PYF Subtle Movie Moments: Homeopathic dinosaur piss

The Something Awful Forums > Main > Post Your Favorite: Carefully Curated > PYF Subtle Movie Moments: Homeopathic dinosaur piss

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

ungulateman posted:

Might as well get it on the first page so that it doesn't get over-posted: Inception's ending scene with the top. Not subtle, but it's drat good for a blockbuster movie rather than some artsy piece of cinema.

I don't think I understand. The ambiguity of the ending was about as unsubtle as you can make such a thing.

# ¿ May 25, 2012 07:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:15

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

The Saddest Rhino posted:

As a counterpoint, I haven't watched the first film for a while but I seem to recall that the second film resolved the mystery by establishing that the Thing is unable to replicate metal objects such as teeth fillings and earrings, the latter being a major plot point in the third act of the 2011 film. In the first film, Keith David had his earring on in the last scene.

Problems with projecting back information in a sequel aside, even if it can't replicate metal objects, it can still physically pick them up and stick them in. After all, in the 2011 film, whatsherface didn't know that the other guy was the thing because he was missing his earring, but because the earring was in the wrong ear.

This also has it's own problem, which is why the hell didn't the other guy put the earring in the correct ear? Everything in the past suggests that the thing gets the memories of the person it assimilates.

Bad movie.

edit: Or was it actually missing altogether? I can't remember for sure, and internet is giving me conflicting information. I thought I remembered it being in the wrong place.

Strudel Man has a new favorite as of 18:39 on May 26, 2012

# ¿ May 26, 2012 18:37

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Vicissitude posted:

I think the bum on the park bench in 1985 was the mayor in 1955, but I could be misremembering. ...Which is the perfect excuse to watch it again!

They're both called 'Red,' but apparently not. (The mayor is Red Thomas)

quote:

Though largely thought to be the same character as Red the Bum, they are not. According to Bob Gale's commentary on the Back to the Future DVD set, the name of the bum was ad-libbed by Michael J. Fox. Gale also commented that the photo of the mayor in 1955 on the side of the campaign van was that of set decorator Hal Gausman, whereas the bum was played by George "Buck" Flower.

# ¿ May 27, 2012 08:12

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

CzarChasm posted:

I don't recall if there are other moments like that in the film, but those three are there for sure.

Another thing you'll notice in that movie, if you look for it, is how many shots emulate comic-book style 'frames' by having natural barriers on the right and left edges of the screen. Doorways. The pillars on the edge of the stadium. Train seats. Trees. Even the aisles of a comic shop.

Check it out in the trailer here.

I really quite like that movie.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2012 19:16

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

My biggest problem with Primer was that I honestly could not reliably distinguish the one main character from the other one, particularly when they had them doing sneaky things in the dark. This only got worse when there were multiple instances of a person running around at the same time (which I'm at least fairly certain happened), as I couldn't even use the process of elimination.

I've seen it twice, and I feel like the scene where someone injects something into someone else's (or maybe his own past self's) milk jug is really the point where I no longer have the foggiest sense of who is doing what or why.

Strudel Man has a new favorite as of 08:25 on Aug 1, 2013

# ¿ Aug 1, 2013 08:19

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

He didn't do much, but I really liked the faux-Cenobite. Managed to be a lot more serenely ominous than even the real one.

edit: Ah, I guess he's the "Hell Lord" the board mentions.

Strudel Man has a new favorite as of 19:58 on Aug 19, 2013

# ¿ Aug 19, 2013 19:42

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

...of SCIENCE! posted:

Sorry you're too insulated to understand why a public figure lying about his sexuality is a thing that people might care about and might affect them. It's doubly stupid considering Vin Diesel produced a short film called Multi-Facial about his experiences with race affected his casting in movies and you're doing the sexuality equivalent of "who cares about race, I just treat everyone equally "

If you're not obsessing about whether or not Vin Diesel is gay, you're basically Double Hitler.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2013 21:47

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Cowslips Warren posted:

And lastly, Ralph would have lived up to his name had he never gone back to Sugar Rush; his actions in Hero's Duty would have literally wrecked every single game in the arcade.

Well, not unless he still brought that one bug out of the game it's meant for.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2013 00:24

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Cowslips Warren posted:

Sorry, I meant when he went back after seeing Vanellope on the game console. The bug had already laid a few thousand eggs, and chances are some of the bugs would have escaped before Calhoun set off the bomb. Game over.

Oh, right. Yeah, that would have been messy.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2013 00:51

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

I guess it's just inexplicable.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2014 02:17

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Personally I stopped watching Constantine with the one where he was dismissive of otherkin

# ¿ Feb 17, 2015 23:41

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

poonchasta posted:

That scene is still there on Netflix. It's the same student he chastised for not being in his assigned seat in class. The kid makes fun of him and takes a picture of him while he's cleaning the tires of the students car.

Why was he cleaning the student's car?

# ¿ Sep 6, 2015 21:00

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Idran posted:

He worked at a car wash as a second job.

Ah. Thanks.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2015 21:05

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Obdicut posted:

It also instantly shows that they don't understand 'regression to the mean' as it applies to IQ heritability, either.

? Regression to the mean applies to random parameters, whereas heritability is the reason why a parameter would be non-random. What are you implying that the applicability would be?

