Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Movies that would be better without their ending.


Recommended Posts

You may be on to something there. Not only can Marty Feldman watch two movies at the same time, he can watch one movie twice (simultaneously) with a single showing. He takes it to a new level, all right. We may need a new word altogether.

Even without the special glasses he'd have been able to watch 3-D movies in 4-D! 

 

Which is where, for a good part of the '70's I  usually was when going to the movies!  ;)

 

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea is that when an object is viewed from different angles, the object itself changes.

 

 

...or only appears to change, and it's our perceptions that change ... or is this distinction not germane to the matter ...so serious you sound.

 

We were riffing a bit on your little Roshomon quip and perhaps being a bit silly ... or are you referring to something else? ...

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at least there's a limit to your disagreeing!

 

 

 

 

It was my impression the movie documented the victimization by a clique of vicious, amoral people, of a simple, uncomplicated soul, first using, then abandoning and humiliating her, driving her to despair.  I'm wondering if we saw the same movie.  Or if we did, likely we watched it from different sides of the same screen.  A convex sheet of plastic will be concave on the other side. . . . Hey! I've discovered the meaning of Rashomon!

Slayton, while I was watching the film I kept thinking it was the reverse of the film "Darling" with Julie Christie and the ending sort of bore that out. As for Rashomon, it is one of my favorite movies and I thank Thor and Zeus so much for getting the storyline to Kurosawa first or we would all be having to watch that horrid Paul Newman version called The Outrage or  The Offal or The Really Awful as the original version which would bring me to tears. Your take on the Italian film would be my take mostly and I finally got tired of the film and started enjoying looking at all the great Italian decor settings in party scenes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thank Thor and Zeus so much for getting the storyline to Kurosawa first or we would all be having to watch that horrid Paul Newman version called The Outrage or  The Offal or The Really Awful as the original version which would bring me to tears.

 

 

Those guys.  Love 'em.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...or only appears to change, and it's our perceptions that change ... or is this distinction not germane to the matter ...so serious you sound.

 

We were riffing a bit on your little Roshomon quip and perhaps being a bit silly ... or are you referring to something else? ...

 

:)

 

 

I am serious--and facetious. 

 

I enjoy riff-raff on my posts, even if I don't contribute.  But I am fascinated by the observation I tripped over about the sheet of plastic (or anything, really).  Discussion of Rashomon (1950) revolves around the various self-serving interpretations of the same event--and we are left to puzzle out what happened, if possible.  But I am contending that differing viewpoints actually change the nature of the object observed.  From one position a sheet is convex, a dome.  From another, concave, a bowl.  So, for each of the recountings in Rashomon, a different event happened.  Or is this contention abstruse?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ending may be the only good part in the "Salvation" TV series.

 

 

I am afraid you will have to initiate your own thread:  Movies (or other) that would be better with only their endings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am serious--and facetious. 

 

I enjoy riff-raff on my posts, even if I don't contribute.  But I am fascinated by the observation I tripped over about the sheet of plastic (or anything, really).  Discussion of Rashomon (1950) revolves around the various self-serving interpretations of the same event--and we are left to puzzle out what happened, if possible.  But I am contending that differing viewpoints actually change the nature of the object observed.  From one position a sheet is convex, a dome.  From another, concave, a bowl.  So, for each of the recountings in Rashomon, a different event happened.  Or is this contention abstruse?

 

I am told by an Astrology devotee friend that it's bad news when a planet is said to be in retrograde, a condition where the orbit of said planet appears to be traveling in a direction opposite of its known orbit because of the vantage point of viewing it from Earth at that particular time. I'm assuming that my friend would not consider that abstruse (for example) because such a condition will wiegh upon their behavoir in that they may decide not go outside that day or feel perhaps that this is not a good day to even get out of bed. Since I happily don't believe in Astrology I would probably assume that the direction of the orbit is progressing as it should (regardless of appearance) and that what my friend sees is an illusion or a mirage or simply a lack of respect for the good ole science of it. What I would probably find abstruse is a full-fledged philosophical discussion of Appearance and Reality, which you may or not be flirting with depending of course on whether you are being serious or facetious at any given moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a point in mind where you would turn off your DVD player?

 

Regarding The Pink Panther, I generally shut it off.....spoilers ahead......

.

.

.

.

.

 

 

once all those cars crash into each other, at the end of the party.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am told by an Astrology devotee friend that it's bad news when a planet is said to be in retrograde, a condition where the orbit of said planet appears to be traveling in a direction opposite of its known orbit because of the vantage point of viewing it from Earth at that particular time. I'm assuming that my friend would not consider that abstruse (for example) because such a condition will wiegh upon their behavoir in that they may decide not go outside that day or feel perhaps that this is not a good day to even get out of bed. Since I happily don't believe in Astrology I would probably assume that the direction of the orbit is progressing as it should (regardless of appearance) and that what my friend sees is an illusion or a mirage or simply a lack of respect for the good ole science of it. What I would probably find abstruse is a full-fledged philosophical discussion of Appearance and Reality, which you may or not be flirting with depending of course on whether you are being serious or facetious at any given moment.

 

 

I flatter myself you imply no retrograde tendencies in me.  I'm sorry to say, there is the potential for me to be both serious and facetious at the same time--abstruse as that might be.  My comments were not in the direction of metaphysics, but quantum physics.  A well-known, and for me definitely abstruse, principle of which is that the process of observation affects the nature of the observed object.   I think the way it goes is that you can know where something is, but not where it's going.  And the reverse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I flatter myself you imply no retrograde tendencies in me.  I'm sorry to say, there is the potential for me to be both serious and facetious at the same time--abstruse as that might be.  My comments were not in the direction of metaphysics, but quantum physics.  A well-known, and for me definitely abstruse, principle of which is that the process of observation affects the nature of the observed object.   I think the way it goes is that you can know where something is, but not where it's going.  And the reverse.

 

You might also flatter yourself for your lack of defensiveness because you (or one) might have taken it that way, the idea being that one perception (the scientific one) seems truer than another (the pseudo-scientific one) where the latter fails utterly in determining the nature of the observed object. But it stops there for I, as a gentleman, would never pin the label of retrograde on anyone ... probably ;-). I, too, am sorry for that potential of yours (serious/facetious) since it can be a devastating tool in any debate, for once pinned down it can be used for escape by saying, oh I was being facetious there. I think the tendency is merely confusing, reserving abstruse for more heady matter, such as metaphysics, quantum physics, and other esoterica (such as your last three sentences, which for all I know, might be facetious as all get out.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You might also flatter yourself for your lack of defensiveness because you (or one) might have taken it that way, the idea being that one perception (the scientific one) seems truer than another (the pseudo-scientific one) where the latter fails utterly in determining the nature of the observed object. But it stops there for I, as a gentleman, would never pin the label of retrograde on anyone ... probably ;-). I, too, am sorry for that potential of yours (serious/facetious) since it can be a devastating tool in any debate, for once pinned down it can be used for escape by saying, oh I was being facetious there. I think the tendency is merely confusing, reserving abstruse for more heady matter, such as metaphysics, quantum physics, and other esoterica (such as your last three sentences, which for all I know, might be facetious as all get out.)

 

 

Ah, now there you do ascribe the retrograde to me.  For I would never resort to sophistical devices in the exchange of views.  Your confusion arises perhaps from you unfamiliarity with quantum physics, or quantum mechanics, or quantum theory, as it is variously called.  Here's a simple outline of it:

 

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/quantum-theory

 

which I can keep up with.  Here's a more in depth discussion:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

 

which I barely hold on to with my fingernails.  Jump down to 5.  Philosophical Implications.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, now there you do ascribe the retrograde to me.  For I would never resort to sophistical devices in the exchange of views.  Your confusion arises perhaps from you unfamiliarity with quantum physics, or quantum mechanics, or quantum theory, as it is variously called.  Here's a simple outline of it:

 

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/quantum-theory

 

which I can keep up with.  Here's a more in depth discussion:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

 

which I barely hold on to with my fingernails.  Jump down to 5.  Philosophical Implications.

 

 

Rebuke yourself not for failing to take offense at the possible retrograde charge, for there was no such intent on my part. I only said later that it could be taken that way but I implied that it would be wrong. And no, I do not impute base forms of sophistry to you, didn't you see my invisible winkie? If not, then allow me to humbly beg your pardon.

