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

Same title, couldn't be more different.


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, SansFin said:

What surprises me is how many people did not notice it. My fuzzy is a writer and so I have learned that poofreading is not an exact science.

"Accordion to a recent survey, replacing words with the names of musical instruments in a sentence often goes undetected."

 

Ukulele that a common occurrence?  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand your question?  All a person has to do is look up the plotlines of THE SUNDOWNERS (1950) and THE SUNDOWNERS (1960) and see they are not similar movies.  

One can go to the IMDb or Wikipedia or look up the review summaries in Leonard Maltin's Classic Movie Guide and figure it out.  I don't know what else to say?

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

The Wild Party 1929, 1956, 1975, 20??.

 

24 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

How can we tell that they couldn't be more different?

Because every 20 to 30 years, people tend to party a little differently.

Like say in '29 it was with bootleg/bathtub gin, in '56 it was probably with a Manhattan or a Tom Collins, in '75 it was probably with cocaine and/or some weed, AND in 20??...well...I'm not sure.

(...and because Vautrin didn't specify the year here!)

;)

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dargo said:

 

Because every 20 to 30 years, people tend to party a little differently.

Like say in '29 it was with bootleg/bathtub gin, in '56 it was probably with a Manhattan or a Tom Collins, in '75 it was probably with cocaine and/or some weed, AND in 20??...well...I'm not sure.

(...and because Vautrin didn't specify the year here!)

;)

But a little different is not more different.

What we need is a few words about the plot to show how one movie is light years away from the other. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slaytonf said:

How can we tell that they couldn't be more different?

You'll have to watch them to find out. :)

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dargo said:

 

Because every 20 to 30 years, people tend to party a little differently.

Like say in '29 it was with bootleg gin, in '56 it was probably with a Manhattan or a Tom Collins, in '75 it was probably with cocaine and/or some weed, AND in 20??...well...I'm not sure.

(...and because Vautrin didn't specify the year here!)

;)

I figured there will likely be another movie with the title The Wild Party sometime in the next

78 years. Actually the 1975 movie is based on Fatty Arbuckle's  wild wild weekend in San Francisco

in the 1920s, though the names were changed to protect the innocent. I think I saw parts of it a

long time ago. But life is just a party and parties aren't meant to last.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

I figured there will likely be another movie with the title The Wild Party sometime in the next

78 years. Actually the 1975 movie is based on Fatty Arbuckle's  wild wild weekend in San Francisco

in the 1920s, though the names were changed to protect the innocent. I think I saw parts of it a

long time ago. But life is just a party and parties aren't meant to last.

Not sure if I remember how people partied in 1999.  ;)

(...and btw, I once watched the '75 flick years ago on TV...was pretty much a stinker as I recall) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Silent Partner (1939)  An Italian film about a man who creates a fake business partner.

The Silent Partner (1978)  A Canadian film about a bank teller who takes advantage of a robbery to take some money for his own, getting the robber's displeasure.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mr. Gorman said:

One can go to the IMDb or Wikipedia or look up the review summaries in Leonard Maltin's Classic Movie Guide and figure it out.  I don't know what else to say?

The thread is to name movies with the same/similar names, then tell how they are different: different casts, plots, etc.

The post should include what makes them different, that's insinuated right in the title. Gives the poster the chance to show they know what they're talking about, not just making a mindless list generated by algorithms.

Sans, I absolutely noticed & loved the coudlnt in the title-everyone has "fat" fingers from time to time hitting 2 keys at once.  But amazing to me so many just do not comprehend what they read. Guess that's why many posters here don't bother to spell or use grammar.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

Sans, I absolutely noticed & loved the coudlnt in the title-everyone has "fat" fingers from time to time hitting 2 keys at once.  But amazing to me so many just do not comprehend what they read. Guess that's why many posters here don't bother to spell or use grammar.  

https://www.debate.org/opinions/are-spelling-and-grammar-important#!

This is an UNDATED online survey, so no guarantees it is current opinion, but I believe it's just cumulative, and cumulative over a long time would be definitive.

50% YES, 50% NO, so, people are split on the issue.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wbogacz said:

50% YES, 50% NO, so, people are split on the issue.

I always teach my students: Proper grammar is important if you want others to fully understand your intent. Leave nothing to chance speculation, as you don't always know to whom you're speaking. English may not be their first language or they could be from a different culture.

That holds true on the internet even more than real life...but I also realize people are lazy. (50% apparently)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, skimpole said:

The Silent Partner (1939)  An Italian film about a man who creates a fake business partner.

The Silent Partner (1978)  A Canadian film about a bank teller who takes advantage of a robbery to take some money for his own, getting the robber's displeasure.

That sounds familiar to me somehow.....

;)  

See the post I placed on Monday.  :D   Only my other one was a 1923 silent(no pun intended).

Sepiatone

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wbogacz said:

https://www.debate.org/opinions/are-spelling-and-grammar-important#!

