer, badder name).

Did I belabor that too much?

[bup]

@Capitaine_Zombie

In the Star Wars movie series ( a set of three films released in the 70-80s), there’s a point where there’s a masked character named Darth Vader that claims that he has killed the main character’s father. Yet; somehow, later on, the same guy says he is in fact the father of the hero. Does it mean he considers that by killing the hero’s father he has, in fact, become his father?
This is kind of confusing. Is it a continuity error?

I think it’s metaphorical. Those three movies have lots of deep symbolism. Just accept the duality of the two statements.

Does the plot of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington make any sense? Isn’t the truth of who owns the land going to come out whether Senator Smith filibusters or not? Why does it matter if he’s still doing it when the evidence is brought to light?

And in The Punishment of Anne, why did Jean start punishing Claire at the end?

[StusBlues]

@Capitaine_Zombie

In the Star Wars movie series ( a set of three films released in the 70-80s), there’s a point where there’s a masked character named Darth Vader that claims that he has killed the main character’s father. Yet; somehow, later on, the same guy says he is in fact the father of the hero. Does it mean he considers that by killing the hero’s father he has, in fact, become his father?
This is kind of confusing. Is it a continuity error? I really wish they’d read scripts more thoroughly before they start filming. Film seems to be available on youtube, if you want to check.

I don’t believe Darth himself ever claimed he killed the main character’s father. That claim was made by another character, Ben Kenobi, who probably said this to inspire deep hatred and resentment in the main character for Vader.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@Evil_Captor

On edit, Skald beat me to it. :::shakes fist::: SKAAAAAAAAAAAAALDDD!!!

At least you didn’t type “tractor” for “chancellor.”

[bouv]

@WOOKINPANUB

Thanks all, especially Ellis Dee.That was a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out explanation

Overruled.

[Strassia]

@Spoons

There were two issues that were examined by both Vinny and Trotter (the DA):

1. Positraction, as noted by JXJohns. What GM cars from the given model year had positraction?

2. Which of those GM cars that had positraction also had an independent rear suspension?

I’ll spoiler the rest, just in case anybody hasn’t seen the movie.

[spoiler]Answer to question 1: There were two such cars: the Pontiac Tempest and the Buick Skylark. The defendants were driving a Buick Skylark.

Answer to question 2: The Pontiac Tempest.

The second question is important, because the photo of the skidmarks going over the curb shows that both rear tires of the getaway car were flat on the ground–one wasn’t tilted and on an angle, as it would be if it made by a car that did not have an independent rear suspension. Since the defendants’ Buick had positraction but did not have an independent rear suspension, it couldn’t have been the getaway car. In other words, the getaway car must have been a Pontiac Tempest–the tire marks couldn’t have been made by the defendants’ Buick.

Normally, this would have been enough to cast a reasonable doubt on the guilt of the defendants, but the filmmaker further cemented the defendants’ innocence by including testimony from the sheriff that two guys driving a stolen Pontiac Tempest from the necessary model year, and carrying a gun that matched the caliber of the bullet that killed the clerk at the Sack-O-Suds, had recently been stopped and arrested. Since these guys and their car and gun, were more likely to have committed the murder, charges against Vinny’s clients could be dropped.[/spoiler]As an aside, I recall discussing this film, and its ending, in our Criminal Law class and our Evidence class at law school. Who says education can only come from books?

Nitpick:

The Skylark had neither positraction or independent suspension. She said the two American made cars in the sixties had both were the tempest the Corvette.

@FordTaurusSHO94

I never understood the nihilists role in The Big Lebowski. Nothing they do makes sense.

The nihilists were just trying to make a quick buck. They knew that Mrs.Leboski had taken off to without telling her husband were she was going. So they faked the kidnapping by cutting off the girlfriends toe.

[FordTaurusSHO94]

So was The Big Lebowski a collaborator, or did he just not care?

[TruCelt]

I think of Anakin Skywalker as a good guy who had a dark side. Eventually the dark side, fed by power, began to take over; the new, one-sided person was Vader. Essentially two tendencies built into multiple personalities, one of which eventually subsumed the other.

@EvilCaptor Star Wars/Trek referential proximity violation. Seven point penalty. First Down.

[Marley23]

@FordTaurusSHO94

So was The Big Lebowski a collaborator, or did he just not care?

Bunny was in on it. He just hoped she’d really been kidnapped. If he’d been working with the nihilists, they would have gone after him for the money instead of attacking The Dude, Donnie and Walter. And he doesn’t contradict The Dude’s version of the story either.

[Llama_Llogophile]

Here’s one that’s always bothered me from Beetlejuice:

When the new family moves in, Adam and Barbara try to scare them by pulling off their faces and staging a horrific tableau with her holding his severed head. They are not seen, because they’re ghosts.

