Bullsh!t

WillKill4Food

New member
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".
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:
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.:rolleyes:
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:
2) I'm presenting facts (ex. Nadoolman said "xxxxx"). You are stating opinions and keep mentioning 'seems to imply', 'suppose', 'assume', etc.
Yes, because her implications and the context of what she says are important to understanding what she means. :rolleyes: 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:
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".:rolleyes:
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:
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.
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:
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.)
Let's all just read texts without any attention to nuance, background, or context. Then we can label everything bullsh!t.
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.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
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.
:sick: :confused: :mad: :dead:

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:

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
The whole idea was to post things that make YOU scream Bullsh!t! The arguing is just an added bonus...and it's been an entertaining read so far. :hat:

"You're going to give mercenaries a bad name." :gun:
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Things that make you scream Bullsh!t...???

Rocket Surgeon said:
The whole idea was to post things that make YOU scream Bullsh!t! The arguing is just an added bonus...and it's been an entertaining read so far. :hat:

There are more than 12 unique active members on the Raven, and they all participate in this thread.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Pale Horse said:
There are more than 12 unique active members on the Raven, and they all participate in this thread.

Is that a bullsh!t statement? It's either very deep, or very shallow, but more likely both!

There are many more than 12 unique active members on The Raven, but they haven't all participated in this thread.

I think you're touching on Zen.

Now I have to go smash something to fully appreciate the fullness of nothingness. :p

170.jpg
 

Stoo

Well-known member
WillKill4Food said:
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.
Now, that is bullsh*t of the WillKill kind. You commented on the 2005 interview in the very same post (#51) where you wrote about Nadoolman's memory growing hazy. You read the interview but failed to take into account that she saw "Incas" again as recently as 2005. Claiming to be unaware at that point that the previous interview existed is a steaming pile of B.S.:rolleyes:
WillKill4Food said:
I go into this with the assumption that Nadoolman is not straight-up lying. 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.
What must be emphasized is: I never said she was *lying* but am pointing out that her statements are *not true*. Also, Deborah was talking specifically about the script for "Incas" in the 1st interview. Genre archetypes and serials played no part in her comment so injecting them into the meaning of "that script" is a fatuous presumption.

My point is that, no matter how wrongly/loosely Deborah used the terms in question, it is NOT TRUE that "Raiders" is a remake of/almost shot for shot the same as "Secret of the Incas". (Nor is it true that Harry Steele is a whip-carrying, professional archaeologist.)

Not really sure what your point is other than being disagreeable just for the sake of disagreeing.
WillKill4Food said:
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.
Makes more sense to single out 1 person if there is only one you can remember.:rolleyes:
WillKill4Food said:
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. :sick: :confused: :mad: :dead:
Spare us with the current plea of innonence, WillKill, because your 1st reply contained a snarky (and incorrect) remark when I provided the link to the interviews. You didn't start off playing Pleasant Patty, hence my use of Belloq's line.;) Considering you began the debate by writing, "it seems that my need to put my fingers through the holes in your statement was justified", it's obvious that this "need" was felt at the time of my initial & brief post on the subject. Animosity is likely the real driving force in your persistance over such a trivial matter, rather than the topic itself.
WillKill4Food said:
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.
Discussing Debbie's bullsh*t comments is on-track with the thread. If you're sounding a retreat, remember something for the future: When asking for source material, try bothering to fully read it first before creating a debate. Look before you leap and, most importantly, don't bullsh!t.:whip:
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Stoo said:
Now, that is bullsh*t of the WillKill kind. You commented on the 2005 interview in the very same post (#51) where you wrote about Nadoolman's memory growing hazy. You read the interview but failed to take into account that she saw "Incas" again as recently as 2005. Claiming to be unaware at that point that the previous interview existed is a steaming pile of B.S.:rolleyes:
I don't know what time differential is required to make her memory grow hazy, but a few hours are plenty enough to cloud my own. Since I did not go back and reread my posts, I assumed that you were referring to one of my earlier posts, before I knew the information in the 05 interview. At any rate, here is my position, which has not changed since the comment you are referring to, even if my words have been muddled: in light of the juxtaposition of the interviews, it is clear that she was incorrect to state that the whip was present in 05, but her 06 comments are (to me) qualified enough.
Stoo said:
What must be emphasized is: I never said she was *lying* but am pointing out that her statements are *not true*.
So does this mean it isn't bullsh1t, since she wasn't "attempt[ing] to mislead or deceive by talking nonsense" ala Montana's definition? :gun: For all our sakes, do not bother actually pursuing this, because there are competing definitions in whatever dictionary Montana used. *gasp* Perhaps this actually means that two thinking people can reasonably disagree over what a word means???
Stoo said:
Also, Deborah was talking specifically about the script for "Incas" in the 1st interview. Genre archetypes and serials played no part in her comment so injecting them into the meaning of "that script" is a fatuous presumption.
Even if you excise my reference to genre archetypes (which do, I suppose, figure more into her 06 interview), I also wrote that she is referring "more specifically," to how these archetypes were used "on the big screen in Secrets and played with" later "in the more modern Raiders." So my point there cannot be entirely dismissed. I was saying that Secrets of the Incas itself used genre archetypes and adapted some of the serial action to the big screen. Raiders then built off of that. I'm pretty sure that's what I meant, and I think that's what she meant.
For the record, she also says "The spirit of Raiders was also informed by Alan Ladd’s 1940’s film noirs, which also had the same hard boiled adventurer, clad in leather jacket and felt fedora" in the 05 interview, which very well could suggest that she means "update" more broadly, but this is not a point I want to argue on. None of this is actually a point I want to argue on, come to think of it.
Stoo said:
My point is that, no matter how wrongly/loosely Deborah used the terms in question, it is NOT TRUE that "Raiders" is a remake of/almost shot for shot the same as "Secret of the Incas". (Nor is it true that Harry Steele is a whip-carrying, professional archaeologist.)
Now I think you're returning to a more nuanced point that you have more or less ignored. If she means "remake" in the looser sense (and I think she does), and if she had mentally placed a particular emphasis on "in many ways" and "almost" a "shot for shot" remake, then I don't think we can be so positive that her statements are NOT TRUE as much as they are OVERSTATED depending on how one understands her words.

