Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
*** Veruca Salt: A spoiled rich girl in both versions, but '71 Veruca is louder and brattier while '05 Veruca is colder and snobbier.
to:
*** Veruca Salt: A spoiled rich girl in both versions, but '71 Veruca is louder and brattier while '05 Veruca is colder and snobbier. And, of course, both versions have the aforementioned rivalry with Violet Beauregarde.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Aside from Augustus Gloop, who is relatively unchanged between the films, this also applies to the naughty children:
*** Violet Beauregarde: Violet's gum chewing obsession was pretty much her only vice in the 1971 version, but in the 2005 version she's made an obsessive competitor who has won numerous trophies and is [[{{ptitleau9tm7g2}} determined to win the factory at any cost]]. Also, both films portray her having a rivalry with Veruca Salt, whom she does not interact with in the original book.
*** Veruca Salt: A spoiled rich girl in both versions, but '71 Veruca is louder and brattier while '05 Veruca is colder and snobbier.
*** Mike Teavee: '71 Mike Teavee is so obsessed with TV Westerns that he goes around wearing a cowboy outfit and seems to find his Golden Ticket less interesting than the television. In the '05 version, his obsession is updated to include video games and he's additionally made an InsufferableGenius who looks down on Wonka for his [[ItRunsOnNonsensoleum nonsense inventions]].
*** Violet Beauregarde: Violet's gum chewing obsession was pretty much her only vice in the 1971 version, but in the 2005 version she's made an obsessive competitor who has won numerous trophies and is [[{{ptitleau9tm7g2}} determined to win the factory at any cost]]. Also, both films portray her having a rivalry with Veruca Salt, whom she does not interact with in the original book.
*** Veruca Salt: A spoiled rich girl in both versions, but '71 Veruca is louder and brattier while '05 Veruca is colder and snobbier.
*** Mike Teavee: '71 Mike Teavee is so obsessed with TV Westerns that he goes around wearing a cowboy outfit and seems to find his Golden Ticket less interesting than the television. In the '05 version, his obsession is updated to include video games and he's additionally made an InsufferableGenius who looks down on Wonka for his [[ItRunsOnNonsensoleum nonsense inventions]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
***While many people were offended by the Twin's stereotype black personalities, I found them hilarious because I instead read the message as Rednecks. Apparently they were also intended to be White-Dudes-Who-Act-Black, which I also find funny. Someone probably should've told Mr. Bay that you can't tell what c olor someone's skin is when you spray paint them two different colors!
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* TheManWhoKnewTooLittle provides an in-universe example. We're supposed to see Wallace Ritche as a bumbling fool who accidently foils an international conspiracy to start the cold war back up. But if you look at it from the point of view of those actually in the conspiracy...
** We get the American Agent, a man with no name except for when he stole the code name of other agent he murdered. A double agent, already working for both the CIA and the Mafia, he laughs at and mocks peoples attempts to kill him, and apologizes for being too loud after shooting at someone. He pretends to execute people just to cover up his murder of other people, and plays with dead bodies just to make sure they really are dead. He often acts bored or just plain annoyed by life-threatening situations. He cannot understand emotions, nor why a woman would cry at the thought of her selling herself sexually because of desperate financial need. He holds prisoners in front of two perfectly ordinary people by claiming to just be an actor, not breaking a sweat. He dodges a poisonous dart by interposing a matroishka doll in the way, while disarming the bomb inside it, all while making it look like interpretive dance to a large televised crowd. And at any point, it's never clear whether or not he's doing or saying something just for his own amusement. In short, this is James Bond if he were even less professional and at least slightly sadistic.
*** Lori, however, thinks that all of his personality issues is just a cover for a genuinely decent man, presumably to keep his enemies in the dark about how dangerous he is, or in an attempt to psych them out. After all, after all his work, he was far more concerned about that matroishka doll than three million dollars, and was extremely humble about foiling the bomb plot.
** We get the American Agent, a man with no name except for when he stole the code name of other agent he murdered. A double agent, already working for both the CIA and the Mafia, he laughs at and mocks peoples attempts to kill him, and apologizes for being too loud after shooting at someone. He pretends to execute people just to cover up his murder of other people, and plays with dead bodies just to make sure they really are dead. He often acts bored or just plain annoyed by life-threatening situations. He cannot understand emotions, nor why a woman would cry at the thought of her selling herself sexually because of desperate financial need. He holds prisoners in front of two perfectly ordinary people by claiming to just be an actor, not breaking a sweat. He dodges a poisonous dart by interposing a matroishka doll in the way, while disarming the bomb inside it, all while making it look like interpretive dance to a large televised crowd. And at any point, it's never clear whether or not he's doing or saying something just for his own amusement. In short, this is James Bond if he were even less professional and at least slightly sadistic.
