Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 440 (click to see context) from:
to:
** This is all explained by examining the differences between the novel and the film. The conceit of the novel is that the author is abridging a political treatise his father (who is originally from Florin) read to him when the author was young. Like the grandfather of the film, the father skipped boring parts and just read "the good stuff," and the author regularly interrupts the story to let the reader know which parts he's editing or cutting completely. The film dropped the abridgment conceit and and replaced the authorial interjections with scenes between the boy and his grandfather. The grandfather was likely aged up because the original telling would have been in the late 30's/early 40's, when Goldman was a child. The modern day portions of the film take place in 1987, over a generation later. A 40 something in 1973 can have an immigrant father without issue, but they decided to make it a grandfather to a boy in the 80's.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 457 (click to see context) from:
to:
** Wesley could have proposed to let Vizzini mask the cups before they drink to put him more at ease with the belief that the terms of the game are fair and better sell his deception. If Vizzini had proposed this rule change, Wesley would of course have agreed readily, since he knows it wouldn't change anything. From Vizzini's perspective, however, he believes that Wesley might refuse the rule change and be unwilling to give up his unspoken get-out-of-poison-free card. Then they'd be at an impasse again. The better play from his perspective is to simply trick Wesley into unknowingly drinking the wrong cup, which is what he tries to do.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Also, Iocaine is by its very nature almost undetectable. Roberts could have been dosing Westley with the stuff from the very first day they met without Westley even realising if so he'd wanted. It's not like they necessarily needed to block out special "immunity from Iocaine" sessions.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Old Roberts was probably grooming and training Westley to be his successor for, if not the whole time, then a fairly substantial part of their time together. The whole "I'll most likely kill you in the morning" stuff was just an initial threat that clearly just became a routine in-joke between them. So most of what Westley was doing on the ship was just part of his training, even if he didn't initially realise it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 474,477 (click to see context) from:
-----
[[/folder]]
[[/folder]]
to:
[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 369 (click to see context) from:
to:
** There's a reason they say no plan ever survives contact with the enemy. This one certainly didn't.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 192 (click to see context) from:
to:
** Many poisons leave clues on the corpse. Possibly the prince thought, "Bloodshot eyes? Blue fingernails? His tongue turning black? A vial of probable poison with no smell? "Iocane powder. I'd bet my life on it."
Changed line(s) 243 (click to see context) from:
to:
** I doubt it was "hands-on" experience. It was probably the opposite. Inigo spent years learning to fight in any conceivable situation. He knew how to use uneven surfaces, trees, and all kinds of obstacles to his advantage, so that the Six Fingered Man couldn't escape by using an unfamiliar environment against him. Westley probably won because his training was all "here is a cleared out flat space on the deck for you to practice" type, which meant that in that one single environment he could win.
Added DiffLines:
** The answer to the question, "How did Westley know there were ''only'' three dangers?" is obvious. He was reassuring Buttercup, so he deliberately avoided any hint that there might be more.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 18 (click to see context) from:
to:
** He might not have been being threatened with death after three years, but he was under Roberts power, and Roberts would never allow a message saying, "Hey, I've been a prisoner of the Dread Pirate Roberts, but don't worry, he let me live." He ''was'' still a prisoner, really, until Roberts offered to make him a pirate king.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 48 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** The book doesn't quite spell it out that clearly. It does say that people are afraid to fight because of the reputation, but it says nothing about what happens to people who don't fight. One possibility is in the definition of "captives". \\
\\
First, Roberts takes credit for ships lost at sea, claiming the crew died because they defied him. He then spreads rumors about how he kills all his captives. Next, he spreads more rumors, but these are about how you might live. He tells you to abandon your ship, or to give him all your valuable cargo. If you abandon ship, you were never a captive. If you accept an offer to simply give him all your goods, you were never a captive. If you fight, but then run, you are allowed to get to the boats and you were never a captive. If you throw your cargo overboard in order to lighten your load, it works, he collects the cargo and you were never a captive. If you fight and don't back down you likely die, and if nobody except his crew knows what happened to you then you are rumored to be taken as his "captive", and "everyone know the Dread Pirate Roberts never leaves captives alive." So long as there is a way for him to get the cargo and yet you were never his captive, you take it and he doesn't have to kill you. So long as everyone knows the way out, Roberts gets the cargo without killing everyone.
