MovieChat Forums > Alerra > Replies
Alerra's Replies
According to smokefree.gov, lung function starts to improve within three months after one stops smoking. So, if Elizabeth never smoked at all (and I've never seen her portrayed as smoking, so that premise is entirely possible), the dangers exposed to her via secondhand smoke would have decreased dramatically within a year of George's death.
Princess Margaret also smoked, but most likely Elizabeth would not have been as exposed to her daughter's cigarettes as she was to her husband's.
Or, she could have just been lucky. Some people are. It's part of what makes cancer such a crapshoot.
This. When I saw the movie in the theater, the people around me burst into applause when he yelled that. I remember whispering, "Bravo."
Well, she is the only one who actually has significant screen time and a decent amount of lines. Aunt Beru and Mon Mothma are awesome, but MM appears in one scene, gives one 60-second speech and never speaks again. Aunt Beru appears in one scene (not counting the one with her burned out corpse), has about three lines and never speaks again.
However, if Abrams thinks the only reason not to like these newer movies is because a person hates women, he's high on something. Sometimes, it's possible to hate a movie just because it's a horrible movie.
I get that, in the original comics, Jimmy was a red-haired Caucasian, but he could be Avatar blue for all I care as long as the character works. The problem is, the character DOESN'T work, because he is so unlike what we expect Jimmy to be. In all the various other movies and tv series, Jimmy has always been a casual, scruffy, T-shirt and blue jeans kind of guy who enjoys spending his time with friends consuming pizza, popcorn, and beer. JAMES is suave, debonair, and classy. He wears suits and ties, and seems to be more of a martini, caviar, and filet mignon guy. He's more like James Bond than Jimmy Olsen.
Perhaps that's part of what lies at the root of your indignation. This dude is so unexpectedly different from how we picture him, and it's jarring. There's nothing particularly wrong with there being a James in the series, or with him being Black. But he's no Jimmy Olsen.
It's all about perspective. There are, in the world, very few people who can be classified as truly evil (thank God). But there are also very few people who are truly, perfectly good. Most people land somewhere on the spectrum, and lean mostly toward one end or the other. I think this is true of a lot of the characters in GOT, also. We may not always agree with everything Dany or Tyrion or Brienne or Arya do, or even their motives behind them. But, in general, they tend to lean toward the good end.
Of the ones that are still alive, in addition to those you've mentioned, I'd also include Missandei, Meera Reed, Podrick, and Gendry on the list of "good guys." Honorable mentions -- due to the smallness of their roles -- also go to Edd and Hotpie.
This. I could have done without it also. Not because it wasn't amusing (it was), but because it doesn't really make sense in the way Sam's character has been developed. Remember that, before leaving Castle Black, Sam was the steward to Maester Aemon, who was old and feeble and blind. MOST LIKELY, especially in the later seasons after he returned to Castle Black with Gilly, Sam had to attend to some of the *ahem* more personal duties for Maester Aemon. So a long montage of him being grossed out by cleaning up everyone else's stuff at the Citadel doesn't really ring true with me.
Yeah, it's still gross, but you would think Sam would have been used to it by now.
You are so kind to remind me about the decimalization, or lack thereof, of British currency. But I'll repeat what I said earlier: that I can go to my local duck pond and buy a bag of feed for $.50. Assuming your math is correct, you're saying that the woman is charging the equivalent of $1.17.
We can work this the other way, too. $.50 is approximately the same as what is today 36p. According to an inflation calculator, .36 of a pound today was approximately .0032 of a pound in 1910. That's about 3 farthings. Compared to the 8 that the birdwoman charges.
So, I standby my original point that the breadcrumbs were expensive.
YOU'RE welcome.
I really don't understand what the British (or Americans, for that matter) have about accents, or lack thereof. So Costner doesn't speak with an English accent. So what? A member of the English gentry in the 12th century probably would have spoken some cross between middle English and old French, anyway. If Richard I spoke English at all (which I doubt. He probably spoke French), it most definitely would NOT have been with Sean Connery's Scottish accent. And I don't hear people from Israel complaining about Morgan Freeman's accent, or the fact that no one in the Jerusalem scene speaks Arabic.
And, as mentioned on another board, you don't see Italians getting all bent out of shape over the fact that, every time a movie is made taking place in Rome, Caesar or the Pope talk with upperclass English accents. Peter O'Toole sounds British to the core in *The Tudors,* even though he's playing a 16th century Italian. Where's the complaining over HIS accent?
Two thoughts:
A) Beheadings *were* relatively merciful as opposed to other forms of executions, since a good executioner can lop off a head with one stroke. Hanging could take 20 minutes or more and was horribly undignified. Disembowelment, or being hanged, drawn, and quartered was worse, and don't even get me started on being burned at the stake, or being stuck in a cage, exposed to the elements, until you slowly starved. The ancient Romans actually used beheadings as a privilege: they only crucified slaves and non-citizens (the Apostle Paul, for example, being a Roman citizen, was beheaded).
B) It could just be Rickman hamming it up. Keep in mind, canceling a religious holy day and changing the rules regarding the punishments for capital offenses aren't actually things a local sheriff has the authority to do. Those things come from people who are higher up in the chain (i.e, Richard). Rickman was probably just playing the scene for laughs.
I don't know that there's a real *story* behind it, other than it's just their way of applauding. It's not unique just to them; I've seen others do it, both in other movies and in real life.