Why don't you call up Nadoolmen and ask her what's up with this bullsh1t?
Stoo said:
(Nor is it true that Harry Steele is a whip-carrying, professional archaeologist.)
I haven't said that it is. I simply said that she was mistaken in the 06 interview, just as you or I might be when we try to recall a detail long after the fact. In the 05 interview, she seems more guilty of bullsh1t.
Stoo said:
Not really sure what your point is other than being disagreeable just for the sake of disagreeing.
I am defending what I thought she meant. On those parts where I think I was wrong, have I not conceded my error?
Stoo said:
Makes more sense to single out 1 person if there is only one you can remember.:rolleyes:
Wanted to clarify that it wasn't just a personal thing. I think people shouldn't be jackasses on message boards.

Stoo said:
Spare us with the current plea of innonence, WillKill, because your 1st reply contained a snarky (and incorrect) remark when I provided the link to the interviews.
My initial post in this thread or my first reply? I would call my initial call for evidence, what you called my "Doubting Thomas" post, more playful than snarky. What you wrote sounded unbelievable, and I wondered whether you had skewed her words.
Stoo said:
Considering you began the debate by writing, "it seems that my need to put my fingers through the holes in your statement was justified", it's obvious that this "need" was felt at the time of my initial & brief post on the subject.
I was simply referencing your own allusion, but yes, I did think your version of Nadoolman's meaning sounded pretty crazy. Some of the things Nadoolman says in the 05 interview do sound pretty crazy, on the surface. Given the 06 interview, and some thought, I don't think she means the bullsh1t words that are coming out of her mouth. Hence Attila's...
Attila said:
...distinction between a claim made by one who is bullsh!tting and a claim that is itself bullsh!t, as a way to leave this whole bit behind...
...and the difference between an incorrect wording and an incorrect belief. Since I do not believe that Nadoolman could possibly literally believe that it's a remake, and neither of us think she was lying, it only makes sense that she means "remake," "shot for shot," etc. in a far looser and more ambiguous sense than you allow her to.
Stoo said:
Animosity is likely the real driving force in your persistance over such a trivial matter, rather than the topic itself.
First, let me say that you insinuated that my comment asking for a source had been trivial, and so most of this conversation has been my attempt to prove that I had reason to question your initial comment.
Now, tell me, since you're looking for the role of animosity in driving our futile pedanticism, what drives you to wholly ignore the possibility that she means it in a loose sense? Using your framework for evaluating claims could allow us to dismiss all metaphorical language or any overstatement. I suppose it's bullsh1t to refer to a "starless" night or any time of day when the sun isn't "shining"? Forget about the whip and the professional archaeologist bit, because you have proven your point there. If Nadoolman had literally meant what you say she meant as far as Raiders being a "remake", she was bullshtting, but since she has seen both films, I do not think she meant it literally. I think she misspoke or means it in a looser sense (and there are scenes in Secrets that do seem "almost" "shot for shot" the same for some scenes in Raiders; perhaps her error is using an ambiguous term, "almost", alongside a phrase that by definition implies submissive attention to detail).