# ¿ Feb 25, 2016 19:40

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

lambeth posted:

The thing that annoys me about the beginning of Idiotcracy is that they set out to prove that Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest is wrong and survival of the best breeders is really how it works. Except Darwin's theory of evolution is survival of the best breeders (survival of the fittest was coined by Herbert Spencer and merged with Darwin's idea to form Social Darwinism). So by trying to prove Darwin wrong, they're actually proving him right, and not really accomplishing anything.

It doesn't really sound like it was setting out to prove anything wrong?

quote:

As the 21st century began, human evolution was at a turning point. Natural selection, the process by which the strongest, the smartest, the fastest reproduced in greater numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits ... evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2016 22:39

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Obdicut posted:

It's called the Breeder's Equation for genetics, this is a good explanation:

https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/the-breeders-equation/

Basically if IQ average is 100 and you get two parents who are 80 IQ their kids will have an average of 90. They are much more likely to have a sub-80 kid than an average couple and much less likely to have an above 110, but in general their kids will be less extreme than the parents, and that's assume a pretty strong narrow-sense heritability, which is probably not true.

Edit: Also behold the glory of my new red text.

Sure, the non-heritable component would be essentially random. But the fact that much of it is indeed heritable (up to 80% at adulthood) means that stupid people having more kids would indeed produce a downward evolutionary pressure, as the movie's premise suggests. The kids don't have to have exactly the parents' IQ for that to be true.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2016 09:30

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Obdicut posted:

the effect wouldn't be flat, the way the movie suggests. There'd still be plenty of smart people.

I'm really not following your logic. What do you mean by "wouldn't be flat," and why wouldn't a downward pressure on intelligence reduce the number of smart people (for a given level of 'smart?')

Screaming Idiot posted:

Isn't IQ a bullshit measurement that skews favorably toward white upper-class males in any case?

Nah. It's kinda like global warming, really - well-founded scientifically, but politicized enough that certain circles dismiss it out of hand.

Strudel Man has a new favorite as of 00:36 on Mar 18, 2016

# ¿ Mar 18, 2016 00:32

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Sucrose posted:

I've heard that IQ tests are a decent way to measure intellectual aptitude within a group, but useless for comparing different groups.

Yep. This is (probably) the explanation for the so-called Flynn effect, the observation that tested average IQ rose gradually but significantly in the US and other Western countries from about the middle of the 20th century to the end of it.

Obdicut posted:

It would reduce it, slowly, over time, maybe. But there would still be plenty of smart people being born. The whole movie is based on the idea that only this guy who is normal intelligence can save them and he's unique. There's be plenty of normal intelligence people and even geniuses being born to the stupid people in idiocracy.

Yes, "slowly, over time" is how evolutionary pressure works, and why the movie is set 500 years in the future. (Which would still be fairly fast for such dramatic changes, of course, but we make allowances for the fact that it's a comedy).

quote:

This isn't at all true. It's a well-founded test of passing IQ tests. Using that as a proxy for 'intelligence' is silly. Comparing it to global warming is stupid as poo poo, since global warming is an objectively verifiable fact based on physics, whereas IQ is a subjective measurement of a not-well-defined quality.

It's well-correlated to performance on a great diversity of intellectual tasks. Insofar as intelligence is measurable at all, and not just something about which we throw up our hands and say "who knows?", IQ is known to be a decent metric.

In any case, though, I think I've posted enough about it in the subtle movie moments thread.

Strudel Man has a new favorite as of 08:18 on Mar 19, 2016

# ¿ Mar 19, 2016 08:14

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Would that normally be illegal?

# ¿ May 3, 2016 19:17

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

oldpainless posted:

Where did this happen and who yelled?

Thermopylae and the Spartans. Can't you read?

# ¿ May 6, 2016 01:05

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

RBA Starblade posted:

My favorite historical fact about gladiators is that vendors would make little clay or stone action figures of the more popular gladiators, complete with accessories based on their favored weapons.

My favorite Ancient Rome fact is that their graffiti is more or less exactly the same content as here, including people literally just writing "im gay".

Well, not just that, but yeah, the Pompeii graffiti is great. First one on the list:

quote:

Weep, you girls. My penis has given you up. Now it penetrates men�s behinds. Goodbye, wondrous femininity!

# ¿ Jul 7, 2017 20:21

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Three's just enough for uncertainty.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2017 20:24

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Eh, there's always some allowance for shrinkage in armored truck deliveries.

# ¿ Aug 10, 2017 18:42

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

syscall girl posted:

drat. I think you just rule 34'd it.

# ¿ Aug 21, 2017 23:12

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Yes, what Mikon said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_34_(Internet_meme)

quote:

Rule 34�"If it exists, there is porn of it � no exceptions"

# ¿ Aug 22, 2017 00:15

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Eh, I think you're probably just imagining that.

# ¿ Feb 19, 2018 23:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:15

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Arcsquad12 posted:

The Buenos Aires meteor was a cassus belli they pulled out of their rear end to justify expansion into arachnid territory

People keep saying this, but don't we directly see the arachnids using meteors as weapons later on? Been a while since I've seen the movie, but I seem to remember that.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2018 20:37

The Something Awful Forums > Main > Post Your Favorite: Carefully Curated > PYF Subtle Movie Moments: Homeopathic dinosaur piss