 

And now to the matter. The quotations below derive from the links you provided and for which I thank you.

 

"Niels Bohr proposed the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, which asserts that a particle is whatever it is measured to be (for example, a wave or a particle), but that it cannot be assumed to have specific properties, or even to exist, until it is measured [observed]." Since I am not from the nano world and naturally resist such a notion I nevertheless admit with chagrin that I have experienced this even though I occupy the macroscopic world. I find that when looking at photos of beautiful women in erotic postures, the specific properties of these photographs become mightily enhanced during the act of observation. I find this to be particularly true when I am the one who is doing the observing. A feather in the cap of Herr Bohr. Conversely, Albert Einstein "held that a state of nature occurs in its own right, regardless of whether or how it might be observed," which I take to mean that if Al was of the opinion that Theda Bara was hot he would consider her to be such because the objective reality of Theda Bara's hotness was replete with intrinsically endowed specific properties precluding the necessity of observation. He would think that Theda to be stable and enduring in her own right proclaiming that "God does not play with dice" and that Theda was not to be variable just because someone is looking at her. (Way to go, Al, I feel the same way about Marilyn). Two feathers in your cap, Albert.

 

So, with respect to the Roshomon analogy, can we say that Albert (I refer to him familiarly because he is firmly in my camp) would hold that what happened in the movie was within the realm of objective reality and can remain constant unbesmirched by observation derived from looking through a prism or a filter of some kind (including convex and/or concave configurations) thereby "rolling the dice" and corrupting God's will and that the various individuals who had different opinions were understandable only in the light of the abject flightiness of subjective conjecture, and that Mr Bohr would hold that the objective reality cannot be determined until a catalogue of observations be compiled and a roll call of opinion be recorded to even begin to establish its existence and therefore probably would have felt that this could have been the greatest movie ever.

 

I admit to confusion (I don't even have any fingernails left) but it was unfair to attribute confusion to me for the reason of being unfamiliar with Quantam Mechanics, since 1) the latter was only introduced lately in the conversation and 2) the latter (QM), strictly speaking, would necessarily be irrelevant to any discussion of Roshomon unless of course a microscopic variant race of the Lilliputian Civilization, denizens of sub-atomic regions, could shoo away particles and waves in order to get a look at a movie screen, that is, if movie screens that small exist in that diminutive realm. A true discussion of Roshomon and Quantum Mechanics could then take place. A corollary of all this seems to be that Quantum Physics (Mechanics, whatever) would have something in common with what is oft said about Algebra, what good is it to know all this when there doesn't seem to be a mundane every-day practical application up here in MacroLand.

 

Speaking of Lilliputians, Johnathan Swift (1667-1745) came a little before Gottfried Wilheim Leibniz (1646-1716) who, as you know, was famously lampooned by Voltaire for being incurably optimistic even (especially?) when the worst happens, and it's hard to deny that Herr Leibniz would have been ecstatic if he had been born 250 years later when the many-worlds theory was conceived as it would allow him to say that all is good in this the best of all possible worlds, and to be able to say that in whichever world he happen to be occupying at the time (Gottfried would have been exhilarated by this and Voltaire would have had a field day). Never mind for a moment that all these worlds are parallel thereby diminishing Herr Leibniz' emphasis but he would have enjoyed saying it nonetheless.

 

As you can see, I'm decidedly unserious in some respects (and trying to have a little fun with it) but I have hope for legitimacy since I haven't even as yet watched the Nova hour-long program about QM contained in one of your links and of which I shall not fail, with the expectation that though it might not make me an expert in the field it could at least prevent me from losing any more fingernails.

 

In the meantime I am intent on duplicating a famous experiment ... you see, I have this cat ...

 

 

 

...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Theda Bera's hotness existing independent of observation, per a deterministic (i. e. Einsteinian) universe I hold would be absurd, for without observation her hotness would have no meaning.  Therefore, notwithstanding Einstein's abhorrence of God's playing dice, the only rational recourse is for an indeterminate, or quantum universe.  However, this is beside the point.

 

Someone acquainted with quantum theory would have recognized the derivation of the statements that confused you.  That is why I inferred your unfamiliarity with it.  But that is beside the point.