In my first post, it should be clear enough that I was kidding and not outright attempting to impugn your post, but I don't see why this was unjustified?
Meanwhile, y snarkyness in the second post (rightly) stemmed from this comment: "Before you start playing the 'doubting Thomas', I already fully documented Deborah Nadoolman's statements here in the "Secret of the Incas" thread." Let's examine what you are saying here, shall we Stoo?
"Hey, Will, before you have the gall to even question whether what I am saying is 100% truthful, before you have any urge to read what the woman actually said, I have already gone into more than enough detail on the question, and you can rest assured that no further inquiry is necessary or worthwhile on your part." The implication in this post (and some of your others where you direct other posters to other threads) seems to be that the onus rests on me and the rest of the Raven to already (why else would you say "before"?) be familiar enough with your posts in other threads and the interviews you reference that we should not dare question you. Furthermore, the Doubting Thomas allusion cements my perception that you think I and others are obligated to have some apostolic devotion to all that the mighty Stoo says. "How dare you doubt me, Will, have you not seen my miracles?" Is every gadfly a Doubting Thomas, Stoo, or do you just like to use allusions without taking into full account what they actually mean? The implication of calling someone a Doubting Thomas is that the doubt was unjustified or even sinful. Yeah, I take issue with that.
Stoo said:
When asking for source material, try bothering to fully read it first before creating a debate. Look before you leap and, most importantly, don't bullsh!t.:whip:
Again, I saw the quote-tagged portion and ignored it, because I assumed it was someone else's comments, and I was only interested in yours (since you had told me that you had written about it). I didn't realize that you were quoting yourself in the post you referred me to, so I falsely assumed that the quoted portion was irrelevant. The sloppiness on my part was surely excusable.
Stoo said:
Discussing Debbie's bullsh*t comments is on-track with the thread.
There is nothing more to say, seeing as we can't agree on what our words mean. And so, I see no point in continuing this. We've each had our say, and I'm not interested in continuing. I did concede those areas where I was wrong (such as the whip, my error in not reading one of those posts), but this is not a retreat. Discuss other bullsh1t.
 
Last edited:

WillKill4Food

New member
To be clear, I don't want to make it seem as though I don't see my own contribution to the animosity over the past page of this thread. :eek: You might say, when one commenter plays Puck and the other Bottom, both end up as asses and neither comes out a head.
I just don't think I have been unfair in my "analysis" (for lack of a better word) of Nadoolman's claims, and I don't think this thread or either of us are well-served by continuing the disagreement.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
WillKill4Food said:
Post #58
I'm not all that interested in diving into a discussion of Nadoolman hermeneutics, but do you actually think she means that it is a "remake" in the sense that you suggest?
---
I'm not particularly interested in continuing this, but I think she meant "remake" differently.

Post #62
I'd really rather not continue this discussion because it is going nowhere,
---
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.

Post #70
None of this is actually a point I want to argue on, come to think of it.
---
And so, I see no point in continuing this. We've each had our say, and I'm not interested in continuing.

Post #71
I don't think this thread or either of us are well-served by continuing the disagreement.
Four posts expressing your disinterest in continuing the discussion yet you still do, with each new reply being longer than the previous.:rolleyes: You want to stop?:confused: That's bullsh*t!
WillKill4Food said:
So does this mean it isn't bullsh1t, since she wasn't "attempt[ing] to mislead or deceive by talking nonsense" ala Montana's definition? :gun: For all our sakes, do not bother actually pursuing this, because there are competing definitions in whatever dictionary Montana used. *gasp* Perhaps this actually means that two thinking people can reasonably disagree over what a word means???
It should be pursued because the meaning of the term is the very crux of our debate.

As per the definitions Montana quoted:
"Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language." - Nadoolman's comments were a foolish choice of words.

Thus far, the examples given in this thread have been claims & stories that are FALSE and they don't all fit a dictionary's definition of "bullsh!t". Constant misidentification of Short Round's baseball cap or urban myths such as Indiana the dog being George's aren't intentionally deceptive. Harrison wasn't trying to mislead anyone by jokingly stapling his hat to his head, etc.

