History Headscratchers / LiarLiar

3rd Jul '16 12:48:06 AM Nixterman
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Given that the movie is pretty heavy-handed on using the letter of the law to subvert the spirit of the law, maybe the curse gives Fletcher a little wiggling room if he's using minor amounts of deception to ultimately reveal the truth. In essence, it'd be stepping a wee bit out of the letter of the truth in order to reveal the full truth.



** He was wrong, not knowingly lying. The prohibition is against him saying something he knows is a lie. It's not that he has to tell the absolute truth.

to:

** He was wrong, not knowingly lying. The prohibition is against him saying something he knows is a lie. It's not that he has to tell the absolute truth.truth.
** The curse is not about the question of is/not (objective truth), but Fletcher's perception of the truth. Like the above troper said, if Fletcher believes something is true, he can say it, even if it's not an objective truth. Compare with the prostate exchange with the judge. While the truth might be otherwise, Fletcher probably honestly believes that there could be some truth to the claim that holding it in for too long can damage the prostate. He can therefore repeat this belief to the judge.
30th Jun '16 8:21:53 AM MrDeath
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Right before the "pen soliloquy", Fletcher says, "You can beat this. It's just a matter of [[HeroicWillpower willpower]]." [[LogicBomb Then he puts lie to these words by completely and utterly failing to tell a simple lie about the color of the pen]]. Can somebody please explain this?

to:

* Right before the "pen soliloquy", Fletcher says, "You can beat this. It's just a matter of [[HeroicWillpower willpower]]." [[LogicBomb Then he puts lie to these words by completely and utterly failing to tell a simple lie about the color of the pen]]. Can somebody please explain this?this?
** He was wrong, not knowingly lying. The prohibition is against him saying something he knows is a lie. It's not that he has to tell the absolute truth.
30th Jun '16 7:43:31 AM Classified
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** What's the big deal? I can tell you I ate tuna today at 2:23. Sometimes people just look at clocks.

to:

** What's the big deal? I can tell you I ate tuna today at 2:23. Sometimes people just look at clocks.clocks.

* Right before the "pen soliloquy", Fletcher says, "You can beat this. It's just a matter of [[HeroicWillpower willpower]]." [[LogicBomb Then he puts lie to these words by completely and utterly failing to tell a simple lie about the color of the pen]]. Can somebody please explain this?
28th Apr '16 11:30:21 AM lorgskyegon
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** Remember that he first says "I have a date to play ball with my son." In that ball playing, he will be Jose Canseco.
19th Mar '16 8:58:01 AM Miracle@StOlaf
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

*** In short, Ms. Cole is a KarmaHoudini in the same way Larry's ex-wife from ''Film/ThrowMommaFromTheTrain'' is one: the story ended before it could show Karma finally bite them in the ass, but there's no way it isn't going to eventually.
16th Feb '15 7:47:25 PM Sparklles
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Maybe she was checking the time every now and then, waiting for Fletcher to show up, and happened to do so shortly before Max went to the cake?

to:

** Maybe she was checking the time every now and then, waiting for Fletcher to show up, and happened to do so shortly before Max went to the cake?cake?
** What's the big deal? I can tell you I ate tuna today at 2:23. Sometimes people just look at clocks.
26th Sep '14 11:47:14 AM maxwellsilver
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

*** Additionally, her husband states he had no idea she was underage, which means he could have had the marriage annulled on the grounds of fraud, which would leave her none of his wealth.
12th Aug '14 10:43:42 AM Tegid
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** I believe the proper answer to this comes from Roger Ebert's commentary about a different film which showed what is often cited as an AchievementInIgonorance in the form of walking on water. Fans have speculated about mundane explanations for it, like the character walking on a barely submerged pier or sandbar, and Ebert's take on this famously went as follows: "The movie presents us with an image, and while you may discuss the meaning of the image, it is not permitted to devise explanations for it. Since Ashby does not show a pier, there is no pier a movie is exactly what it shows us, and nothing more." In the case of Liar Liar, the plot device is framed as magical, not mundane, and no mundane alternative is posited or implied. We are therefore obliged to treat it as such instead of trying to shoehorn a mundane explanation in.

to:

*** I believe the proper answer to this comes from Roger Ebert's commentary about a different film which showed what is often cited as an AchievementInIgonorance AchievementInIgnorance in the form of walking on water. Fans have speculated about mundane explanations for it, like the character walking on a barely submerged pier or sandbar, and Ebert's take on this famously went as follows: "The movie presents us with an image, and while you may discuss the meaning of the image, it is not permitted to devise explanations for it. Since Ashby does not show a pier, there is no pier a movie is exactly what it shows us, and nothing more." In the case of Liar Liar, the plot device is framed as magical, not mundane, and no mundane alternative is posited or implied. We are therefore obliged to treat it as such instead of trying to shoehorn a mundane explanation in.
12th Aug '14 10:42:27 AM Tegid
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

*** I believe the proper answer to this comes from Roger Ebert's commentary about a different film which showed what is often cited as an AchievementInIgonorance in the form of walking on water. Fans have speculated about mundane explanations for it, like the character walking on a barely submerged pier or sandbar, and Ebert's take on this famously went as follows: "The movie presents us with an image, and while you may discuss the meaning of the image, it is not permitted to devise explanations for it. Since Ashby does not show a pier, there is no pier a movie is exactly what it shows us, and nothing more." In the case of Liar Liar, the plot device is framed as magical, not mundane, and no mundane alternative is posited or implied. We are therefore obliged to treat it as such instead of trying to shoehorn a mundane explanation in.
19th Jan '14 7:06:18 AM FairyDreamer
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Isn't it odd that Audrey just happened to know the exact time Max blew out the candles? There's nothing showing why she would remember that he blew out the candles at exactly 8:15. And yet she tells Fletcher that Max made his birthday wish at that exact time.

to:

* Isn't it odd that Audrey just happened to know the exact time Max blew out the candles? There's nothing showing why she would remember that he blew out the candles at exactly 8:15. And yet she tells Fletcher that Max made his birthday wish at that exact time.time.
** Maybe she was checking the time every now and then, waiting for Fletcher to show up, and happened to do so shortly before Max went to the cake?
This list shows the last 10 events of 79. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.LiarLiar