It was Elmer season.
It’s baseball season!
I thought it was The Battle Hymn of The Republic. Could be wrong…
I agree, the dean in Animal House is trying to get rid of a frat that is causing a plethora of problems for the school and community, that is failing (and encouraging freshmen to fail) to meet academic goals, and is engaging in widespread cheating. It’s a comedy so he’s puffed up to an absurd level and probably is breaking his own school rules with the weird ‘double secret probation’ stuff, but he definitely has a point by the standards at the time in the movie. (Today, raping 13-year-olds would be a bigger deal, but then it really wasn’t).
That general attitude is IMO part of why the film hasn’t really aged well - at the time, people would think that of course white boys with enough money to go to college and mess around shouldn’t be drafted, and informing the draft board was just asinine. I think people not in the 60s-70s mentality are way less likely to see that as a huge dick move, and more of just part of the administrative stuff the dean has to do when finally expelling people. While more people oppose the draft, they feel like if you have one, it should apply to everyone.
Not really. The college was required to.
How did that work in reality? If you were expelled from college or left voluntarily, could you re-enroll someplace else and maintain the deferment?
Pretty much. You were reclassified I-A (able to be drafted) if you left college, but you’d be reclassified II-S (student deferment) if you enrolled elsewhere. I actually was 1-A for a little while because of a mixup in paperwork.
In Who Framed Roger Rabbit Judge Doom was right, albeit perhaps before his time.
Got here late, but wanted to pick up on some of this discussion earlier in the thread.
In interviews about Black Panther, the director and actors have repeatedly mentioned that they did not want to make a clear good vs evil film, and instead wanted a sympathetic antagonist.
Count me among those that consider that to generally enhance the story rather than detract from it.
I don’t want to see a moustache-twirling, maniacal-laughing, big bad, whose objectives don’t even make sense.
Disqualified because it’s not the villain.
To me, the best example of this, while not a singular villain, are the Cylons of the RDM Battlestar Galactica. At the beginning, the Cylons seem to be just murderous monsters. Later, we learn that the Colonials had created them to be a slave race. So, the Cylons rebelled and left. Until they came back.
One of the best parts of the series was that the bad guys had a point and the good guys had some genuinely bad qualities. Adama understood the Cylons’ point all along and tried to get others to understand, too.
I also enjoyed that the villains were monotheists while the good guys were polytheists.
I remember him talking about wabbit stew, and even mentioned fwicassee.
Apparently that line was intended as a censor decoy with the intent that the final version would “compromise” on 16, but nobody flagged it.
If the intent was just for the dean to screw over the Deltas, he would have worked with the faculty who created the tests, not with another fraternity, and had them burn the real mimeo instead of throwing it in the trash. The Omegas were absolutely getting the mimeo out of the trash because they intended to cheat with it. I’m not saying the Deltas were good guys, but the Omegas weren’t any better.
Don’t we find out that they came back because the Colonists had sent a military recon mission against them (commanded by Adama), in violation of the treaty after the first war?
I think that recon mission is what poked the bear, but the Cylons had a decent reason to hold a grudge. The Colonial society had some huge rotten spots.
Who shoots a talking rabbit, though? Much better economically to trap him humanely and than take him on Vaudeville.
Didn’t work when someone tried that with a singing, dancing frog.
Frogs aren’t cute and furry.
I was speaking in general filmmaking terms. I like complex villains with believable motivations (“I like gold” is not a good motivation. 
)
But in a “genre” picture, especially one which is part of a series with as much going on as the MCU, making Erik too sympathetic would undermine the whole film series. If the audience starts saying, “hey wait - he has a point. maybe Erik should be King and be the Black Panther! And do more for the African people!” that’s going to deviate from the comic history, and probably mess up Infinity War/Endgame. And they’d have a whole different universe. (especially if Erik decides to wage war on the white colonial powers.)
I kind of think the balance was right. If I were a Wakandan, I probably would side with Erik, until he went too far. In the film, he’s still the “baddie”, but he’s not so far across the line. The fact that T’Challa decided to share Wakandan tech shows how Erik made his point.