\\
First, Roberts takes credit for ships lost at sea, claiming the crew died because they defied him. He then spreads rumors about how he kills all his captives. Next, he spreads more rumors, but these are about how you might live. He tells you to abandon your ship, or to give him all your valuable cargo. If you abandon ship, you were never a captive. If you accept an offer to simply give him all your goods, you were never a captive. If you fight, but then run, you are allowed to get to the boats and you were never a captive. If you throw your cargo overboard in order to lighten your load, it works, he collects the cargo and you were never a captive. If you fight and don't back down you likely die, and if nobody except his crew knows what happened to you then you are rumored to be taken as his "captive", and "everyone know the Dread Pirate Roberts never leaves captives alive." So long as there is a way for him to get the cargo and yet you were never his captive, you take it and he doesn't have to kill you. So long as everyone knows the way out, Roberts gets the cargo without killing everyone.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 225,226 (click to see context) from:
** Basically, Westley is effectively a Canon GaryStu , but that's to be expected given it's effectively a fairy tale.
** Not only that, but Westley benefits from ThePowerOfLove. He's almost unstoppable in large part ''because'' he's trying to save Buttercup. As said above, this is a fairy tale setting; that kind of thing is practically a genre convention.
** Not only that, but Westley benefits from ThePowerOfLove. He's almost unstoppable in large part ''because'' he's trying to save Buttercup. As said above, this is a fairy tale setting; that kind of thing is practically a genre convention.
to:
** Basically, Westley is effectively a Canon GaryStu , but that's to be expected given it's effectively a fairy tale.
** Not only that, butWestley benefits from ThePowerOfLove. He's almost unstoppable in large part ''because'' he's trying to save Buttercup. As said above, this is a fairy tale setting; that kind of thing is practically a genre convention.
** Not only that, but
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
*** Technically, he was only the DPR for two years.
*** I think we get a sense of when Wesley will or won't kill by the fact that he spares Inigo's life but kills Vizzini. He probably didn't have an intermediate option like diluting his poison on the spot so that Vizzini would have only been incapacitated, for one, and he also had the sense from conversing to Inigo throughout the sword fight that Inigo is a gun-for-hire whereas Vizzini is on a mission to do harm.
Changed line(s) 466 (click to see context) from:
-----
to:
[[/folder]]
[[folder:When do you have time to develop the immunity to Iocaine]]
* Are we expected to believe that the old Dread Pirate Roberts trained Wesley to be immune to the powder? Where would that fit on the priority of things to teach your prisoner?
[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 431,432 (click to see context) from:
** Who says it's even a tradition, especially? The grandfather mentions that his father read it to him, and then he read it to the boy's father, but that's it. From the sound of that, it's not exactly an ancient tale that's been passed down from father to son from time immemorial here, there's no sense of "my father, and his father before him, and his father before him...". It's one man retelling a story he enjoyed hearing from his father to his son and grandson. It's not necessarily a certainty that there's tragedy or abandonment here; perhaps the boy's father simply didn't consider it to be a tradition that he pass it on to his own son. Heck, the ''grandfather'' might not even consider it a tradition particularly; he's visiting his sick grandson, wants to do something nice for him, and remembers back to when he'd read his son a storybook and decides to do the same, but dresses it up a bit when selling him on it to make it seem a bit more special.
to:
** Who says it's even a tradition, especially? The grandfather mentions that his father read it to him, and then he read it to the boy's father, but that's it. From the sound of that, it's not exactly an ancient tale that's been passed down from father to son from time immemorial here, there's no sense of "my father, and his father before him, and his father before him...". It's one man retelling a story he enjoyed hearing from his father to his son and grandson. It's not necessarily a certainty that there's tragedy or abandonment here; perhaps the boy's father simply didn't consider it to be a tradition that he pass it on to his own son. I mean, do you feel tradition-bound to read every bedtime story your parents told you as a child to your own children? Heck, the ''grandfather'' might not even consider it a tradition particularly; he's visiting his sick grandson, wants to do something nice for him, and remembers back to when he'd read his son a storybook and decides to do the same, but dresses it up a bit when selling him on it to make it seem a bit more special.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 431,432 (click to see context) from:
** Who says it's even a tradition, especially? The grandfather mentions that his father read it to him, and then he read it to the boy's father, but that's it. It's not exactly an ancient tale that's been passed down from father to son from time immemorial here, there's no sense of "my father, and his father before him, and his father before him...", it's one man retelling a story he enjoyed hearing from his father to his son and grandson. It's not necessarily a certainty that there's tragedy or abandonment here; perhaps the boy's father simply didn't consider it to be a tradition that he pass it on to his own son. Heck, the ''grandfather'' might not even consider it a tradition particularly; he's visiting his sick grandson, wants to do something nice for him, and remembers back to when he'd read his son a storybook and decides to do the same, but dresses it up a bit when selling him on it to make it seem a bit more special.
