Bullsh!t

Stoo

Well-known member
Moedred said:
...and before Battlestar Galactica was cancelled, they spelled out a very special message to Lucas, in lights...
I see it, Moedred. "F*ck Off" written in lights (Screen centre right, next to/beside the starboard wing of the middle Cylon fighter).
 
Some perspective...

It's Tintin Time!

At the time ? this was 1983 ? Spielberg was in London making Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. He called up Hergé, Tintin's creator, who was 75, to talk about making a Tintin movie. "He'd seen Raiders of the Lost Ark and loved it," Spielberg says, "and he just committed, at that moment, that he wanted me to be the director to turn his stories into films." (This is Spielberg's account; Hergé's biographer, Pierre Assouline, tells a much longer story involving a lot of legal wrangling over contracts.)
 

WilliamBoyd8

Active member
Devils Tower Prairie Dog medal:

post_medal_devilstower.jpg


I bought this medal from the park office at Devils Tower National Monument
in June 1974 while driving from Maryland to California.

Both sides can now be matched with Steven Spielberg films.

By the way, prairie dogs, gophers, and marmots are different animals.

:)
 

Stoo

Well-known member
WilliamBoyd8 said:
By the way, prairie dogs, gophers, and marmots are different animals.
WilliamBoyd, what is the relation between your prairie dog coin and the Bullsh!t category?:confused: I can't see a connection but can provide one:

There is a HUGE marmot that gets into our apartment garage at night and keeps walking and sh!tting all over our car. Nobody else's car, just ours! Every frickin' night!:mad: I identified the footprints on the internet but then...one night, I actually saw the dastardly beast. It's BIG & brown and has a long, bushy, black tail. Been saving the car wash receipts because that fat bast*rd is going to pay for this bullsh!t!:gun:

Marmot_BMW.jpg


BACK ON TOPIC:
Indy costume designer, Deborah Nadoolman, has stated more than once that "Raiders" is a shot-for-shot remake of "Secret of the Incas". She also said that its hero, Harry Steele, carries a bullwhip (which is bullsh!t).
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Stoo said:
WilliamBoyd, what is the relation between your prairie dog coin and the Bullsh!t category?
WilliamBoyd8 said:
By the way, prairie dogs, gophers, and marmots are different animals.
He's clearly pointing out what bullsh!t it is to refer to prairie dogs as gophers.
Stoo said:
Indy costume designer, Deborah Nadoolman, has stated more than once that "Raiders" is a shot-for-shot remake of "Secret of the Incas".
Doesn't this thread need some kind of rule, like, provide cites or your own post is bullsh!t?
 

Stoo

Well-known member
WillKill4Food said:
He's clearly pointing out what bullsh!t it is to refer to prairie dogs as gophers.
"Clearly"?:confused: That point was a remark on the side, prefaced with "by the way"...:rolleyes:

Anyway, WilliamBoyd is right about prairie dogs not being gophers (just like the German soldiers in "Raiders" aren't Nazis).
WillKill4Food said:
Doesn't this thread need some kind of rule, like, provide cites or your own post is bullsh!t?
Hey, WillKill, I'm not bullsh!tting. Before you start playing the 'doubting Thomas', I already fully documented Deborah Nadoolman's statements here in the "Secret of the Incas" thread.;)
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Stoo said:
"Clearly"?:confused: That point was a remark on the side, prefaced with "by the way"...:rolleyes:
I used "clearly" in a sort of tongue-in-cheek way, but I can think of no other purpose his little point of clarification might serve if it were not intended as a clarification of some other poster's bullsh!t. Maybe he intended to show Dubya Jones what prairie dogs look like. Or maybe he just wanted to comment. I'm not all that worried that he will derail the thread with his trivia.
Stoo said:
Hey, WillKill, I'm not bullsh!tting. Before you start playing the 'doubting Thomas', I already fully documented Deborah Nadoolman's statements here in the "Secret of the Incas" thread.;)
Why thank you, Stoo. It is such a shame that I do not share your own familiarity with the threads that you have started. At any rate, it seems that my need to put my fingers through the holes in your statement was justified, since you deliberately ignored the nuance of Nadoolman's statement.
Nadoolman: What Steven was trying to do, and what I think Larry Kasdan, the writer, was trying to do - I think they agreed on this - was to make a genre picture. ... "Raiders" is a remake of a movie called "Secret of the Incas". In "Secret...", Charlton Heston is wearing that kind of hat and that kind of jacket. I think he might even have a bullwhip. If you see "Secret of the Incas", "Raiders" is, in many ways, almost shot for shot. Charlton Heston plays Harry Steele. He's not a very nice person, Harry Steele, but he is a professional acrhaeologist. And Harrison Ford does play a much warmer and a much more approachable Harry Steele.
While "remake" is a strong term, in context it doesn't seem like she was so off the mark. I think it is rather forgivable for a costume designer to lack your presumably encyclopedic knowledge of pulpy fifties films, and I don't think it's bullsh!t for her to preface her statements with uncertain qualifiers: "I think he might even have a bullwhip" or that Raiders is "in many ways, almost shot for shot."
 

