The checks were direct deposited into the First Bank of MacGuffin.
The House of Sand and Fog, is known among law students as “The Movie about the Bona Fide Purchaser.”
Here’s what happened.
The house was seized for back taxes (which it turned out, were not owed). There was presumably a civil forfeiture in which the municipality became the owner of the house in compensation for those back taxes. However before it was discovered that the house was wrongly seized, it was sold at auction for a fraction of its value. The municipality, as owner, took all the proceeds. Meanwhile, the new owner became a “Bona Fide Purchaser” - a purchaser who paid value and took the property in good faith without knowledge of the title problems. Depending on where you are, a BFP can possess better right to the property than the person who sold it (here, the municipality) had. Basically, even though the municipality had no right to sell it, the BFP (the Iranian couple) became the true and complete owner. Weird, right?
Here’s the problem. Because a BFP now owns the house, the court will generally not grant any relief in equity (giving back the thing that was taken, ie, the house) but will only grant relief in law (assigning monetary compensation). The only thing the municipality can do, is return the proceeds, which weren’t the value of the house, and the BFP owes the old owner nothing. Legally, she was not entitled to the house any more though. She was shit out of luck in that regard. Neither did the new owner owe her the money he agreed to give her. Didn’t she blackmail him for it?
It’s all very confusing if you don’t understand about the BFP, which practically no one would, and they don’t explain it well, why she has no right to the property.
In Revenge of the Sith, Anakin Skywalker becomes - literally and figuratively - Darth Vader.
I think we are aware of that little plot point, although a spoiler box is always in good taste.
The question is whether Lucas intended this when he wrote the first movie, not whether he had decided on it by the time he made the last movie, almost thirty years later.
The plot of The Big Sleep was so convoluted even the actors complained they had no idea what was going on.
Geez, no wonder people hated Phantom Menace. I didn’t understand the plot until JUST NOW, like a decade later! WTF Lucas??
This bring up other crap. How can the Galactic Republic, with thousands of worlds to draw an army from, be outgunned by the Trade Federation? These guys were almost repelled by the Gungans. You could unleash a few squads of rancors and they’d probably take out that whole droid army. The scale of the thing doesn’t make any sense
I used to think it was a retcon because of what Kenobi said in the first film and that, when making it, he had to make sure it would be complete. However, in realizing that Vader is the Dutch word for father, it seems to cast doubt on that. Of course, proponents of that also say that darth is dutch for dark, which it isn’t, but it’s close enough to the english Dark that “Dark Father” is still a reasonable “translation” of the name.
So, putting that all together, I think he wrote the original film with the idea that he was his father but, not wanting to reveal that information in the first film, he wrote it so he was just the antagonist and could save that tidbit for later. Besides, there was so much exposition and other stuff in the first film, there just wouldn’t have been room for it, it really did deserve to be the great climax of the trilogy. It was only after the revealing that that he realized he had to clarify Kenobi’s motives for not telling Luke he was his father.
The part that is the retcon, I think, is the idea that “Darth” is a title rather than Vaders name. Recall in the film when Kenobi and Vader are dueling, Kenobi says something to the effect of “…only a master of evil, Darth” as if Darth is his name. Further, correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t think the Emperor was ever refered to as Darth Sidious in the original trilogy and wasn’t given that name until the new trilogy, or perhaps somewhere in the extended universe. So, I guess the fanwank/retcon for that Kenobi line was that Kenobi was emphasizing that he was only a master of evil by refering to him by his title.
This is a timely thread. I re-watched Amadeus last night, and there’s a scene I never understood.
The courtiers make Mozart take out the music of the “ballet scene” in his opera, saying that the Emperor has forbidden ballets in the opera. But during rehearsal, the ballet scene is still there, it’s just music-less. It’s the dancing the Emperor has forbidden, so why isn’t the dancing cut rather than the music?