Rocket asked: "What other claims make you scream Bullsh!t!" or "make you shake your head". Well, Nadoolman's do that for me but, for some reason, you chose to make a big issue over it.:rolleyes:
 
More Spielberg Bullsh!t:

I'm going to shoot the movie the way George envisaged it. ...I will always defer to George as the storyteller of the Indy series. I will never fight him on that."

Stoo said:
Annotated version, please? (I lost my free Rocket Surgeon Decoder and don't have an extra box of frosted Lucky Charms to get another.;))
Just connecting the dots between your recent poutine love posts and the possibility the rodent is telling you what he thinks of the pickins!

Stoo said:
Been meaning to ask you about this discovery, Rocket. Where did you find out that Spielberg's bridge claim was mierda-de-toro?

At first, we thought that none of us except the stunt boys would set foot on it, but within ten minutes of Steven Spielberg arriving he had crossed it -- true to form. After that, everybody wanted to cross it."

- Douglas Slocombe, Director of Photography, Temple of Doom
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
More Spielberg Bullsh!t:

Spielberg said:
"I'm going to shoot the movie the way George envisaged it. ...I will always defer to George as the storyteller of the Indy series. I will never fight him on that."

That is certain bullsh!t, since:

Spielberg said:
George and I had big arguments about the MacGuffin. I didn’t want these things to be either aliens or inter-dimensional beings."

Spielberg said:
“He is working on Indy V. We haven’t gone to screenplay yet, but he’s working on the story. I’ll leave it to George to come up with a good story.”

Been working on a story for a long time - and that's been a bullsh!t brush-off response to keep the idea open without committing to anything. And leaving it to George to come up with a good story is another bullsh!t statement. After #4 a "good story" isn't something we can rely upon.

Spielberg said:
“I sympathise with people who didn’t like the MacGuffin because I never liked the MacGuffin, he explained.

So much for leaving it up to George to deliver that "good story" then.

Is it bullsh!t, or did Spielberg inject more craziness into KOTCS out of loyalty or because he'd lost interest in it?

Spielberg said:
But I am loyal to my best friend. When he writes a story he believes in – even if I don’t believe in it – I’m going to shoot the movie the way George envisaged it. I'll add my own touches, I'll bring my own cast in, I'll shoot the way I want to shoot it, but I will always defer to George as the storyteller of the Indy series. I will never fight him on that."

"The gopher was good. I have the stand-in one at home. What people really jumped at was Indy climbing into a refrigerator and getting blown into the sky by an atom-bomb blast. Blame me. Don't blame George. That was my silly idea. People stopped saying "jump the shark". They now say, "nuked the fridge". I'm proud of that. I'm glad I was able to bring that into popular culture."

Did he really think he was helping to improve the concept, or helping to make it more ridiculous? He even dumbs his own ideas down by intentionally referring to the 'gopher' instead of the 'prairie dog'.

I've defended the atom bomb and the fridge, but even Speiberg calls it his "silly idea", even in the context of an Indy movie. Is he bullsh!tting his own defence mechanism? Because he surely is when he says he's proud to be responsible for having brought "nuked the fridge" into popular parlance. These quotes smack of either denial, or that he was intentionally taking the p!ss with the #4.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Montana Smith said:
I've defended the atom bomb and the fridge, but even Speiberg calls it his "silly idea", even in the context of an Indy movie. Is he bullsh!tting his own defence mechanism? Because he surely is when he says he's proud to be responsible for having brought "nuked the fridge" into popular parlance. These quotes smack of either denial, or that he was intentionally taking the p!ss with the #4.

I think it's hard to really know, especially without hearing him actually speaking the words, the spirit in which his remarks are intended. Is he shaking his head with a chuckle as he says that he's proud? Is he nodding with complacent confidence? It's hard to say.

At least he's not claiming it's a shot-for-shot remake of anything.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Attila the Professor said:
I think it's hard to really know, especially without hearing him actually speaking the words, the spirit in which his remarks are intended. Is he shaking his head with a chuckle as he says that he's proud? Is he nodding with complacent confidence? It's hard to say.

That's true. I actually think he's being self-deprecating, in the same way George is when he talks about Star Wars while avoiding to answer a probing question. George will make fun of his own work, because he knows it's a take it or leave it situation. And in most cases enough people are going to take his work without much of a fight.

Attila the Professor said:
At least he's not claiming it's a shot-for-shot remake of anything.