This is an UNDATED online survey, so no guarantees it is current opinion, but I believe it's just cumulative, and cumulative over a long time would be definitive.

50% YES, 50% NO, so, people are split on the issue.

My philosophy about this has always been that when I read something by someone who doesn't, for example, know the damn difference between the words "your" and "you're", or the words "there", "their" and "they're" and who constantly show me that they DON'T know the damn difference between their proper usage, well, I always wonder what OTHER "things" they don't know and especially when they're attempting to explain what appears to be some half-baked opinion that they hold.

OR in other words, their CREDIBILITY or that they have a command of not ONLY the "finer points" of the English language but ALSO a command of the facts, specifics and minutiae of ANY given subject, begins to suffer in my eyes.

(...yep, THAT'S my philosophy about this kind'a thing, and it AIN'T..ahem..I mean it isn't ever going to change and because "my philosophy" here tends to be proven TRUER day by day and the older I get)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dargo said:

My philosophy about this has always been that when I read something by someone who doesn't, for example, know the damn difference between the words "your" and "you're", or the words "there", "their" and "they're" and who constantly show me that they DON'T know the damn difference between their proper usage, well, I always wonder what OTHER "things" they don't know and especially when they're attempting to explain what appears to be some half-baked opinion that they hold.

OR in other words, their CREDIBILITY or that they have a command of not ONLY the "finer points" of the English language but ALSO a command of the facts, specifics and minutiae of ANY given subject, begins to suffer in my eyes.

(...yep, THAT'S my philosophy about this kind'a thing, and it AIN'T..ahem..I mean it isn't ever going to change and because "my philosophy" here tends to be proven TRUER day by day and the older I get)

"If you don't know the difference between there, their and they're, your an idiot."

I am automatically against any viewpoint or opinion which is presented with multiple mindless spelling, punctuation and grammar errors because I have clear evidence in front of me that the person is clueless.

There is a popular meme: "The only thing separating you from certain death at 65 mph is a painted white line and a mutual agreement to not play bumper cars." Communications is the same. There is a consensus on how words are spelled, where punctuation is used and how sentence structure affects meaning. A person who drives with two wheels on either side of the centerline has no concern for the flow of traffic and a person who ignores common rules of written English has no concern for communication. Both are instances of narcissists simply wanting to call attention to themselves. 

I am more guilty than most of making stupid little mistakes in writing English but I am at least trying to learn from my mistakes so that I do not repeat them. I know that I will never be great but I know also that I am better than I was a few years ago.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dargo said:

Not sure if I remember how people partied in 1999.  ;)

(...and btw, I once watched the '75 flick years ago on TV...was pretty much a stinker as I recall) 

Me neither. I partied hardier in 1999 than I do now, not that I party much anymore. From the little I

recall the movie wasn't anything special. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, slaytonf said:

Enough to make one give up talking. 

Haha NO! We need more true "communicators"!

giphy.gif

1 hour ago, SansFin said:

"The only thing separating you from certain death at 65 mph is a painted white line and a mutual agreement to not play bumper cars." Communications is the same.

AMEN! And you really put these people to shame-your writing has zero accent. Obviously a highly intelligent & precise person.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, skimpole said:

The Silent Partner (1939)  An Italian film about a man who creates a fake business partner.

The Silent Partner (1978)  A Canadian film about a bank teller who takes advantage of a robbery to take some money for his own, getting the robber's displeasure.

Two of a Kind (1951) - Edmond O'Brien tries to scam an old man's will by posing as his lost son.

Two of a Kind (1983) - John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John TRY to remake the '78 "The Silent Partner" as a cute romantic comedy, but it morphs into an incoherent fantasy about their guardian angels.  🤨

s-l400.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Dargo said:

Not sure if I remember how people partied in 1999;)

(...and btw, I once watched the '75 flick years ago on TV...was pretty much a stinker as I recall) 

They partied like  it was 1982. ;)

R-867210-1194163512.jpeg.jpg

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's THE LAST COMMAND (1928) with Emil Jannings and then THE LAST COMMAND (1955) with a plot about the Alamo; safe to say the silent '28 movie starring Emil as a former Russian general who escapes to the U.S. and then works on a movie about the Russian Revolution doesn't go hand-in-hand plotwise with Jim Bowie and Davy Crockett at The Alamo. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, hamradio said:

or could  do a simple web search. -_-

 

The rationale being:  "If I went to the trouble of searching for movies with the same title, but radically different plots, then everybody else must do the same.  I'm giving them the damn titles, after all.  The least those lazy bums can do is get off their figurative butts and look them up on IMBD."

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mr. Gorman said:

There's THE LAST COMMAND (1928) with Emil Jannings and then THE LAST COMMAND (1955) with a plot about the Alamo; safe to say the silent '28 movie starring Emil as a former Russian general who escapes to the U.S. and then works on a movie about the Russian Revolution doesn't go hand-in-hand plotwise with Jim Bowie and Davy Crockett at The Alamo. 

Yep.  That's different.

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...