Yeah, the awesome “meatpacking” sequence where prisoners are processed like hogs in a factory. A cool moment is how you think you’re looking at a mirror in the back showing Sam hanging on the conveyor while being addressed by the various men in gray suits but then you see the figure in the reflection moving on to the next stop on the line and you realize that it’s another, identical, processing line. During the reading of the charges, I noticed that they specifically list the forgery of Kurtzmans signature. I realized all the charges are spot on. He’s not being framed with trumped-up charges. And when the sequence starts, there are screams in the distance. The screams get louder with each stop, showing that Sam is getting closer and closer to some horrifying place. It culminates in the vision of the baby-masked creatures pouncing on Sam.
I was in sixth grade when The Monkees aired. I think that was the perfect time to watch it.
The bits of the opening sequence that were set in sand dunes were shot at Hyperion, L.A.'s main wastewater treatment plant, in El Segundo.
I concur- not a joke band. Originally a made up band, but they got better.
Well that’s really my question. Who came up with all those interior layout and concept artworks, and more importantly, when?
Because as I understand it the iconic Millennium Falcon was a rush job redesign after models were well along in fabrication on the original “pirate ship” design that for scraped for being too similar to the Space: 1999 Eagle. It kept the WWII throwback gun turrets and cockpit because that was the aesthetic Lucas wanted, but the flattened disk with a notch was inspired by a hamburger with a bite of of it.
So whatever in-universe layers of shtick have been generated in the decades since, six weeks from concept to assembled model doesn’t leave much time for “why is there a notch there” when they have to justify gun turrets and smuggler holds.
As for the toys, they’re interiors bear little resemblance to the movie interior other than a nod to the basic concepts - gun turret with seat, panel for smuggler bay, 3-D chess table.
Well granted on an interstellar craft windows don’t seem that useful, especially in hyperspace. But the Falcon has a weird system that has atmospheric engines and lands terrestrially or docks in space, but it’s apparently built to push large cargo containers around in space. Because using the falcon as a truck to haul cargo bins from one orbital port to another is conceivable, using it to lift oversized containers from surface doesn’t seem feasible - even with a magic space vehicle that bounces off planets.
But perhaps the windows serve more purpose atmospherically or in close navigating for docking/ landing rather than during the space haul portion.
McQuarrie, I would venture to guess, and around the time of Empire.
Although I haven’t seen Romeo and Juliet a million times, I’m going to throw caution to the winds and complain about this.
In the famous balcony scene, Juliet bemoans the fact that her crush’s name is Romeo. It makes me wonder if she thinks her father would like it better if she introduced him as Irving Montague.
You’re saying it would make more sense for her to lament “Wherefore (i.e., why) are you a Montague?,” since the beef is with the family, not with the individual.
I’ve wondered that myself! I suppose it’s Shakespeare emphasizing that, for Juliet, it was just about this one individual – a nod to teenage obsession that (at that moment, at least) overpowered more logical language.
She’s not bemoaning that his name is Romeo, but rather that he is Romeo.
It’s right there in the lines that follow,
JULIET: O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo? Deny thy father and refuse thy name; or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love, and I’ll no longer be a Capulet.
ROMEO: [Aside] Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?
JULIET: 'Tis but thy name that is my enemy; thou art thyself though, not a Montague. What’s Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot, nor arm, nor face, nor any other part belonging to a man. O, be some other name! What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet; So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d, retain that dear perfection which he owes without that title. Romeo, doff thy name, and for that name which is no part of thee take all myself.
ROMEO: I take thee at thy word: call me but love, and I’ll be new baptized; henceforth I never will be Romeo.
JULIET: What man art thou that thus bescreen’d in night so stumblest on my counsel?
ROMEO: By a name I know not how to tell thee who I am: My name, dear saint, is hateful to myself, because it is an enemy to thee; had I it written, I would tear the word.
JULIET: My ears have not yet drunk a hundred words of that tongue’s utterance, yet I know the sound: art thou not Romeo and a Montague?
ROMEO: Neither, fair saint, if either thee dislike.
Interesting - thanks. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that both Romeo and Juliet are almost haphazardly playing around with both names – “Romeo” and “Montague” – and state that that either one marks him as an unjustified enemy. Even though it seems to me that he need only only shed the “Montague,” they both think otherwise – maybe since “Romeo” was bestowed on him by the family. A bit like some Black Muslims shedding both their “slaveholder-imposed” names, not just the surname (though Malcolm X did keep his).
Maus_Magill – that makes sense – “why did I have to fall in love with YOU, of all people?” – but the subsequent dialogue then does focus on the name, and the (poignant, we-can-only-pretend) “solution” of changing it.
I think it’s suggesting, at least, that if you’re in the vicinity of Verona and you mention Romeo or Juliet, people are going to take it for granted that you’re talking about Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet. That they’re both stuck with identities that they can not get rid of.
… someone is bound to say “Those two idiot teenagers?”
Well said.
I’ve watched The Good Place, I don’t even know how many times now. Plus, if you put a Good Place youtube video in my feed, I’ll probably watch it. For all the times I’ve watched it, I’ve never noticed that when Janet plays the audio clip of The Bad Place, someone screams ‘THE BEAR HAS TWO MOUTHS’.
Never noticed it, not once. (Though it seems like plenty of other people have heard it and someone mentioned that if you turn on the captions, it shows up there as well)
I’ve currently got theFantasia soundtrack playing on my Echo. It made me wonder how many people heard “Dance of the Hours” and thought Alan Sherman! v. how many heard Night on Bald Mountain and thought Escape!
For the olderer folks, “Dance of the Hours” may also remind them of Spike Jones’ rendition.
There’s a current music thread that has a bit of a hijack going about Emerson Lake & Palmer and the song “Lucky Man”. There was a German prog rock band called Triumvirat who were contemporaries of ELP and even sometimes referred to as “the German ELP”. Triumvirat’s “Illusions On A Double Dimple” album contains two album-side-length suites. Side two, “Mister Ten Percent”, has a section titled “Lucky Girl”, which it just recently occurred to me could easily be a poke at ELP’s “Lucky Man”. It even has a cheesy synth solo!
The death of Rick Davies has me going through some Supertramp tunes, and if I had ever known that the cover of Breakfast in America had the NY skyline done in restaurant shapes, I’d forgotten it a long time ago.
I just looked at it and same here. Either I never knew or I forgot so completely that seeing it didn’t even remind me.
But that’s not all, man. If you hold the record cover in front of a mirror, the ‘u’ and the ‘p’ in SUPERTRAMP clearly become 9 11…sticking right out of the World Trade Center!!!1!! They knew, man. Way back then, they knew. And the orange juice held by the Statue of Liberty waitress? Right in front of those buildings? That’s representing fire, man.