Stoo

Well-known member
WillKill4Food said:
Why thank you, Stoo. It is such a shame that I do not share your own familiarity with the threads that you have started.
1) I didn't start the "Secret of the Incas" thread.:gun:
2) YOU suggested that sources should be cited!:rolleyes: Why the sarcasm when you were given exactly what you asked for?:confused:
WillKill4Food said:
At any rate, it seems that my need to put my fingers through the holes in your statement was justified, since you deliberately ignored the nuance of Nadoolman's statement.
Sorry, WillKill, but your need to put fingers through holes isn't justified because no nuances were "deliberately ignored". Perhaps you didn't read the whole post because there are parts you either missed or 'deliberatley ignored' (to use your own expression).
WillKill4Food said:
While "remake" is a strong term, in context it doesn't seem like she was so off the mark. I think it is rather forgivable for a costume designer to lack your presumably encyclopedic knowledge of pulpy fifties films, and I don't think it's bullsh!t for her to preface her statements with uncertain qualifiers: "I think he might even have a bullwhip" or that Raiders is "in many ways, almost shot for shot."
As far as Indy's costume designer lacking my "presumably encyclopedic knowledge of pulpy fifties films", consider this:

Deborah Nadoolman (2005): "We did watch this film together as a crew several times."
Deborah Nadoolman (2005): "the fedora, jacket and whip are right there on Charlton Heston in 1954."

"Secret of the Incas" obviously served as an inspiration for "Raiders" but, in no way, are the 2 films "almost shot-for-shot" the same. That is bullsh*t.

Sit down before you fall down.
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Stoo said:
2) YOU suggested that sources should be cited!:rolleyes: Why the sarcasm when you were given exactly what you asked for?:confused:
Because that support for your statement should have been in your original post; the implication on your part was that the onus is on us to already be familiar with the interviews to which you refer. And on that note the sarcasm stems from your habit of referring so many posters to other threads.
Stoo said:
...you didn't read the whole post because there are parts you either missed or 'deliberatley ignored' (to use your own expression).
You got me here. I didn't read the entirety of the quoted section of that post. The only part I read was the 06 interview outside of the quote tags, 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* that it would be rude to respond to her with "bullsh!t."

*It seems to me that when someone says "I think __this or that__", the statement cannot rightfully be called "bullsh!t" because the speaker has made clear that whatever is being expressed is possibly incorrect. It's only when people say that "__this or that_ is definitely the case" that "bullsh!t" would be the proper response, because then the person is making a truth claim rather than providing their own admittedly limited insight on the matter.

But in the '05 intervew, Nadoolman does not make that clear, and I suppose that her saying Steele had a bullwhip does qualify as "bullsh!t," if you want to be loose with the term. My biggest issue with this being called bullsh!t is that the label further seems to imply that the error or falsehood is of a particularly egregious nature, such as when the facts of the matter are suppressed or some story is aggrandized and packaged with a few white lies to make it more interesting. The story about Lucas' dog and the notion that Ford actually stapled his fedora to his head would probably fit into this category, as would the question of whether the "blame" for the CGI'd gophers should be placed on Lucas or Spielberg. I suppose you will argue that this fits the bill of hyperbole, but a costume designer's mistaken overstatement does not seem to qualify as bullsh!t to me. Perhaps I am being too charitable, but when she says that the two films are "in some ways, almost shot for shot" the same, I take it that she only means that the inspiration is particularly evident if you watch the two films side by side. I suppose it depends on what you take her meaning to be when she says "almost" or "in some ways," but since she has probably taken note of the fact that Secret of the Incas lacks Nazis and supernatural idols, I can only assume that she means it in the looser sense. When she says "in some ways," in the 06 interview, it seems especially clear that she did not literally mean that Raiders is a remake of Incas, but rather that the mood and feeling of the two are related.
Stoo said:
Sit down before you fall down.
It really riles me when Raveners* end their posts with this, because it takes what should be a calm conversation and turns it into some adversarial contest, which is entirely unproductive. Perhaps if you were less abrasive with others, people like Dubya would be less inclined to flame.