 

The point is contained here:

 

with respect to the Roshomon analogy, can we say that Albert. . . .would hold that what happened in the movie was within the realm of objective reality and can remain constant unbesmirched by observation. . . .and that the various individuals who had different opinions were understandable only in the light. . . .of subjective conjecture, and that Mr Bohr would hold that the objective reality cannot be determined until a catalogue of observations be compiled and a roll call of opinion be recorded to even begin to establish its existence. . . .

 

You have that right.  And I am sad to say for Mr. Einstein, great as he is, the quantum universe has been thoroughly established by, um, observation.  In fact, as you may have heard, the last missing particle predicted by quantum theory (the Higgs boson) was recently discovered at CERN.  It has been decidedly determined that we exist in an indeterminate universe.  If you want to maintain your dissatisfaction with quantum theory, you can object to the unwieldy catalogue of elemental particles.  It strains a principle of theoretical economy.

 

And the point is here:

 

[Quantum theory] would. . . .be irrelevant to any discussion of Roshomon unless. . . .a microscopic. . . .race. . . .could shoo away particles and waves in order to get a look at a movie screen, that is, if movie screens that small exist in that diminutive realm. A true discussion of Roshomon and Quantum Mechanics could then take place.

 

Ah, that is the brilliance of my discovery.  I propose to apply the concepts of quantum theory to the supra-atomic realm.  How can you derive a determinate macro-world from an indeterminate atomic and subatomic?  You will say that, though indeterminate, through the preponderance of events, phenomena become established and stable enough for Einsteinian and Newtonian physics to hold true.  But I say, no matter how great the probability, it is still at base probable, and thus, especially when observed intently, or by many, the nature of the thing observed can be changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Theda Bera's hotness existing independent of observation, per a deterministic (i. e. Einsteinian) universe I hold would be absurd, for without observation her hotness would have no meaning.  Therefore, notwithstanding Einstein's abhorrence of God's playing dice, the only rational recourse is for an indeterminate, or quantum universe.  However, this is beside the point.

 

Is this a tree falling in the forest thing? Let's say her hotness has to be observed to be appreciated but that doesn't preclude that her hotness (or the raw material for same) doesn't exist a priori. If you take an attractive woman and an unattractive one (unfortunate example, sorry) and then have them eyeballed by 25 men, the probability is that most if not all the men are going to agree on which of the women is the most attractive, maybe even by a 25-0 count. Such a result would prove that at least this one quality in each of the women would have existed in some manner prior to being observed otherwise the vote wouldn't be so decisive. That implies realities that exists as part of the unobserved woman.

 

This is silly but can we pretend for a minute that Theda is a wave particle (or maybe simply the subject of a thought problem). We bring in 25 men and get 25 differing opinions. Can we say that she represents a superposition of 25 qualities, all at the same time. It wouldn't matter that some of the qualities might be contradictory as it is a property of quantum physics that something can be many things at the same time even though (or especially because) they may exist as probabilities only. If she were to choose one of the 25 men she would then be defined by what that person thought of her; the superposition would collapse, the other 24 opinions would cease to exist. With this model, could she be said to be defined by observation? Actually she was defined 25 times (complicated girl, that Theda.)  But this still doesn't deny a pristine Theda in my eyes, complete and unabridged in all her original created self, to be judged but not defined by the whim of the psychological vagaries of others. Or am I dreaming? Objects in the macro world do not represent a tabula rasa, there is something already there. Or am I hanging myself with my own noose (what's that Shakespeare quote?) because [thinking out loud here] if I have that opinion of her I can only get it by observing her and perhaps creating her, or maybe half-creating her, allowing her at least some say, haha. This gets rather tricky, doesn't it? But I'm going to be stubborn and insist on essence before existence. That sounds familiar, not quite sure where i got it.

 

And can we say the law of the many-worlds theory would not require a choice at all since she will experience all 25 possibilities in parallel universes. Ohhhhhh-kay.

 

 

Someone acquainted with quantum theory would have recognized the derivation of the statements that confused you.  That is why I inferred your unfamiliarity with it.  But that is beside the point.

