Obvious things about a creative work you realize after the millionth time (OPEN SPOILERS POSSIBLE)

Guys, at 15 I was perfectly aware that Elliott was calling his brother a ****sucker in that scene. Maybe that particular translation was something only suburbanite teen boys understood.

I don’t know about suburbanite, but I think that interpretation may be specific to teenage boys. Oh, and that line was apparently ad-libbed - I’ve read that the script simply called for the character to say something insulting.

I think it’s a given in any TV show, that we’re only seeing the particularly interesting incidents in the characters’ lives, and that they have a bunch of other less-interesting days that aren’t shown. For a defense-attorney-detective, presumably those less-interesting days consist of the times when his client really was guilty, and he takes a plea bargain, or mounts the best defense he can but it isn’t enough, or mounts the best defense he can and gets his client off in an uninteresting way, because the evidence against him just wasn’t strong enough.

How common those less-interesting cases are, relative to the interesting ones, remains an open question.

It wouldn’t surprise me if Steven Spielberg told Henry Thomas what to say but did not put it in the script so studio executives wouldn’t object to the insult.

Mostly lawyers get guilty clients. Some get the cases dismissed as there is crap for evidence, some do plea bargaining.

If the client really is not guilty, it rarely gets to court, the Attorney shows the evidence to the DA, and the DA asks the judge to dismiss.

If we go down that road, we might as well get rid of all of the threads that talk about TV and movie tropes. If someone talks about the trope where the evil supervillain sets up an elaborate slow death trap that allows the hero to escape, someone else can just say, “Meh, the movie didn’t show him killing the thousand other heroes quickly, it just focused on this one where he was having an off day.”

Funnily enough, The Incredibles meets this description perfectly. We find out about all the other dead heroes after the hero escapes (the first time).

In The Blues Brothers, Dan Aykroyd sells a Cadillac. In Ghostbusters, Dan Aykroyd buys a Cadillac.

On 30 Rock,when Don Geiss dies…its theorized his consciousness moved into his pet peacock.

Very cool ep, weird thing to own, A peacock.

Wait,Geiss owned…NBC also…ffs.

I watched The Big Lebowski (again) tonight with a friend who had never seen it. I never realized that Bunny didn’t “kidnap herself.” I had always assumed that she was working with the nihilists. (which is not even an ethos).

Considering the observation was first made during the show’s original run, why do you think it’s worth brining up? Even Raymond Burr was asked about it and replied “You only see the cases I represent on Saturday night.”

Besides, Perry Mason is not a legal drama. It’s a PI show, where the detective is a lawyer. Nearly every TV detective solves all his cases. Columbo does. Jessica Fletcher does. Baretta does. Det. Barnaby does. Miss Fisher does. Father Brown does. Murdock does. Poirot does. Rockford does.

If that sort of thing bothers you, you shouldn’t be watching fiction.

Not always. I do remember one episode where Rockford’s client and a mobster are chasing a woman who is on the lam with some money. They never find her or the cash, and Rockford is almost killed. After he recovers, he’s visited separately by the client and the mobster. He gives them different stories of what happened and who has the money now. We never do find out the truth.

And even when he did solve a case he usually got stiffed on the bill.

Nearly every TV detective solves nearly all his cases. All of my favorites have had at least one case where they weren’t sure about the outcome, or had to accept the outcome, or found out later they were wrong, or …

I don’t know if Perry ever graduated to that level of awareness?

From Wikipedia:

[quote] Mason is known to have lost, in some form or manner, three cases—“The Case of the Terrified Typist”, “The Case of the Witless Witness”, and “The Case of the Deadly Verdict”.[70]

Mason also loses a civil case at the beginning of “The Case of the Dead Ringer”,[66]:24421 partly due to being framed for witness tampering. His staff and he then spend the rest of the episode trying to prove his innocence. They eventually do, and although this is not stated explicitly, the verdict of the civil case is presumably either overturned or declared a mistrial. In a July 15, 2009, interview on NPR’s program All Things Considered , Barbara Hale claimed that all of Mason’s lost cases were declared mistrials off the air.[71]

Mason did lose, at least by inference, a capital case mentioned in the 1958 episode, “The Case of the Desperate Daughter”. Mason and Della Street are first seen preparing a last-minute appeal for a “Mr. Hudson”, who has an impending date with the gas chamber.[72] [/quote]

Not too sure why @UltraVires is being jumped for his Perry Mason observations as they fit, literally, within the parameters of the OP. Shit, I think I made the same Fleetwood Mac observation twice in this thread (yup, in 2017 and 2020) and :cricket: from the peanut gallery.

Right? It’s almost like I insulted someone’s mother. I like the show. It is on Amazon Prime this month and have been watching it, even as a criminal defense attorney. The open court confessions are not realistic, but I like the investigation and drama.

The point of the show is that Mason is an excellent defense attorney who can always pick out the real killer and not his client. But I realized (not from reading any discussions at the time) the flip side that the DA and Lt. Dreggs were always picking out the incorrect suspect initially. Sorry for the offense caused to some.

Michael Penn’s song “Try” has lyrics like “accused,” “witness dismissed,” and “taking the fifth” - with the chorus “I don’t want to try you anymore.”

It just hit me (duh), he means “try” as in “trying a case in court.”

This is about an entire genre of creative works.

I long assumed that most of the stories presented in pop songs were derived through imagination. But the more I read about what inspired certain songs, the more I realize that an awful lot of song lyrics are based on the composer’s own personal experience.

More and more in recent years, at least purportedly. These days, for some reason, all art is supposed to be autobiographical.

Fear of accusations of “appropriation”?