Later, after meeting with their case worker, they’re told to scare off the family once and for all. They then show what they plan to do, which is make themselves into horrible looking creatures. But why should that work when they presumably still can’t be seen?

[Zsofia]

That 60 minute review of The Phantom Menace explains the plot problems very well.

[Capitaine_Zombie]

@Capitaine_Zombie

In the Star Wars movie series ( a set of three films released in the 70-80s), there’s a point where there’s a masked character named Darth Vader that claims that he has killed the main character’s father. Yet; somehow, later on, the same guy says he is in fact the father of the hero. Does it mean he considers that by killing the hero’s father he has, in fact, become his father?
This is kind of confusing. Is it a continuity error? I really wish they’d read scripts more thoroughly before they start filming. Film seems to be available on youtube, if you want to check.

How could anyone take this as anything but a joke is beyond me.

[CanvasShoes]

@ThelmaLou

I always took this to mean that when Luke’s father took to the dark side and became Darth Vader, in effect, he HAD killed Luke’s father. The good guy had turned into a bad guy, so the bad guy “killed” the good guy. The good guy was no more.

So if I take to a life of crime, by doing so, I’m “killing off” the Good ThelmaLou and replacing her with the Bad ThelmaLou (who, of course, will have to get a newer, badder name).

Did I belabor that too much?

No, and that’s what Obi Wan explains to Luke when Luke asks him the same question.

And speaking of Thelmas, I never understood why Thelma and Louise decided they had to end it all. The one cop kept telling them that he knew they’d killed Brad Pitt in self defense, the guy even had a record or something right? So why not go ahead and go to trial? (I have always hated that movie for that, in my humble opinion, most women would be more practical, that’s more of a man “GERONIMO” thing to do).

[bouv]

@Mach Tuck

Later, after meeting with their case worker, they’re told to scare off the family once and for all. They then show what they plan to do, which is make themselves into horrible looking creatures. But why should that work when they presumably still can’t be seen?

I think it’s because at that point they had read some of the manual, had more experience as ghosts, etc…, so they knew how to “manifest” themselves properly.

[Gangster_Octopus]

@Marley23

Bunny was in on it. He just hoped she’d really been kidnapped. If he’d been working with the nihilists, they would have gone after him for the money instead of attacking The Dude, Donnie and Walter. And he doesn’t contradict The Dude’s version of the story either.

Bunny was working with the nihilists, right?

[AlsoNamedBort]

@Gangster_Octopus

Bunny was working with the nihilists, right?

I thought Bunny had no idea about the whole kidnapping plot.

[PSXer]

this whole thread and nobody has mentioned the gassing scene in Goldfinger

I guess everyone has already given up on finding any sense in it

[teela_brown]

@AlsoNamedBort

I thought Bunny had no idea about the whole kidnapping plot.

That’s my impression, as she doesn’t seem unhappy when scorching back into town in her convertible. If she was in on it and it fell through, I’d expect her to be pouting and pissy at that point.

She was still pretty cheerful after crashing said car into the estate’s fountain.

Of course, this was a bit before cell phones were so prevalent, so maybe she hadn’t yet gotten the news from Karl Hungus that the payoff hadn’t happened after all.

[Strassia]

@FordTaurusSHO94

So was The Big Lebowski a collaborator, or did he just not care?

@Marley23

Bunny was in on it. He just hoped she’d really been kidnapped. If he’d been working with the nihilists, they would have gone after him for the money instead of attacking The Dude, Donnie and Walter. And he doesn’t contradict The Dude’s version of the story either.

@Gangster_Octopus

Bunny was working with the nihilists, right?

@AlsoNamedBort

I thought Bunny had no idea about the whole kidnapping plot.

I concur with [bold]enalzi[/bold]. Bunny just took some money and took off to party. the BL thought he saw a chance to both get rid of bunny and get his hands on some more of his dead wife’s money by setting up the Dude give the kidnappers a bag with no money. If Walter had stayed out of it, the only difference would have been that the Dude would have thought he had given them the money. The nihilists still would have come after them. The BL still came out ahead. He got the money, he just didn’t get rid of Bunny.

[Miller]

@Mach Tuck

Here’s one that’s always bothered me from Beetlejuice:

When the new family moves in, Adam and Barbara try to scare them by pulling off their faces and staging a horrific tableau with her holding his severed head. They are not seen, because they’re ghosts.

Later, after meeting with their case worker, they’re told to scare off the family once and for all. They then show what they plan to do, which is make themselves into horrible looking creatures. But why should that work when they presumably still can’t be seen?

At the beginning, the living family can’t see them, because they don’t believe in the supernatural. Lydia can see them, because she does believe in the supernatural. They can, however, manipulate things in the real world, including (apparently) possessing humans, which they do when they take over the dinner party and make everyone sing calypso songs. Having been confronted with clear evidence of the supernatural, the family can now see the ghosts as clearly as Lydia can.