*I say "Raveners" instead of "you" because I cannot recall whether other posters have closed their arguments with it. Perhaps Stoo Earch can point me to an instance in another thread where someone has used it?
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Deborah Nadoolman interview
by Mike French & Gilles Verschuere - posted on Sept. 14, 2005

All the Nazi uniforms we used on Raiders were actual WWII surplus, which we bought through a vendor in Texas... I only manufactured the principal uniforms for Raiders to order – every other German uniform in the film was vintage...Military consultants and specialists are always employed to get all the insignia correct and properly attached.

http://www.theraider.net/features/interviews/deborah_nadoolman.php

The first part of that statement isn't very contentious, since ROTLA was a lot closer to the period when the real uniforms were made. Yet she calls bullsh!t on her own statement, when she amends it to only the non-principal uniforms being original.

However, the second part is complete bullsh!t if she means to say that any military consultants and specialists were employed on ROTLA! If they were they weren't playing very close attention to what the costuming department was up to!


On a related note, this may also call bullsh!t on Michael Byrne's understanding that all the German uniforms in TLC were the real deal.
 
Last edited:

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
WillKill4Food said:
Perhaps I am being too charitable, but when she says that the two films are "in some ways, almost shot for shot" the same, I take it that she only means that the inspiration is particularly evident if you watch the two films side by side. I suppose it depends on what you take her meaning to be when she says "almost" or "in some ways," but since she has probably taken note of the fact that Secret of the Incas lacks Nazis and supernatural idols, I can only assume that she means it in the looser sense. When she says "in some ways," in the 06 interview, it seems especially clear that she did not literally mean that Raiders is a remake of Incas, but rather that the mood and feeling of the two are related.

To address this point, I feel that "almost shot for shot" is a pretty unambiguous phrase, suggesting things like the Gus van Sant remake of <I>Psycho</I> more than a case of loose inspiration. Also, "in many ways," while a phrase open to interpretation, most readily suggests that there are multiple ways in which the statement following it is true. Whether she's guilty of bullsh!t or not, she's certainly guilty of some bizarre hyperbole.
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Attila the Professor said:
To address this point, I feel that "almost shot for shot" is a pretty unambiguous phrase...
Out of context, yes, it would seem that way, but in context it seemed to me that she does not mean that. If she has watched either film while sober, she has to realize that Raiders could not be a "shot for shot" remake as you and I understand the phrase. (Either that, or her reels of Secrets of the Incas include some deleted face-melting scene of which none of us are aware.) In the interview, it seems evident enough that when she says "shot for shot" (prefaced by "in some ways" and "almost") she is referring to the general mise-en-scene of the films, and not the actual composition of each still and scene. This makes it a case of her misspeaking and using the wrong phrase rather than her "bullsh!tting." I don't think she means what one could (and some have) read her as saying.
Attila said:
Also, "in many ways," while a phrase open to interpretation most readily suggests that there are multiple ways in which the statement following it is true.
That's interesting, and a point worth pursuing (at the risk of derailing the thread). Personally (and this could certainly be a question of personal interpretation), I tend to use "in many ways" to imply the opposite; that is, something is "in many ways" true, but not "in every way." The following statement is not always true, but enough for the purposes of whatever comparison is being drawn or whatever argument is being laid out; i.e., __so and so__ is in many ways unfit to be the President of the United States, but (s)he is not entirely unqualified. That's how I took her to mean it in the interview, especially since she also added "almost" in the 06 interview. I'd just like to stress that it is almost certainly not the case that she is under the impression that Raiders and Secrets of the Incas are virtually the same picture, and so it seems more likely that she simply misunderstands what "shot for shot" means. In her eyes, it could very well be that the earlier scenes (I always imagine that she is referring to the opening in Peru) are "shot for shot" very similar to those in Incas. For her statement to be bullsh!t, it seems like she would have to be meaning something that is false, rather than meaning to say something that is true but using the wrong words to go about doing so. Seems to me like the only bullsh!t one might smell would be in her possibly overstating the influence of Incas on Raiders, because I am pretty sure she does not mean what she is being criticized for meaning.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
WillKill4Food said:
Out of context, yes, it would seem that way, but in context it seemed to me that she does not mean that. If she has watched either film while sober, she has to realize that Raiders could not be a "shot for shot" remake as you and I understand the phrase. (Either that, or her reels of Secrets of the Incas include some deleted face-melting scene of which none of us are aware.) In the interview, it seems evident enough that when she says "shot for shot" (prefaced by "in some ways" and "almost") she is referring to the general mise-en-scene of the films, and not the actual composition of each still and scene. This makes it a case of her misspeaking and using the wrong phrase rather than her "bullsh!tting." I don't think she means what one could (and some have) read her as saying.