to:
** Who says it's even a tradition, especially? The grandfather mentions that his father read it to him, and then he read it to the boy's father, but that's it. It's From the sound of that, it's not exactly an ancient tale that's been passed down from father to son from time immemorial here, there's no sense of "my father, and his father before him, and his father before him...", it's ". It's one man retelling a story he enjoyed hearing from his father to his son and grandson. It's not necessarily a certainty that there's tragedy or abandonment here; perhaps the boy's father simply didn't consider it to be a tradition that he pass it on to his own son. Heck, the ''grandfather'' might not even consider it a tradition particularly; he's visiting his sick grandson, wants to do something nice for him, and remembers back to when he'd read his son a storybook and decides to do the same, but dresses it up a bit when selling him on it to make it seem a bit more special.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 431,432 (click to see context) from:
** Who says it's even a tradition, especially? The grandfather mentions that his father read it to him, and then he read it to the boy's father, but that's it. It's not exactly an ancient tale that's been passed down from father to son from time immemorial here, there's no sense of "my father, and his father before him, and his father before him...", it's one man retelling a story he enjoyed hearing from his father to his son and grandson. It's not necessarily a certainty that there's tragedy or abandonment here; perhaps the boy's father simply didn't consider it to be a tradition that he pass it on to his own son. Heck, the ''grandfather'' might not even consider it a tradition particularly; he's visiting his grandson, wants to do something nice for him, and remembers back to when he'd read his son a storybook and decides to do the same, but dresses it up a bit when selling him on it to make it seem a bit more special.
to:
** Who says it's even a tradition, especially? The grandfather mentions that his father read it to him, and then he read it to the boy's father, but that's it. It's not exactly an ancient tale that's been passed down from father to son from time immemorial here, there's no sense of "my father, and his father before him, and his father before him...", it's one man retelling a story he enjoyed hearing from his father to his son and grandson. It's not necessarily a certainty that there's tragedy or abandonment here; perhaps the boy's father simply didn't consider it to be a tradition that he pass it on to his own son. Heck, the ''grandfather'' might not even consider it a tradition particularly; he's visiting his sick grandson, wants to do something nice for him, and remembers back to when he'd read his son a storybook and decides to do the same, but dresses it up a bit when selling him on it to make it seem a bit more special.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 431,432 (click to see context) from:
** Who says it's even a tradition, especially? The grandfather mentions that his father read it to him, and then he read it to the boy's father, but that's it. It's not exactly an ancient tale that's been passed down from father to son from time immemorial here, there's no sense of "my father, and his father before him, and his father before him...", it's one man retelling a story he enjoyed hearing from his father to his son and grandson. It's not necessarily a certainty that there's tragedy or abandonment here; perhaps the boy's father simply didn't consider it to be a tradition that he pass it on to his own so? Heck, the ''grandfather'' might not even consider it a tradition particularly; he's visiting his grandson, wants to do something nice for him, and remembers back to when he'd read his son a storybook and decides to do the same, but dresses it up a bit when selling him on it to make it seem a bit more special.
to:
** Who says it's even a tradition, especially? The grandfather mentions that his father read it to him, and then he read it to the boy's father, but that's it. It's not exactly an ancient tale that's been passed down from father to son from time immemorial here, there's no sense of "my father, and his father before him, and his father before him...", it's one man retelling a story he enjoyed hearing from his father to his son and grandson. It's not necessarily a certainty that there's tragedy or abandonment here; perhaps the boy's father simply didn't consider it to be a tradition that he pass it on to his own so? son. Heck, the ''grandfather'' might not even consider it a tradition particularly; he's visiting his grandson, wants to do something nice for him, and remembers back to when he'd read his son a storybook and decides to do the same, but dresses it up a bit when selling him on it to make it seem a bit more special.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 431 (click to see context) from:
to:
** Who says it's even a tradition, especially? The grandfather mentions that his father read it to him, and then he read it to the boy's father, but that's it. It's not exactly an ancient tale that's been passed down from father to son from time immemorial here, there's no sense of "my father, and his father before him, and his father before him...", it's one man retelling a story he enjoyed hearing from his father to his son and grandson. It's not necessarily a certainty that there's tragedy or abandonment here; perhaps the boy's father simply didn't consider it to be a tradition that he pass it on to his own so? Heck, the ''grandfather'' might not even consider it a tradition particularly; he's visiting his grandson, wants to do something nice for him, and remembers back to when he'd read his son a storybook and decides to do the same, but dresses it up a bit when selling him on it to make it seem a bit more special.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 430 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** But the whole point of this Headscratcher is that the boy's father ''did'' inherit the tradition, since the boy's grandfather said he used to read it to his own son — the boy's father. The question is why the boy's father now isn't around to read it to him.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 95 (click to see context) from:
* ItJustBugsMe that Buttercup could be replaced with a small potted plant without materially affecting the story. Despite being ''the title character''.
to:
* ItJustBugsMe that Buttercup could be replaced with a small potted plant without materially affecting the story. Despite being ''the title character''.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
** Westley was gone five years, but while in the fireswamp he explains that he was only held prisoner for three years before becoming 'Dread Pirate Roberts'. That means that at any time he could have headed back to the farm (or even sent a message) and TOLD Buttercup that he was still alive. Instead he just hangs around playing with swords and puts his 'true love' through TWO YEARS of unnecessary grief and pain. And then he has the gall to be angry at her for being 'unfaithful"!
to:
** Westley was gone five years, but while in the fireswamp Fire Swamp he explains that he was only held prisoner for three years before becoming 'Dread Pirate Roberts'. That means that at any time he could have headed back to the farm (or even sent a message) and TOLD Buttercup that he was still alive. Instead he just hangs around playing with swords and puts his 'true love' through TWO YEARS of unnecessary grief and pain. And then he has the gall to be angry at her for being 'unfaithful"!
Changed line(s) 459 (click to see context) from:
** Remember how the group made their grand entrance? By storming the gates and making sure at least 60 men -- and anyone else within earshot -- know the Dread Pirate Roberts was attacking. ''Not'' Gilder.
to:
** Remember how the group made their grand entrance? By storming the gates and making sure at least 60 men -- and anyone else within earshot -- know the Dread Pirate Roberts was attacking. ''Not'' Gilder.Guilder.
Changed line(s) 461 (click to see context) from:
** Except the Dread Pirate Roberts has a very clear, very strong reputation -- one that makes it very unlikely that he'd be a mercenary for Gilder. Also, if Humperdinck had that kind of power, he wouldn't have felt the need to go through the whole sham of having Vizzini planting evidence of Gilder's involvement. He clearly thinks he needs some solid justification.
to:
** Except the Dread Pirate Roberts has a very clear, very strong reputation -- one that makes it very unlikely that he'd be a mercenary for Gilder. Guilder. Also, if Humperdinck had that kind of power, he wouldn't have felt the need to go through the whole sham of having Vizzini planting evidence of Gilder's Guilder's involvement. He clearly thinks he needs some solid justification.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 135 (click to see context) from:
to:
** Not only that, but as he points out in the book: It was inconceivable for anyone to be following them. The Man in Black followed them anyway. It was inconceivable for him to climb the rope. He did it anyway. It was inconceivable that he could've grabbed on to the cliff...but he did anyway. So, obviously, it's ''not'' inconceivable.
Changed line(s) 328 (click to see context) from:
** It's equally confusing why Buttercup would love him, when he literally never said more than two words to her up until the day she declared her love for him, and once he does start talking he continuously insults her intelligence (yeah, she is dumb, but you don’t keep telling the girl you supposedly love that she's an idiot, or start that right back up again after years of separation) then is gone a couple hours later. Ignoring Buttercup's Baby, I don't see this relationship lasting a week once they actually have to start interacting like normal people and get past how hot the other is.
to:
** It's equally confusing why Buttercup would love him, when he literally never said more than two three words to her up until the day she declared her love for him, and once he does start talking he continuously insults her intelligence (yeah, she is dumb, but you don’t keep telling the girl you supposedly love that she's an idiot, or start that right back up again after years of separation) then is gone a couple hours later. Ignoring Buttercup's Baby, I don't see this relationship lasting a week once they actually have to start interacting like normal people and get past how hot the other is.