 

I was ambushed. You cut me off at the pass.

 

;)

 

 

The point is contained here:

 

 

 

with respect to the Roshomon analogy, can we say that Albert. . . .would hold that what happened in the movie was within the realm of objective reality and can remain constant unbesmirched by observation. . . .and that the various individuals who had different opinions were understandable only in the light. . . .of subjective conjecture, and that Mr Bohr would hold that the objective reality cannot be determined until a catalogue of observations be compiled and a roll call of opinion be recorded to even begin to establish its existence. . . .

 

You have that right.  And I am sad to say for Mr. Einstein, great as he is, the quantum universe has been thoroughly established by, um, observation.  In fact, as you may have heard, the last missing particle predicted by quantum theory (the Higgs boson) was recently discovered at CERN.  It has been decidedly determined that we exist in an indeterminate universe.  If you want to maintain your dissatisfaction with quantum theory, you can object to the unwieldy catalogue of elemental particles.  It strains a principle of theoretical economy.

 

I feel nearly flattered that you impute "dissatisfaction with quantum theory" to me since as evidenced by my "lack of familiarity" mentioned above, I was (and still am) clearly sufficiently ignorant to have any idea whether I am dissatisfied or not, que sais-je? Besides I am not one of these anti-science types and that, for the record, I don't believe religion, metaphysics and the like to have much to do with anything here. In the past few days my peregrinations among the web pages that discuss the matter convince me that quantum mechanics is real (after all, I had a transistor radio once). I did not check the Higgs boson but I did read somewhere that as recent as 2014 experiments "without loopholes" were finally after many years decisive in refuting Einstein in those hanger-on suppositions of his. My understanding, too, is that Einstein never denied quantum mechanics, per se, but had trouble with certain aspects of it, notably entanglement (from which spawned his spooky comment) with the uncanny and admittedly spectacular properties it imposes on two or more particles. Instead Albert thought, as you know, that there were "hidden variables" that, if known (hopefully to be discovered), would at least buttress his longed-for ideal that there was only one possible unified theory of the universe. I gather this is what he wanted but if he could have proven that the extraordinary affinities (especially regarding the long distance communication) of entangled particles could be explained objectively by already existing qualities within each of the particles prior to entanglement (something like that) that he would have still accepted other aspects of quantum physics rather than deny it completely ... my impression anyway. Or did he know or believe that the two systems are wholly incompatible (if this is actually the case) and realize all along that he was on a slippery slope and there was some desperation attached to his objections. Einstein is so exalted that it's almost hard to believe that he could be on the short end of a dispute.

 

And the point is here:

 

[Quantum theory] would. . . .be irrelevant to any discussion of Roshomon unless. . . .a microscopic. . . .race. . . .could shoo away particles and waves in order to get a look at a movie screen, that is, if movie screens that small exist in that diminutive realm. A true discussion of Roshomon and Quantum Mechanics could then take place.

 

Ah, that is the brilliance of my discovery.  I propose to apply the concepts of quantum theory to the supra-atomic realm.  How can you derive a determinate macro-world from an indeterminate atomic and subatomic?  You will say that, though indeterminate, through the preponderance of events, phenomena become established and stable enough for Einsteinian and Newtonian physics to hold true.  But I say, no matter how great the probability, it is still at base probable, and thus, especially when observed intently, or by many, the nature of the thing observed can be changed.

 

"Ah, the brilliance of my discovery.," means either 1) you are a physicist, 2) you are an exceptional student of science in general with a particular interest and expertise in quantum physics which enables you to discover things, 3) you are essentially a layman with regard to quantum physics but extremely intelligent though not quite perceptive enough perhaps to make discoveries and you are using the phrase as a figure of speech in the attempt to be breezy (or, dare I say it, facetious). I am not ridiculing you, I am happy at the possibility that you have made a discovery because it is more than I could do with the matter at hand. And if you're serious, I want to hear about it.