Then we need to define the meaning of the term 'bullsh!t".

n.
1. Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
2. Something worthless, deceptive, or insincere.
3. Insolent talk or behavior.

v.intr.
1. To speak foolishly or insolently.
2. To engage in idle conversation.

v.tr.
To attempt to mislead or deceive by talking nonsense.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bull****

She's guilty of pretty much all that in making statements which she then immediately retracts, as in:

All the Nazi uniforms we used on Raiders were actual WWII surplus...I only manufactured the principal uniforms for Raiders to order ? every other German uniform in the film was vintage.

That's more bullsh!t than her,

Secret of the Incas (1954)...is almost a shot for shot Raiders of the Los Ark.

since she already measures her answer with the word "almost". It's a subjective vision, as opposed to a statement of fact.
 
Stoo said:
Indy costume designer, Deborah Nadoolman, has stated more than once that "Raiders" is a shot-for-shot remake of "Secret of the Incas". She also said that its hero, Harry Steele, carries a bullwhip (which is bullsh!t).
Artsy excrement shots Stoo...maybe your poutine doesn't agree with the local wildlife?
WillKill4Food said:
HDoesn't this thread need some kind of rule, like, provide cites or your own post is bullsh!t?
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:

In Star Trek parlance thats: "Sauce for the goose Mr Saavik."

WillKill4Food said:
While "remake" is a strong term, in context it doesn't seem like she was so off the mark.
Sounds like someone called Bullsh!t on her so she put it into context...a reasonable progression.
Montana Smith said:
On a related note, this may also call bullsh!t on Michael Byrne's understanding that all the German uniforms in TLC were the real deal.
HA!
WillKill4Food said:
...I think she prefaces the statements with uncertain enough terms* that it would be rude to respond to her with "bullsh!t."
Now THAT's some Major League Bullsh!t right there!:hat:
 
Last edited:

Stoo

Well-known member
WillKill4Food said:
Because that support for your statement should have been in your original post; the implication on your part was that the onus is on us to already be familiar with the interviews to which you refer.
Incorrect. The implication on my part was that Ravenheads could rest assured I wasn't bullsh*tting or presenting rumour as fact. Even if the source had been included in the original post, you didn't bother to read the entire thing, anyway.:rolleyes:

Speaking of not reading, you wrote about how her 2006 interview "seems to imply that with time her memory has grown hazy".

Nadoolman (2005): I have just seen Secret of the Incas again at the Eastman House in Rochester, and it really helped refresh my memory.
WillKill4Food said:
When she says "in some ways," in the 06 interview, it seems especially clear that she did not literally mean that Raiders is a remake of Incas, but rather that the mood and feeling of the two are related.
She flat-out said that it was a remake. There aren't any 'uncertain qualifiers' to muddle over in this statement:

Nadoolman (2006): "Raiders" is a remake of a movie called "Secret of the Incas".

In that same interview she also said that the Harry Steele character is a professional acrhaeologist. More bullsh!t.

No matter what a person's interpretation of the bullsh*t label is, some of things Debbie said are NOT TRUE. "Raiders" isn't a remake of "Incas", the 2 films aren't almost shot for shot, Harry Steele doesn't have a whip and he's not a professional archaeologist!

Please know that I have crush on Deborah and was only contributing another item for the topic (which happens to be titled, "Bullsh!t"). It's amusing that you think calling bullsh!t on her statments is "rude" and critical, when you, yourself, used the term to describe my post simply because no source was given.:D
WillKill4Food said:
*I say "Raveners" instead of "you" because I cannot recall whether other posters have closed their arguments with it.
This does not make any sense. WillKill has fallen down before he was able to sit down.:(
Rocket Surgeon said:
Artsy excrement shots Stoo...maybe your poutine doesn't agree with the local wildlife?
Annotated version, please? (I lost my free Rocket Surgeon Decoder and don't have an extra box of frosted Lucky Charms to get another.;))
Rocket Surgeon said:
How about Spielberg NEVER crossing the Rope Bridge in Sri Lanka?

Bullsh!t!
Been meaning to ask you about this discovery, Rocket. Where did you find out that Spielberg's bridge claim was mierda-de-toro?
 
