Sounds like the original version would have been clearer than the book, then: it’s said that Chandler himself couldn’t figure out who offed one of the characters.
In** Michael Clayton** why does he throw his watch and wallet in the burning car? The fire was hot enough to distroy them and there is no body. So what was his thinking behind this?
Just as a matter of curiosity…what kind of ending would you have liked? They make to Mexico and presumably live out their lives robbing liquor stores? Would you rather they were caught and sent to prison for 20 years?
Don’t forget that Vader is the third apprentice Sidious takes that we know of. Before him there was Maul and Dooku. In ROTJ his intent was to have Luke kill Vader and take his place, not have Vader kill him. After all, Vader had killed Dooku, and it was hinted at that Sidious was immortal, so he probably planned to go on replacing his apprentice in this manner forever.
It’s a matter of honor and a changing of style. The whole point of the second movie is to show how different the mob is under Michael. Michael is not about relationships and family. He is about power. Frankie was Vito’s guy and played by Vito’s rules. He could not dishonor his brother, even with Michael in charge.
Worried they might have a bug or tracer in them, so he shedded everything he could reasonably drop given being in the middle of nowhere.
In a lot of the movies that I see, the plumber or TV repairman will just take off their pants and start having sex with a woman that there’s no indication that they know. Afterwards, the movie will just move on to another scene, without any narrative about the characters’ relationship.
That would make sense. If he is an F&I Manager he may have signing rights for the dealership. If he does and is responsible for keeping the books he may just be using the dealerships accounts anyway. Either way he is boned once an auditor shows up.
Which is actually one of the confusing things about the movie, since we are on it. Is there any way for him to actually get away with it in the face of competent auditing even if his plan worked? He probably would have done better emptying the accounts and heading off to Mexico. Though it would have been a less good movie.
I have to disagree with FerretHerder. I’ve thought about the “there are always two” angle before and what this means with regard to the fact that recruitment means that someone is going to meet a bad end. But, I don’t think either the apprentice or the master are acting in anyone’s interest but their own. Who cares if the Sith as a collective rule? The Dark Side is such that its agents only care if THEY rule. If that means (because they are Sith) that the Sith rule, so be it. But, why would they recruit then if there can be only two?
The apprentice and the master are each working in their own interest. Though they collaborate to groom a new recruit, they have disparate goals. The master takes an appretice because that gives him more power. Even an apprentice who is much inferior to the master is still much better than a lieutenant who is not a force user. While he may turn on this master to usurp his power, this is regarded as an acceptable risk. The apprentice may not have as much power as the master, but he still has more than he would have without him.
Now for recruiting another: The master hopes to find a new apprentice who is more powerful than his current apprentice. This increases his power. Meanwhile, the apprentice hopes to find someone who is less powerful than himself, but powerful enough that together they could destroy the master.
What’s more. I think that both master and apprentice KNOW that this is the case. This wouldn’t necessarily change any of the behavior involved. After all, I play poker with the full knowledge that the people I’m trying to beat out of their money are also trying to beat me out of my money. I’m confident enough that I will win and am willing to accept the risk that I will lose. While the stakes are much higher for the Sith (galactice domination, murder, or death at the hands of treacherous pupils), that high risk tolerance in the pursuit of power seems consistent with the characterization of Dark Side Force users.
In the movie Never Let Me Go there was one huge thing that bothered the hell out of me. It is a relatively new movie so if you haven’t seen it and want to (though I don’t recommend it as it was not very good) don’t read the rest of this post.
SPOILER ALERT!
We learn as the story progresses that the children we’ve been watching are, in fact, clones being raised to have healthy organs to harvest at later points in life. They know this about themselves and that they are slated to die in their twenties as their organs are taken one by one. Then they are given access to cars and such and live on their own with other clones and not one of them ever tries to escape. Seriously, they are on a beach with a fucking boat and none of them pushes it out into the water and tries to sail somewhere they won’t be known as clones and possibly have the opportunity to survive? What the hell is wrong with their survival instincts and why don’t they fight back or run?
What didn’t you understand?
I think the genre known as “erotic thrillers” (best known of the group would be Madonna’s flick “Body of Evidence” and possibly “Basic Instinct” as well). The genre features some movies that most would identify as mainstream and that play in theaters, to full-out softcore porn films that show up only on late-night premium cable channels. Here’s an example from a review I did of “Forbidden Sins” an erotic thriller in the softcore end:
Don’t.
I too started a completely bogus question, just for laughs, and there are ******* here still commenting on it.
Ah, so what you’re saying is that Obi Wan spoke the truth…from a certain point of view?
On the subject of Beetlejuice, the one part I don’t get is that Beetlejuice wouldn’t tell his name to Lydia because, as he explains, “if I tell you, you tell your friends… your friends are callin’ me on the horn all the time… and I gotta show up at shopping centers for openings and sign autographs and shit like that and it makes my life a HELL. OK? A living HELL”
So his solution to that is to…show a picture of a beetle and some orange juice. Because I guess Lydia won’t tell her friends after having to struggle for ten whole seconds in a game of charades.
My admittedly vague recollection/interpretation is that he was full of shit, that he really wanted to get her to say his name 3 times but was forbidden to come out and say it. He used the whole “coy” bit to make her more interested in his name, then resorted to a rebus to skirt the rules and give his name without saying it.
So you’re trolling then. And insulting people it seems like.
In BeetleJuice I believe it is against the rules for him to tell Lydia his name directly as he was in a prison of sorts.
Well, in fairness, it really was pretty obvious, and most of the responses were equally tongue in cheek.
You’re remembering correctly. He doesn’t tell her outright because he can’t. Beetlejuice is a bad dude who ultimately wants to marry Lydia in order to re-enter the world of the living. There is a curse that restricts his abilities to create mayhem. Saying his name three times is an invocation that breaks the cruse that is binding him. He can’t say or, IIRC write out his own name. He has to trick you into doing it, or help you figure it out.
ETA: Saying his name three times again will re-bind him.
Please don’t insult any other posters - both of you. Don’t call other posters names or publicly accuse them of trolling.
i don’t agree. they know, and we know, that louise shot the man in self defense, but there were no witnesses to attest to that fact, so it would be up to a jury to believe the word of 2 women who committed armed robbery, blew up a truck, and left a cop to die in the trunk of his car, in addition to the shooting. they weren’t going to do a measly 5 years or so. and yes, the one cop seemed to realize they were good people who had gotten in way over their heads, and was trying to help them, but he’s not going to be the one sentencing them.
i wonder the same thing as stoid, what ending would you have liked to have seen? the only other options i see is to turn it into a lord of the rings length film with the second half being a courtroom drama, or have a lifetime movie-esque scroll at the end somberly informing us that they got sentenced to 20 to life. yes, they chose death over life, but what kind of life would they have had rotting away in prison?
I don’t know - it doesn’t seem all that much of a fanwank. If “Darth” is a legitimate title, akin to “Doctor” or “Pastor” or “Duke” (it isn’t clear whether it’s a religious, aristocratic or professional title), then it’s not so strange he’d be addressed using it. When I speak to my physician, he’s not “Doctor Smith” - he’s often just “Doctor.”