MovieChat Forums > Martoto > Replies
Martoto's Replies
What a bell end.
Talk about blowing your own cover. You haven't been watching Dr Who very closely if at all, or your childhood ended 5 minutes before you saw this episode, if you have never seen this kind of thing in the show before.
Do you even realise that capitalism and taxation are nor opposites or even exclusive of each other? I don't suppose you care. It seems you just want to everyone to share your anxiety at perceived threats from a tenuous "political" agenda.
And yet, its supposed political implications are giving your nightmares.
Heston is the best thing in the film.
You need to remember that the sequence you are describing is Judy's recollection of what happened. It's not supposed to be realistic.
Time is compressed for one thing. But most importantly, the shot is Judy's recollection of something she didn't even see!
So you don't think that the dead astronauts as a result of capitalism shown in the future depicted in the programme was a mistake.
It wasn't until the mid sixties that the police were required to inform a suspect that they they are at all times protected by their constitutional rights and entitlement to counsel.
That's not the point. EG Marshall's character was confident about his conviction but he wasn't simply being glib. He genuinely thought that he should be able to remember the name of the movie and the actors he had seen at the movies earlier that week, regardless of any emotional stress. Ergo, the boy must have been able to remember to tell the police in the moments they pounced on him, told him of his father's death and then quizzed him on the spot, a few hours after being at the movies.
When EG Marshall realised that it wasn't as easy as all that for he himself to remember, he did not move the goalposts and renege on his presumption that the boy's memory must have been equally clear and therefore his alibi must be false.
In other words, his character is genuinely and honestly giving his assessment of the evidence without prejudice.
In my experience, bigoted and ignorant people do tend to have disagreeable personalities.
And once a person appears to be bigoted and ignorant to you, it's hard not to be also displeased with their personality too.
[quote]Was there simply a much narrower selection of society selected for jury service at that time?[/quote]
Yes. That's precisely it.
Simply stating that a person in a mask could possibly have been responsible is not a reasonable doubt and on its own could not sway a jury.
Plus the purpose of a jury is not to decide if the prosecution's case and the way that they present the evidence is plausible. It is to determine if the case made by the jury is the truth beyond reasonable doubt.
In this movie it is made quite clear that the jury is having to do the defense attorney's job for them in challenging the presumption that the evidence and the conclusions drawn for them are incontrovertible.
Like the guy said. False equivalency. Feeble attempt. Nae luck.
So it's because the Doctor didn't add, "Oh, socialist totalitarian systems of government are also make mistakes. That's evil too." , for balance that it's a a biased political show.
Get a grip of yourself.
You should visit tmdb. Lots of people there ready to oblige you.
Me too.
Not inviting prejudice to affect my perceptions is one of the important aspects of that process though.
Good grief.
So you like arguing with people with ostensibly the same mindset then.
Why would the attitudes someone who you acknowledge is easily offended, or keen to adopt the position of offended, be worthwhile in validating or enhancing your own mindset?
Once you start being anxious about the impressions of people whose attitudes you don't agree with and are prepared to change your mindset purely to assuage their personal issues, then you are starting down the path of homogenised mediocrity.
From what you said earlier, and in spite of the thread title and OP, your mindset appears to be to take everything in proportion and not allow knee-jerkism to prompt you to isolate supposedly controversial content. Which is not really controversial, just not traditionally mainstream.
So why would you believe there is value in people who actively seek to blow things out of proportion challenging your "mindset"?
Baiting people's prejudices is not an authentic conversation or method of challenging your own mindset.
Why would you hope that the nutters who plagued IMDb would come and say things you don't agree with?
Why does prejudice and paranoia deserve undue prominence on the agenda, even if one is prepared to denounce it?
Yes there are people, fans or otherwise, who would complain about the propriety of its content or style as a matter of course.
Simulations don't commit, cannot commit suicide. Nardole and Bill were alive after they "died".
Crucially , the audience did not "view" any suicides.
When suicide is alluded to, it is to condemn it outright.
The iniquities of murder, conquest and extermination are fixtures of Dr Who which have divided audiences since its conception.
Just a quick thought.
I don't think that what Water's is quoted as saying is a million miles from what some of Hitchcock's peers and critics thought and said at the time.
I believe that achieving some sort of autonomy was on Hitchcock's mind at the time and thought "what can I get away with that people will flock to see out of morbid curiosity". The profitable nature of those kind of movies must have given him encouragement that it would be possible. It's easy to see how he could come by the requisite hubris to presume "If someone like [b]me[/b] was top make such a film...."
He knew he wasn't attempting to emulate any of the success or esteem of his pictures made immediately prior and made sure that the audience was not given the impression that he was either.
You could call that managing expectations along the lines of an exploitation type film. But if you make a comparison with, say, Rear Window, they both fall in to the murder mystery/thriller genre. But they are so dissimilar in certain ways that you might put Psycho in the exploitation film genre, while Rear Window is somehow considered respectable, mainstream.