But if you notice his bag in the subsequent scenes, you'll notice "not beer" things inside. Most particularly, a package of diapers for the baby. What I think happened is that he left the house with the intent to buy beer, arrived at the store and realized how late it was. So, instead of buying beer, he buys other things (like diapers). That makes what he says at the police station not a falsehood. He *went* to the store to buy beer. The fact that he was too wasted to drive indicates that he might also have been too wasted to realize that the store wouldn't be selling alcohol that late. And the cop's comment about checking out his story makes sense too: they interview the clerk, clerk says, "Dude came in around 2:30, tried to buy beer but couldn't since it was so late, bought diapers instead, I think he was a little high." That pretty much corroborates what Lee says.
The plot hole (and I'm not so sure on your definition of plot hole, but we'll go with it for now) in that part of the story is that he skips the, "I forgot you can't actually buy beer that late" part when he's at the precinct.
Sorry for responding to this so late. Just saw the movie last night.
Could you name your source for those numbers? I'm really not sure where you got that 270,000 from, since most military historians believe there were over 1.1 million Soviet casualties in the battle of Stalingrad alone.
(and since I asked you for a source, here's a link to mine: https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Stalingrad)
And if we want to talk about the "good guys" killing people, let's talk about the Americans, who killed 80,000 Japanese civilians in one day, turned around three days later to kill 40,000 more, then left about 120,000 additional ones to die slow horrific deaths (for comparison, there were 40,000 Soviet civilian deaths over the course of the entire six month siege of Stalingrad). And those are the conservative estimates.
The short answer? Because that's the title of the book it's based on.
There are a couple reasons given in the book. Hannah refers to one of them while she's in the camp: I am alive one day, I am alive another day, one day plus one day equals two days that I've been alive. She refers to this as the Devil's arithmetic. Another answer given was in the author's note in the back (which I realize may not be in every edition). Yolen (the book's author) talks about how many people died in each camp: 200,000 at Sobibor, 1.1 million at Auschwitz, 700,000 at Treblinka, and calls those numbers the Devil's arithmetic. A third reason may be because of the ID tattoos. In the book (don't remember if it's in the movie), Rifka and Hannah talk about the individual digits of their numbers, saying what each one signifies to them. (1 is for Hannah, 4 is for her family, 7 is for Rifka's family, and so on)
In the movie, Hannah's grandfather(?) talks about the Nazi's adding and subtracting Jews until there were no more left.
Any of the above reasons I think could be interpreted as the right one.
Except I don't think Green was being blackmailed for being homosexual. If you look at Wadsworth right after Green says it, his expression is pure shock, and he immediately starts rifling through his papers, as if to say, "Where was THAT in here???"
I've often wondered what the real reason for blackmailing Green was.
I'd like to think she was. For her to compromise her immortal soul by telling such a huge lie when marrying Henry, to risk her titles, her daughter's legitimacy, her marriage, EVERYTHING she had...then insisting upon it for TEN YEARS (seven while the divorce proceedings were "not proceeding", and three more after that) under a huge amount of pressure, that's an awfully big thing to hide if it wasn't true.
However, I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Ludlow Castle in the middle of winter (which is where Catherine and Arthur went right after they wed) is not the most happening or exciting place. Ludlow is a small town, even today, and in 1501, it would have been pretty isolated from any of the "goings on" that the two of them would have been used to at Henry VII's court. So, if the two of them felt they were in the middle of nowhere in the dead of winter with nothing to do (not that I think there's nothing to do in Ludlow, but the two of them might have)....that kinda begs the question of what, exactly, the two of them WERE doing if they weren't getting it on with each other. And Catherine's life, during the time when she was Arthur's widow, totally sucked. She had no money, no real status that got her anywhere, and no one really cared about her -- not Henry VII, not her father, no one. It's entirely possible that Catherine simply lied about what happened just to get out of her sucky life at the time....and once she started, she just had to maintain it.
BUT, I would like to think she was honest, and that there was no consummation between her and Arthur.
I realize that this post is three years old, but I just have to jump in here.
*Anno* is the ablative form of the word *annus,* a second declension Latin noun meaning "year." The fact that it is in the ablative form indicates that it is to be translated as "in the year." *Domini* is the genitive form of the word *dominus,* another second declension Latin noun which means "lord" or "master." The fact that it is in the genitive form (and capitalized) indicates that it is to be translated as "of the Lord." Thus, the proper translation of *Anno Domini* is *in the year of the Lord.*
You are correct in the fact that there is no J in Hebrew, but there was also no CH in Greek either. Both the J and the CH came when the New Testament (which was written, for the most part, in Greek) was translated into Latin, which in its classical form had no Y or K. Jesus would have been addressed by his friends and family as Yeshua (or some variation thereof-- the transliterations vary). The Greek spelling of that name would have been something along the lines of Iaesus (again, the transliterations vary).
Christ is a title, not a name, yes, but classical Greek and Latin didn't have articles. The proper translation would actually have been "Jesus (or Iaesus, if you prefer) THE Christ (or Khristos)." The article simply has gotten lost through the years.
And the Greek word *khristos* does not mean "god." It means "annointed one," the same as the word "messiah." The Greek word for god was *theos.*
In 2003? No. At least not in Britain. George IV has a daughter named Charlotte, but rest assured, this is not the same person.
I think Dany would be more bothered by the fact that their relationship means Jon has a stronger claim to the throne than she does.
If racists hate Lando just because he is a token black guy (although how his being black affects the actual role itself I don't know), then I wonder how they felt about Vader.
Funny how that Times article didn't mention that -- that the baddest ass in the entire series had his lines spoken by a black dude from day one. But I guess that doesn't count.
That is a shame. Wedge has always seemed a connection to Obi-Wan for me, given that DL is Ewan McGregor's uncle (I know. It's a stretch. Work with me), so it's a bummer that he's not there anymore.
Would have been nice for the writers to have at least mentioned him or Lando at some point, 'cause right now, they just seem like loose ends. But this trilogy doesn't seem too concerned about those.