Maybe a remake of something Ed Wood was involved with in the 1950s? :p
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Montana Smith said:
Maybe a remake of something Ed Wood was involved with in the 1950s? :p

<I>Glen or Glenda</I>? <I>The Bride and the Beast</I>? <I>Crossroad Avenger: The Adventures of the Tucson Kid</I>? There were four too many skeletons for it to be <I>Plan 9 From Outer Space</I>.

Maybe things will go as you hope and it's taking a page from the short <I>Final Curtain</I> or <I>The Sun is Setting</I>. But then we've heard that bedtime story before...

Here's some new bullsh!t, from the Last Crusade trivia page on IMDB:

Sean Connery and Harrison Ford wore no trousers during the shooting of the entire Zeppelin sequence (mainly because it was filmed in a very hot studio and Connery didn't want to sweat too much).

I've always assumed they meant the lengthy dialogue sequence at the table, although their pants do appear at moments, which opens the question of just how long they were <I>sans</I> pants. The bullsh!t here is the "entire Zeppelin sequence" phrase, but it's still one of those old stories that isn't as - ahem - fleshed out as it might be.

This brings Steven's comments about deferring to George into bullsh!t territory from another angle:

When George Lucas met with Steven Spielberg to discuss a third Indiana Jones movie, he wanted to have it set in a haunted mansion. Spielberg had just finished Poltergeist and decided that he wanted to do something different. Lucas then came up with the idea of the Holy Grail and Spielberg added the idea of a father/son sub-story.

Is there any possibility that the final sentence of this next piece of trivia is true? It seems impossible, even excluding the tank interiors.

The production had two tanks for the tank chase scene; one of them was made of aluminum. The whole chase took about 10 days to film, instead of the projected two days.

Finally, one of my favorite puzzles:

When Tom Stoppard was brought in for rewriting the dialogue, specifically the lines for Henry and the Henry-Indy exchange. He was paid $120,000. After the film's release and success, he was paid another $1 million as a bonus. In "The Last Crusade: An Oral History," an article published in Empire magazine in 2006, Spielberg said about the Jr. and Sr. conversations, "It was an emotional story but I didn't want to get sentimental. Their disconnection from each other was the basis for a lot of comedy. And it gave Tom Stoppard, who was uncredited, a lot to write. Tom is pretty much responsible for every line of dialogue."

Every line? I buy that most or all of the Indy/Henry dialogue is Stoppard, but wonder if the rest of it is. Some of the back-and-forth at Donovan's apartment and the flirting in Venice <I>could</I> be, but nothing in the film is as evidently Stoppard's as the "it breaks the heart" exchange.
 
Last edited:
Montana Smith said:
That is certain bullsh!t, since:
Originally Posted by Spielberg
“George and I had big arguments about the MacGuffin.
I was going back to Raiders with their fight over shooting the swordsman which was a battle that raged right up until the preview screening was over. But yours is a good one too!

George finally got his way royally f'ing up Han and Greedo's relationship in Star Wars...take THAT Spielberg!:sick:
Attila the Professor said:
I think it's hard to really know, especially without hearing him actually speaking the words, the spirit in which his remarks are intended.
No doubt. But things were getting a bit bogged down around here trying to split all those hairs!;)

It was fun to watch them try though~!:D

Attila the Professor said:
<I>Glen or Glenda</I>? ...Every line? I buy that most or all of the Indy/Henry dialogue is Stoppard, but wonder if the rest of it is. Some of the back-and-forth at Donovan's apartment and the flirting in Venice <I>could</I> be, but nothing in the film is as evidently Stoppard's as the "it breaks the heart" exchange.
Really? I mean, great post, (interesting to see where your head is at) but you're drowning us! Pick one and go with it!
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Steven Spielberg said:
"What people really jumped at was Indy climbing into a refrigerator and getting blown into the sky by an atom-bomb blast. Blame me. Don't blame George. That was my silly idea. People stopped saying "jump the shark". They now say, "nuked the fridge". I'm proud of that. I'm glad I was able to bring that into popular culture."
Proof that the automatic pounding Lucas gets for "nuking the fridge" is BULLSH!T. Big, smelly bullsh*t.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Stoo said:
Proof that the automatic pounding Lucas gets for "nuking the fridge" is BULLSH!T. Big, smelly bullsh*t.

Proof also that there isn't a Speilbergian steadying influence in the relationship. They're both on the crazy train!

Wonder what George's initial reaction to the fridge idea was? Or maybe they both started out with the Back To The Future fridge and The Atomic Kid references, and there just wasn't another more believable way of extracting Indy, so Spielberg just came right out and said, "What if we blow the fridge clear of the radiation?"
 
Top