 

I would not attempt to "derive a determinate macro-world from an indeterminate atomic and subatomic" world but only suggest the obvious, namely, that the impact of the atomic and subatomic on the macro world is limited because (as I read) objects in the macro world, due to their larger size, do not have waves long enough for quantum law to exert itself in a way that can be observed with the naked eye***. This is why I think I can gaze upon the face of Theda, or shine a light on her, and not seem to change her objective reality.  If the idea is that since we have only one law in all the world, the quantum one, and therefore theoretically or probabilistically (sorry, a word I keep running across) her objective reality has in fact been changed (by, for instance, shining a light on her) in some infinitesimal way so that we simply can't see it, then I grant that as a faint possibility, but I also like the possibility of being able to say that although one might insist that quantum law is the only law, it's sphere of influence in the macro world seems so slight as to be virtually irrelevant to everyday life, and that this can be recognized and accepted without an inordinate amount of resistance (fat chance). ;-)

 

And what is meant by observation? In the atomic world particles do strange things when stimulated or excited, like being assailed by photons through experimentation; but that seems quite different to what we mean by observation in the macro world, where observation can simply mean eyeballing something (or does this everyday sense not apply). Can the latter be likened to providing an actual physical stimulus upon the perceived and if so how does that change the perceived object? Is the perceived being measured? I wouldn't be happy with saying that if you smile at Theda and her reaction to that represents changing her. Everyday psychological encounters are so mundane, I would hope I can have an example a bit more juicy than that, preferably something that illustrates and honest to goodness application of quantum law acting directly upon the supra-atomic world, that is if it can in this context (and dramatically if possible). I want to be amazed.

 

Can the literal events in Roshomon retain it's objective reality or properties (that is if quantum law affords it any) during observation and interpretation? (concave and convex screens excluded, and the like ;-) ). If you show the movie to a group of movie mavens who then discuss it at length and then go home, does the movie undergo a change during the discussion but then revert back to home base after the discussion is over, only to be molested once again by the next group?  If some of this regarding observation sounds obtuse, it's okay; at least we---I---can rule out (or have a ruled out for me perhaps) the ridiculous in order to create a point of departure to get to the bottom of what I see as confusing and/or not properly defined.

 

*** (see asterisks above)

 

https://www.livescience.com/27137-uncertainty-principle-measured-macro-scale.html

 

(scroll down at some point and see the video with the tunnel, not exactly overwhelming but at least it's something).

 

**

 

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory [of the universe], it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe." — Stephen Hawking

 

**

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's encouraging to see you learn about the universe and its study--though it seems it's more for the sake of argument than sincere interest.  I would feel good if I had any part in that.  It's less encouraging to see you didn't pick up something else about scientific discourse, conciseness.  It's unfair to burden a reader with such lengthy and involved posts.  But I did you the courtesy of reading through it.

 

It is true that in the state of quantum mechanics now observation affecting, or even creating the object is not recognized on a supra-atomic level.  But no one has looked for it, either.  Cultural preconceptions and technology can shape the course of inquiry.  After all, physicists are people, too.  Over the past sixty years or so, with the construction of ever larger telescopes and more powerful colliders, physics has followed two parallel, sometimes intersecting, paths--to the super large, and the super small.  People have looked where their instruments have led them.  And although, as I read, all phenomena in the universe can be described in quantum terms, on the supra-atomic level it is easier to do so in Einsteinian, or Newtonian terms (this because Quantum theory has encompassed, not contradicted them).  This also affects how inquiry is conducted.  Regardless of the scale one operates on, the universe is governed by probabilistic outcomes.  The evolution of physics over the millennia has gone from the absolute and perfect conceptions of Aristotle and Ptolemy, to the eccentric and conic of Newton (et al), to the relative of Einstein, and come to the indeterminate of Quantum theory.  All along the way reliance on an independent reality has declined.  The universe is continually becoming more indeterminate, and the process has not reached its end.  The discovery of the Higgs bosun is not the end of physics, but the beginning of the opportunity for creating a new understanding of the universe, one in which my conception about the nature of the central event in Rashomon being dependent on the position of the observer can be demonstrated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, then. Thanks for reading and replying. I can overdo it, no doubt, but this time the excesses may have been, in part, due to the subject matter (it's formidable nature and my ignorance of it) and was a cover (of sorts). I may have felt more comfortable (subconsciously) with an antic approach. But my interest is sincere and surprising to me since I had not given QM a single thought---ever (with any seriousness)---until a few days ago (inspired by these pages). I didn't intend to be contentious. I wouldn't really want to pick a fight with anyone with this matter (PI). I was espousing the Classical ideal by default (not to make waves [PI] ) since this seems to be the world we are living in up here. Seems.

 

I'm genuinely curious about what you wrote about the Roshomon Effect business per QM but will keep quiet for now. Maintaining the integrity of this thread is a consideration. I'm leaning towards starting a QM thread in OTCC anyway. I hope you'll take a peek over there once in a while. It will be fun posting some of the videos that I have been watching (and re-watching) which may even lure a bite or two from the gallery.

 

Slaytonf, thanks.

 

laffite

Link to post
Share on other sites

the ken kesey film adaptations like sometimes a great notion and one flew over the cuckoo's nest.

 

I will only watch the latter up to the scene with billy bibbitt all over the wall. can't take it and it grosses me out.

 

to make matters worse you have that bass tird washington conking out mcmurphy and then it's vegetable time. what an awful end to a great film. I like the way sefelt tells it better. mac escapes after beating up some orderlies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, then. Thanks for reading and replying. I can overdo it, no doubt, but this time the excesses may have been, in part, due to the subject matter (it's formidable nature and my ignorance of it) and was a cover (of sorts). I may have felt more comfortable (subconsciously) with an antic approach. But my interest is sincere and surprising to me since I had not given QM a single thought---ever (with any seriousness)---until a few days ago (inspired by these pages). I didn't intend to be contentious. I wouldn't really want to pick a fight with anyone with this matter (PI). I was espousing the Classical ideal by default (not to make waves [PI] ) since this seems to be the world we are living in up here. Seems.

 

I'm genuinely curious about what you wrote about the Roshomon Effect business per QM but will keep quiet for now. Maintaining the integrity of this thread is a consideration. I'm leaning towards starting a QM thread in OTCC anyway. I hope you'll take a peek over there once in a while. It will be fun posting some of the videos that I have been watching (and re-watching) which may even lure a bite or two from the gallery.

 

Slaytonf, thanks.

 

laffite

 

 

I'm glad you are interested in it.  The universe is endlessly amazing, and bewildering.  And I will keep an eye out for your thread.  I don't wander over there because I'm mostly interested in reading and posting about movies.  If you are want to learn more about the subject, a terrific series called The Mechanical Universe is available for watching in The Internet Archive.  Just search the title of the series on the site and it will come up.  But you should wait a day or so.  Indian government blocking of the site must have caused half the world to try and visit it.  I tried logging on with Safari, Firefox, and with my LG TV and I couldn't access it.  Only Chrome worked intermittently.  The series is available elsewhere on the internet, but the best place to access it--normally--is there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the ken kesey film adaptations like sometimes a great notion and one flew over the cuckoo's nest.

 

I will only watch the latter up to the scene with billy bibbitt all over the wall. can't take it and it grosses me out.

 

to make matters worse you have that bass tird washington conking out mcmurphy and then it's vegetable time. what an awful end to a great film. I like the way sefelt tells it better. mac escapes after beating up some orderlies.

 

 

I watched Sometimes a Great Notion (1970) a long time ago and don't remember how it ends.  Or really much about the story.  It was about logging, I think.  Could you pick a place where you would end that movie?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched Sometimes a Great Notion (1970) a long time ago and don't remember how it ends.  Or really much about the story.  It was about logging, I think.  Could you pick a place where you would end that movie?

Since, as I've mentioned before, SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION is my favorite novel, I'd have ended that dismally inept film adaptation two seconds into the opening credits.

 

The only serious misstep by PAUL NEWMAN in an otherwise brilliant film career.

 

The adaptation of "Cuckoo's Nest",  though could have been better, wasn't all that bad.

 

As far as "Notion" goes, logging was only the backdrop.

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since, as I've mentioned before, SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION is my favorite novel, I'd have ended that dismally inept film adaptation two seconds into the opening credits.

 

 

 

 

I'll have to give it a read.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pieces is an almost perfect trashy gory psychologically interesting early 1980s horror film. The corpse's hand reaching up and grabbing Ian Sera's crotch (and presumably castrating him) at the end is a bridge too far.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...