I'm not the greatest at geography... but why does that reporter say that?
Does he really mean to imply that Forrest crossed the Mississippi, ran to the east coast and then turned around and crossed it again in all within 24 hours?
If not that... then why else would that be noteworthy? Because then I would argue that it's possible for me to cross the Mississippi several times in one day with no problem.
Maybe he just decided to run on 2 different bridges that cross the Mississippi River that are near each other.
shareOkay I just checked it because of your post, I'm using the movie to guide me, have my dvd in as I type, so this is verbatim what the reporter says:
"For the fourth time on his journey across America, Forrest Gump, a gardener from Greenbow, Alabama, is about to cross the Mississippi River again today."
He's not saying it's the fourth (or second) time *today*, it's the fourth time *overall*
Thanks for the clarification on the quote, I got it wrong.
But still, I have to refute the meaning behind it. Because if it's meant that way, in which he's saying he's crossed it before in the past, and now he's doing it again today...that could mean anything. I could run across the bridge, take a vacation, and then fly back out and run across the bridge and I would be crossing the bridge again, today.
I still really think it's an error to have put that line there and also with the manner in which the reporter actor delivered that line.
He's just specifying that it's today. Look at it this way. The whole quote I posted, remove the last word, which is 'today.' He's a reporter, right? So if he simply says "For the fourth time on his journey across America, Forrest Gump, a gardener from Greenbow, Alabama, is about to cross the Mississippi River again" and then someone asks "When?" he says "Today." So he's just filling in that blank like a good reporter. And having just watched it, his tone and delivery were fine. You're overthinking it ;)
shareI know what you're saying... but it doesn't make sense to bring it up like that.
It's back to my original point... why would that be noteworthy? Why would he need to say that? Who cares if he did it some time ago, and then did it today. There's no reason to bring that up if that's the case. That factoid does nothing to highlight the feat he's accomplishing. A reporter making a story would need a good reason to bring that fact up, not just because it's happening today.
That's like, the Gardener from Greenbow is about to get a haircut again. Today.
No matter which way you slice it, it doesn't seem to be the best line or line reading.
I get what you mean, but it's also not necessary to not have that word either. And bear in mind the time and place, perfect wording wasn't of greatest concern, that guy wasn't Diane Sawyer, he was local yokel Jim who you also knew from bowling league.
shareBut take that a step further....
Any unnecessary statement or lack of "journalistic competence" isn't why we hear this line. This line isn't said because it's Yokel Jim. That would be a fair excuse, by the way.
We, the movie audience, hear this line because it's in the script and spoken deliberately by the actor playing yokel Jim. It was written. And that's ultimately what I mean by "weird line." I don't believe Zemeckis or the writer had any intention of making some statement on the journalistic integrity of small-town yokel Jim. Zemeckis and the writer were trying to "wow" us with a statement about this man crossing the Mississippi, which when you get down to it, doesn't make sense.