This might be more appropriate for the mondegreen thread, but since this one is here… I just found out last weekend that that song by Wings is called “Band on the Run”. I always thought it was “Man on the Run”.
Happy birthday, Hans Moleman:
I’m far from a prude, but I was frankly appalled that they included this reference to oral sex, spoken by a ten-year-old, in a film that was intended for that age group. Highly inappropriate.
I was in that age group, and didn’t make any connection to oral sex. It just sounded to me like a randomly “naughty” insult. It was exactly equivalent to calling someone “poop breath”*, but “penis” was somehow vaguely naughtier.
*Which I wouldn’t have thought of as a reference to scat play.
Likewise. I remember imagining he was breathing out a cloud of tiny penises, an image I found utterly hilarious.
After watching Perry Mason again for the first time in a long time, I realized how utterly incompetent the police detective and the DA are. In every.single.case for six years, they do not get a single one right. They always arrest and prosecute innocent people without fail, and their jobs are not in jeopardy. In fact, they start each episode fresh and Perry Mason actually talks to the detective for his expertise.
How long would it take for the newspapers and any potential jurors to realize that as soon as a person is arrested in that area, then that is proof positive that he is innocent?
If you did pay attention to the show, you would notice that all the preliminary evidence points to Perry’s clients. Perry just finds new evidence that the DA hadn’t uncovered (not uncommon IRL). That is the job of a good defense attorney and it’s no way remarkable that Perry does it.
Also, do you think Burger only prosecutes cases with Mason as a lawyer? He could easily be winning dozens of others each year.
Burger and Tragg are following the evidence they have. They may depend too much on Occum’s Razor, but that’s hardly incompetence.
Also, the show is a work of fiction, a TV drama from the 60s. It has nothing to do with anything not portrayed in the show.
Didn’t the actor who played Hamilton Burger say something along the lines that he figured the show only portrayed the trials that took place on Thursdays, and his character routinely won the trials that took place the other four days of the week?
And of course, these are Mr Mason’s stories, so the ones where he loses aren’t shown. “Deep Law” strikes again!
I just saw an episode where Burger is quoted as saying that the point of the trial isn’t winning or losing, but rather achieving justice.
He’d never make it as a modern prosecutor.
Indeed. That is the whole point of the entire 4200 plus post thread.
No joke. He would be eating government issued cheese with that attitude today.
Exactly. It’s exactly the sort of insult a ten-year-old would fling at their older brother. Especially because they sometimes like to push boundaries by using the official terms they’ve by then seen in books, because they think they can sneak it in that way. “But Moooom! I didn’t say a bad word!”
Odd whistling in Good Will Hunting.
In this scene, I’m not sure if Robin Williams is whistling or if it was added after shooting. What do you all think? Seems strange to me to whistle like that before grabbing someone by the throat.
In this scene, the whistler is off camera. Anyone know what the reference is?
In the first scene, that is Matt Damon whistling, as emphasis while asking if Robin William’s wife was banging another guy.
Not really. Most posts are observing obvious things about a creative work, and understand it’s fiction. They talk about things within the fiction.
They don’t talk about things outside of the fiction in order to bring up irrelevancies that have nothing to do with the fiction.
I understand that it is fiction, and within this fiction the DA and the detective, at least once Perry Mason is retained, the arrestee is ALWAYS innocent. You think after six years, the DA would throw in the towel after Mason is retained.
If they get convictions off screen against other defense attorneys, then they should wonder if they really got it right because they bat a flat .000 against Perry Mason–and not because of technicalities but because they made a clear mistake by arresting people who are factually innocent.
Does Perry just happen to get all of the innocent clients and everyone else the guilty ones?
He’s actually a failure. For each one he wins, he loses 99 others. Lots of innocent clients went to the chair because they hired him for a lawyer, having seen only his few successes on TV.
Not did I, as an adult, and my 28-year-old daughter agrees. I’m kind of shocked that anyone would consider it an actual oral sex reference.
I think you’re right. Thanks for pointing that out! How about the other scene?