Last edited:

WillKill4Food

New member
Stoo said:
Incorrect. The implication on my part was that Ravenheads could rest assured I wasn't bullsh*tting or presenting rumour as fact. Even if the source had been included in the original post, you didn't bother to read the entire thing, anyway.:rolleyes:
I read all of the post proper that you linked me to, I just didn't read the quoted section, which I assumed (falsely) was not exactly what you were directing me to.
Stoo said:
Speaking of not reading, you wrote about how her 2006 interview "seems to imply that with time her memory has grown hazy".
Nadoolman (2005): I have just seen Secret of the Incas again at the Eastman House in Rochester, and it really helped refresh my memory.
Are 2006 and 2005 the same year? In the latter interview she mentions the bullwhip separately from the rest of the costume, and prefaces it with "I think," which does suggest some hesitance on her part. This uncertainty is indeed absent in the 2005 interview, and on this point she is incorrect. That this former instance is bullsh!t is not something I have objected to since I read the 05 interview.
Stoo said:
She flat-out said that it was a remake. There aren't any 'uncertain qualifiers' to muddle over in this statement:
Nadoolman (2006): "Raiders" is a remake of a movie called "Secret of the Incas".
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 doubt it. If anything, she overstates the influence of the Heston film on Indiana Jones, but it seems clear enough that she does not mean that Raiders is a remake in the Gus Van Sant or Peter Jackson sense. Perhaps the real "bullsh!t" is her unfamiliarity with film industry parlance. When she says that the former film is similar to the latter "shot for shot," I think she's probably referring to the general feel of the movie and scenes such as the tomb scene in Secrets similar to the map room scene in Raiders. Perhaps it's not literally "shot for shot" the same, but the inspiration is clear.
Stoo said:
No matter what a person's interpretation of the bullsh*t label is, some of things Debbie said are NOT TRUE.
I'm not particularly interested in continuing this, but I think she meant "remake" differently. When you're watching a move and some gangster type calls someone a "rat," you don't respond with "bullsh!t!" because what is meant it is separate from what is literally said. When she says things like Steele is a professional archaeologist or she claims that all of the uniforms in LC were authentic, then she is guilty of bullsh!tting, but I don't think the same can be said when she is simply misspeaking. There is no way that she thinks Raiders is literally a remake, except in the loosest possible sense. (Which makes me wonder, would you call Scarface 1983 a remake of Scarface 1932? Some people do.)
Stoo said:
It's amusing that you think calling bullsh!t on her statments is "rude" and critical, when you, yourself, used the term to describe my post simply because no source was given.:D
I didn't say outright that your post was bullsh!t; rather, I suggested that it might be considered such without any further elaboration.
Stoo said:
This does not make any sense. WillKill has fallen down before he was able to sit down.:(
What's not to understand? I've seen several posts on here ending with the taunt, but I could not remember whether they were all from you. And it's just silly to bring quips from pompous movie villains into what should be a casual conversation.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Would it perhaps make sense to make a 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? For while it seems that Nadoolman has some misunderstandings about film terminology, I'm also willing to bet that she wasn't malintentioned when she said what she said. Nevertheless, it's hard to argue that she wasn't speaking either carelessly or simply without full knowledge of what she was speaking of. It doesn't really impugn her, though, to acknowledge that there's no real way of reading her statements about Raiders being a remake of Secret of the Incas that doesn't read them as bullsh!t.

While I appreciate the fact that "Nadoolman hermeneutics" is now an existing phrase, I don't see any other really compelling reason for this to go on.
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Attila the Professor said:
Would it perhaps make sense to make a 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? ... I don't see any other really compelling reason for this to go on.
Yes, and yes.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
WillKill4Food said:
Are 2006 and 2005 the same year? In the latter interview she mentions the bullwhip separately from the rest of the costume, and prefaces it with "I think," which does suggest some hesitance on her part. This uncertainty is indeed absent in the 2005 interview, and on this point she is incorrect. That this former instance is bullsh!t is not something I have objected to since I read the 05 interview.
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".
WillKill4Food said:
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 doubt it.
...
Perhaps the real "bullsh!t" is her unfamiliarity with film industry parlance.
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:

2) I'm presenting facts (ex. Nadoolman said "xxxxx"). You are stating opinions and keep mentioning 'seems to imply', 'suppose', 'assume', etc.,

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:
WillKill4Food said:
I'm not particularly interested in continuing this, but I think she meant "remake" differently.
...
There is no way that she thinks Raiders is literally a remake, except in the loosest possible sense.
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.

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.)
WillKill4Food said:
I didn't say outright that your post was bullsh!t; rather, I suggested that it might be considered such without any further elaboration.
Regardless, you used the term in reference to said post. Further elaboration was given and you still don't agree. Conclusion? The post is still bullsh*t (and, according to your criteria, that is "rude" & critical).:p
WillKill4Food said:
What's not to understand? I've seen several posts on here ending with the taunt, but I could not remember whether they were all from you. And it's just silly to bring quips from pompous movie villains into what should be a casual conversation.
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:
 
Top