ISTM that the Republic didn’t really have much of a military to speak of, considering they had to breed all the clones to fight the war as it was. But even if they did, I think the point was the Naboo was relatively insignificant and far enough out that the Republic either didn’t have the ability to or just had a hard time drawing up the support to take serious action there. After all, as I understand, that was sort of the point from the Trade Federation’s perspective, that they basically wanted to annex it and were hoping that it was insignificant enough that the Republic would just sort of let it happen.
And, yeah, the plot was a little bit convoluted, particularly for what was essentially a kids’ movie, and it depended on knowledge from the original trilogy and didn’t really have any pay off until you saw how it played out in the subsequent films.
In Episode 2, Attack of the Clones, Padme mentions that she had been working for over a year on opposing the “Military Creation Act”.
I am going to guess that the Galactic Republic has been at peace for so long (because of the Jedi Council?) that it didn’t have much of a military. Maybe each world had a small militia for self defense (which would explain Naboo’s short range fighters that young Anakin rode to blow up the space [strike]doughnut[\strike] dreadnought.
This is rapidly becoming a Star Wars thread!
I may be wrong, but it seems like it was only natural for each successive Sith apprentice to turn on his master. Vader turned on Sidious who turned on Plagueius, and I think others followed this pattern too? Much has been made of the fact that there’s always one Master and one Apprentice. Given that, why did each Sith attempt to find an apprentice? The Emperor seemed fine ruling a bunch of non-Siths, what was the point of having Vader around?
I had wondered about that, too. I found this:
"…the Italians connected with the opera theatre did not want the opera to succeed. Joseph II had recently forbidden ballets to be performed at the opera and when the Italians found that ‘The Marriage of Figaro’ contained a ballet scene, they ran to the director of the Opera House, Count Rosenberg who summoned Da Ponte and tore the libretto and music to shreds.
Mozart was in despair. Da Ponte, however, instructed the rehearsal to go ahead in the presence of the Emperor. With no music being played during the dance scene, Count Almaviva’s and Susanna’s gesticulations made the scene appear like a puppet show. The Emperor was mystified by such bizarre goings on, and when the situation was explained to him by Da Ponte, the Emperor immediately send for the dancers and re-instated the ballet."
Source: http://cmlounge.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/lorenzo-da-ponte-mozarts-librettist-by-agnes-selby/
From what I understand, and what my reads-lots-of-SW-novels husband says, it’s part of their ideology. The Sith master knows that the line of Sith must continue and that the Sith deserve to rule because of their strength. The master’s job is to train an apprentice who is strong and ruthless enough to defeat his/her master. The master would eventually die through old age or Jedis kicking his ass or something, anyway, so you need someone even tougher than you to carry on.
When i saw the thread title, I assumed the second post would be about Godfather II. I’ve had it explained to me here a few times, and I think I get who’s whacking who, and who Frankie Pentangeli is, and why his brother’s presence at the Senate hearing is important…but it’s all so confusing.
OH! I thought Brad Pitt’s character was the one that they killed. At any rate, I thought that the rest of their crimes were caused by them being on the run after killing the guy and not having money with which to be on the lam.
To be fair, I’ve only seen it once. Because of the ending, I absolutely HATED it.
Mission Impossible. I saw it twice and have no idea what happened.
Mulholland Drive.
The whole damn thing.
well, they pretty much were, especially when thelma robs a store, which she does right after brad pitt takes off with louise’s life savings, and everything just continues to snowball from that. even with all those contributing factors, i don’t think they’d be saved from doing time because of thelma’s near-rape.
Well, I realize that, my issue with it is that they chose death over life, when they might have had a chance to have served SOME time, after all they shot the guy in self-defense. And they had that cop on their side, so they had some hope of things turning out okay, even if it did involve having to do some time.
That’s supposedly true of the version that was released. But the original version of the film make things much more clear. It also lacked some of the best scenes (Bogart and Bacall discussing horse racing, for instance ). The studio wanted more scenes of them together, and the addition of those scenes (and the deletion of others that helped explain the plot) made the movie more convoluted.