Changed line(s) 384,385 (click to see context) from:
** In the book, Westley could already walk feebly and Fezzik had to hit the door thre or four times to knock it down and then had no idea which corridor Westley had gone down. In the movie, Westley may have had Fezzik carry him and then given him a distracting quest so that he could face Humperdinck and reunite with Buttercup alone.
to:
** In the book, Westley could already walk feebly and Fezzik had to hit the door thre three or four times to knock it down and then had no idea which corridor Westley had gone down. In the movie, Westley may have had Fezzik carry him and then given him a distracting quest so that he could face Humperdinck and reunite with Buttercup alone.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** The plan called for people to get so outraged over the death of Buttercup, their beloved and beautiful princess, that they outright demand war. It's unlikely that they're going to be quite as outraged and in a mood to go to war over the death of Rugen, Humperdinck's creepy mate who liked to torture people. Not to mention that it's implied that the whole affair is going to leave Humperdinck, if not discredited, then having taken some significant dents to his reputation as a result ("Let him live with his cowardice."), meaning that people aren't necessarily going to blindly trust what he has to say.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 445 (click to see context) from:
to:
** Westley states the rules as follows: "Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink." Vizzini's mistake was in assuming more rules than were stated. He assumed his only choices were the two goblets (which is exactly what Westley was banking on), but he could just as easily have chosen to drink from the bottle or from some other source that he knew Westley hadn't tampered with, without violating the rules.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 419 (click to see context) from:
to:
** It is also a way to tell a pre-teen boy that a kiss was supposed to be passionate [[KissingDiscretionShot without having to actually describe the kiss]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Your standard JRPGs and ''The Princess Bride'' share influences from similar sources, such as fairy tales and fantasy fiction, where such kind of exotic and unusual quests, characters and settings are commonplace.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 143 (click to see context) from:
to:
** Perhaps she simply just froze up in panic / fear? Considering that she's not an action hero, she's completely unused to being in dangerous situations and she's about to be kidnapped by three men, one of whom is a swordsman and the other of whom is a ''literal giant'', I think calling Buttercup 'stupid' and 'useless' in this situation is a wee bit uncharitable. She might not have reacted particularly ''competently'' to events, but it's still an entirely natural human reaction to being in a high-stress situation and not knowing what to do. Some people fight, some people flee, some people freeze up. It happens.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 111 (click to see context) from:
to:
** Westley striking Buttercup arguably falls under DeliberateValuesDissonance. The story is set at a time where standards about spousal abuse were a bit different than they are now. Not entirely admirable, perhaps, but there it is.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 415,416 (click to see context) from:
** It's a parody of fairy tales. Fairy tales are filled with characters who are apparently "the most beautiful woman in the world" and are exchanging perfect, love-defining kisses with each other and the like. In this case, it's taking the concept to the extreme of suggesting that, if the author is to be believed, someone has apparently gone around chronicling and ranking the best kisses ever regardless of how pointless and meaningless such a list would be. It's absurdism. We're supposed to chuckle at the ridiculous idea of someone (probably with a clipboard) going around measuring people's kisses and ranking them, not querulously demand to know what empirical framework he's basing it on.
to:
** It's a parody of fairy tales. Fairy tales are filled with characters who are apparently "the most beautiful woman in the world" and are exchanging perfect, love-defining kisses with each other and the like.like, despite all of that being entirely subjective and depending on the people involved and the culture they live in. In this case, it's taking the concept to the extreme of suggesting that, if the author is to be believed, someone has apparently gone around chronicling and ranking the best kisses ever regardless of how pointless and meaningless such a list would be. It's absurdism. We're supposed to chuckle at the ridiculous idea of someone (probably with a clipboard) going around measuring people's kisses and ranking them, not querulously demand to know what empirical framework he's basing it on.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 424,425 (click to see context) from:
*** To expand on this, it's possible that he is the boy's maternal grandfather, and therefore the boy's father is not a blood member of the family and didn't "inherit" the tradition.
to:
*** To expand on this, it's possible that he is the boy's maternal ''maternal'' grandfather, and therefore the boy's father is not a blood member of the family and didn't "inherit" the tradition.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Typo, although considering what a "halocaust cloak" would do made me laugh.
Changed line(s) 158,159 (click to see context) from:
** It's a Halocaust cloak. Where did you get the magic sheet from?
to:
** It's a Halocaust Holocaust cloak. Where did you get the magic sheet from?
