WillKill4Food
New member
I believe I was referring to both erroneous statements in the 06 interview when I mentioned "the 06 interview...where she qualifies her statements and seems to imply that with time her memory has grown hazy. There, I think she prefaces the statements with uncertain enough terms..." I was not referring to the passing of one year when I said that her memory had grown hazy, but this was before I realized that the 05 interview even existed, and so this bit is immaterial for the purposes of this discussion.Stoo said:Be honest, WillKill. You were not referring to just the whip comment and you obviously didn't mean the 1 year between 2005/2006 when you wrote: "with time her memory has grown hazy".
This I don't get. Either (A) she doesn't understand what "remake" means, which you say can't be the case; (B) she means it in the looser (and thus perhaps correct?) sense (think 80s scarface versus 30s scarface); or (C) she thinks that there is an Ark and a Nazi barbecue in Secrets of the Incas.Stoo said:1) Deborah has been in the film business since the late '70s. It's very unlikely that she would be unfamiliar with the industry's terms in 2005/06.
Yes, because her implications and the context of what she says are important to understanding what she means. Forgive me for attempting to look below the surface. Also, your specious opinions/claims do not become more "factual" simply because you fail to preface them with "I assume" or "it seems." I say "I think she means _____" because I am not so pretentious as to think myself capable of reading her mind.Stoo said:2) I'm presenting facts (ex. Nadoolman said "xxxxx"). You are stating opinions and keep mentioning 'seems to imply', 'suppose', 'assume', etc.
The "point worth pursuing" was the question of what is meant by "in many ways." I'd really rather not continue this discussion because it is going nowhere, with you mostly just ignoring the points I raised. I go into this with the assumption that Nadoolman is not straight-up lying.Stoo said:3) Saying that you're not interested in discussing "Nadoolman hermeneutics" is quite FUNNY considering your previous posts on the matter are a display of the exact opposite intention! Especially in post #54 where you felt that it's "a point worth pursuing".
Again, I think she means it in the sense that Kasdan took the genre archetypes fleshed out in serials and, more specifically, on the big screen in Secrets and played with them in the more modern Raiders. And I don't think that you would contest that point. So the only question is what she meant by the statement. Perhaps she is woefully misinformed, or perhaps prima facie it is enough to assume that she means it in the most literal sense, but I find it hard to believe this is the case. It seems more productive to try to understand her meaning instead of just assuming that she was lying.Stoo said:No way at all? Here's another example of what Deborah 'thinks'.
Nadoolman (2005): I can only guess that Larry Kasdan took that script and updated it for Steven.
Let's all just read texts without any attention to nuance, background, or context. Then we can label everything bullsh!t.Stoo said:Any casual Indy fan who reads these interviews, before seeing "Incas", could hope to expect an almost shot-for-shot film of a professional archaeologist who carries a whip. (THAT'S WHY THIS IS BULLSH!T.)
How's this for further elaboration: I remember you using that taunt before, but I was not sure that you are the only Ravener to have done so, and so I used the collective term to avoid singling you out in that initial remark. I think it's childish and unproductive to try to turn civil discussion into an adversarial sort of contest, even though I have been guilty of it at times in the past. That, along with the rest of the snark, is probably what sparks your animosity with some other members on this board, such as Dubya.Stoo said:It's common for members to quote lines from the Indy films. What is silly is using the term 'Raveners' when you "cannot recall whether other posters" are the subjects in question.
At any rate, this conversation has only served to derail the thread, and I think it would be best for it to be left where it is so that other examples of bullsh!t can be found and dissected ad nauseum.
Last edited: