Thanks. Makes sense from a practical perspective, but still seems unfair. Oh, well…
Okay, I found the episode on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X7htVTrMq4&pp=ygURQmV0IGEgTWlsbGlvbiBNZWw%3D, and they said that the horse was disqualified for fouling another horse. I don’t know where I got the “doped” thing.
In Pulp Fiction, the apartment scene is a show for no one. Marvin, their man on the inside knows where the “CASE” is. They could just walk in and kill everbody and walk away. No need for the whole song and dance.
Were Vincent and Jules just playing with their food?
Partly. But I think there was also some genuine concern.
They were shown talking about the number of people who would be in the apartment. In a shootout with six people in a small apartment, not getting shot in an exchange of gunfire would be a matter of luck.
So what they tried to do was show up first and act as if they were willing to negotiate. This stopped Brad and the others from just opening fire right away. Then they tried to intimidate the occupants in the apartment to the point where they could kill them before they worked up the nerve to try to defend themselves.
Jules definitely was. That’s kind of his whole thing, building up to that bible quote he loves to use.
Many years ago, a buddy of mine pointed out Vincent’s body language in that scene. He’s just kind of chilling in the background, rolling a smoke, because he knows Jules has a lot of talking to do. He only starts “getting into character” when Jules gets to the point, and starts the bible quote, because he knows Jules’ patter, so knows when he’s about to get serious.
We also know Vincent knew shit was about to go down because he didn’t ask where the toilet was.
This may have been covered before, because I lack the patience to go through 15 years’ worth of posts in one sitting.
I’ve been binge-watching The West Wing lately, and I just noticed something. Toby’s firing, legal problems, and secret over-the-transom work for Santos’ campaign mirror the problems Aaron Sorkin had with the franchise. He was fired from the show in (I think) Season 6 because of drug use, but a lot of the dialogue and plot from Season 7 seemed to have his fingerprints on it. He even had a cameo in the final episode. Toby Ziegler was Sorkin’s cut-out in the final season.
Sorkin left after season 4, due to contract disputes and various creative conflicts. I’ve never seen evidence that drugs had anything to do with it.
ETA: Sorkin was definitely on drugs and that could have contributed to some of the disputes, like cost overruns because of late scripts. But he wasn’t fired, and he left mainly because they couldn’t come to terms.
Not directly related to Toby’s role as a Sorkin stand-in but related that storyline of Toby revealing classified information. One thing I don’t think they ever discussed in the show was how Toby had originally obtained that information. (I if remembering correctly, he wasn’t on the list of people who had clearance.)
I think the answer is obvious, even if it wasn’t said explicitly in the show. Bartlett told him. At some point he was having a conversation with Toby and he discussed the secret shuttle, without thinking that Toby wasn’t cleared to know this.
This would explain why Bartlett was so angry with Toby after he passed on the information. It wasn’t just a betrayal of national security. It was also a betrayal of Bartlett personally by taking advantage of a mistake he had made.
It’s implied that Toby pieced it together from hints he got from his astronaut brother.
And now she’s dead. Are you happy with yourself?
< gasps and looks accusingly at Hypno-Toad >
I’m rewatching 11.22.63 now that it’s on Netflix. I’ve also read the book. One thing I don’t get is when Jake goes back to the present, how does he know where the rabbit hole is? Going to the past is easy, just walk into the closet and keep going. But for the reverse trip, how does he know where it is and why don’t innocent 1960 bystanders accidentally walk themselves into the future diner?
I haven’t seen the series and it’s been years since I read the book, so my recollection is super fuzzy, but as I recall the rabbit hole is in the same place, which means in 1958 it’s sort of hanging in space above where the diner will be built. You have to know it’s there, and there’s some specific action you have to perform to get back through, which Al explains to Jake before he goes through the first time.
Last week a youtuber I watch (The Charismatic Voice) was discussing Weird Al’s Amish Paradise. She kept referring to the woman as ‘the woman playing Michelle Pfeiffer’s part’. I finally got around to looking up who played that part in the Weird Al’s video.
The movie (Dangerous Minds), the video (Gangsta’s Paradise) and the parody (Amish Paradise) all came out when I was about 15 years old. I don’t remember if I knew at the time that it wasn’t Michelle Pfeiffer, but I sure as shit didn’t know it was Florence Henderson (at least I don’t think I knew, but it was 30 years ago and it caught me by surprise when I looked it up).
Ha! Wow, I never caught that either.
I think Amish Paradise has outlived the original song.
The song based on the movie based on the book. I actually read the book as a kid. It’s called My Posse Don’t Do Homework and it’s a white savior narrative about a teacher who makes Latino kids care about school. I can’t recall if the movie had that flavor.
Kristen Roupenian’s short story “Cat Person (which went viral a few years back) infamously ends with the male protagonist calling the female protagonist “Whore.”
Rereading Tony Tulathimutte’s short story “The Feminist” (widely regarded as a response to “Cat Person”), I just noticed what’s almost definitely a stealth reference to that ending:
He’s not speaking for women, he says—unsure of how he’ll answer, but certain he has something to say—he’s . . . speaking against men who’re speaking against women.
And another level deeper, the song is a reworking of Stevie Wonder’s Pastime Paradise:
I can’t remember where I read about that story (and I did read the story) but people collectively lost their shit over it. I think it had something to do with outrage about writers borrowing their source material from people they knew - that guy turned out to be a real guy or somehow based on a real person. On the one hand, I feel for the guy. On the other hand, a lot of writers borrow from real life all the time. Still, if you do that, you better do it in a way that they won’t be recognized by the reader. It sounds like she didn’t do a very good job removing personally identifying details.
I don’t know if you read about this - do you happen to know what article that might have been?
That’s news to me - I mainly remember the various chatter about how unlikely it was that a New Yorker short story, of all things, would go viral in the 21st century.