*** Lori, however, thinks that all of his personality issues is just a cover for a genuinely decent man, presumably to keep his enemies in the dark about how dangerous he is, or in an attempt to psych them out. After all, after all his work, he was far more concerned about that matroishka doll than three million dollars, and was extremely humble about foiling the bomb plot.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** RuleOfFunny and/or RuleOfCool is pretty much the only reason Elwood gets away with the first.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Elwood Blues, good man who occasionally gets in the way of the law, but is willing to try so hard to save his orphanage... or destructive psycopath who should spend the rest of his life in jail for reckless behavior, especially regarding his driving through the mall, which no doubt resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damages as well as endangering the lives of everyone in the mall.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Actually, the fact that we only see one of Boss Nass' type would pretty much guarantee that he is the male (Assuming the dichotomy is of a reproductive sort). A society of a few males and many females is viable (One male may impregnate an arbitrarily large amount of females), but a few females and many males (Or neuters) would require the females to be giving birth at excessive rates.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 164 (click to see context) from:
** And while we're on the subject of Avatar, what about our science team? Their research is all well and good, but we're not HERE to study the neural network. If you want to study the network, go home and find someone to fun an expedition to study it. We're here for the rock. Especially YOU, Jake Sully. You're SUPPOSED to be convincing the Na'vi to let us mine the Unobtainium, not boning Na'vi women. If you did your job, it wouldn't have come to violence.
to:
** And while we're on the subject of Avatar, what about our science team? Their research is all well and good, but we're not HERE to study the neural network. If you want to study the network, go home and find someone to fun an expedition to study it. We're here for the rock. Especially YOU, Jake Sully. You're SUPPOSED to be convincing the Na'vi to let us mine the Unobtainium, {{Unobtainium}}, not boning Na'vi women. If you did your job, it wouldn't have come to violence.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Even then, he wasn't trying to wipe them out. He was trying to break their spirits by destroying their holy sites, so that they would lose the will to fight, minimalizing casualties. It's important to remember when watching the movie that everything he does is to AVOID having to resort to genocide.
** And while we're on the subject of Avatar, what about our science team? Their research is all well and good, but we're not HERE to study the neural network. If you want to study the network, go home and find someone to fun an expedition to study it. We're here for the rock. Especially YOU, Jake Sully. You're SUPPOSED to be convincing the Na'vi to let us mine the Unobtainium, not boning Na'vi women. If you did your job, it wouldn't have come to violence.
** And while we're on the subject of Avatar, what about our science team? Their research is all well and good, but we're not HERE to study the neural network. If you want to study the network, go home and find someone to fun an expedition to study it. We're here for the rock. Especially YOU, Jake Sully. You're SUPPOSED to be convincing the Na'vi to let us mine the Unobtainium, not boning Na'vi women. If you did your job, it wouldn't have come to violence.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** There's quite a bit of AlternateCharacterInterpretation present just between the novels and the films. Luke Skywalker: desperate kid with marginal Jedi training, or most powerful Jedi who ever lived? Boba Fett: Just some bounty hunter who had Han Solo handed to him by Darth Vader, then was killed by a blind man flailing, or the Ultimate Badass of the Universe? As the above troper notes, in the novels, Yoda holds back fighting Dooku and could actually completely destroy him in a legitimate fight, but this is never suggested in any way in the films, where Dooku seems to hold his own just fine against Yoda. And let's not forget the most notorious example of AlternateCharacterInterpretation, between different versions of the SAME film: who shot first?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Don't forget the two interpretations of Ash in ArmyOfDarkness alone each exemplified by the [[AlternateEnding alternate endings]]. In the first ending where Ash drinks too much potion and sleeps too long he is portrayed as more of a bumbling fool who is literally unable to follow simple instructions. In the second ending where we cut back to S-Mart in time for Ash to kick ass when some zombies show up for an encore, he comes off as more BrilliantButLazy. It's not that he ''can't'' follow instructions or hold a better job, he just can't be bothered. This is backed up by the tools and science textbooks in the back of his car and his general nonchalance throughout the whole picture.
*** Sam Rami has stated that he wanted the first ending to make Ash look like more of an idiot, however in an interview Bruce Campbell said that Ash was actually quite brilliant, but he worked at S-Mart because it was the only place he felt loved. You decide.
*** Sam Rami has stated that he wanted the first ending to make Ash look like more of an idiot, however in an interview Bruce Campbell said that Ash was actually quite brilliant, but he worked at S-Mart because it was the only place he felt loved. You decide.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 92 (click to see context) from:
**** No, no. This is all touched upon in the novel "Yoda: Dark Rendezvous". Yoda has not lost hope that his ex-apprentice can go back to being good and probably held back in that fight - Heaven knows he holds back in the fight which he has in that book. At one point he just looks at Dooku and the guy recoils in horror because his ex-Master's face reminded him of Palpatine (it makes sense in context). Yoda can wipe the floor with him if he chooses; he just can't bring himself to kill him while there still might be hope of him turning back (and other guys to be saved).
to:
**** No, no. This is all touched upon in the novel "Yoda: Dark Rendezvous".DarkRendezvous". Yoda has not lost hope that his ex-apprentice can go back to being good and probably held back in that fight - Heaven knows he holds back in the fight which he has in that book. At one point he just looks at Dooku and the guy recoils in horror because his ex-Master's face reminded him of Palpatine (it makes sense in context). Yoda can wipe the floor with him if he chooses; he just can't bring himself to kill him while there still might be hope of him turning back (and other guys to be saved).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**** This Troper doesn't know the film makers, but does know the writer/creator. He wasn't trying to provoke people into outrage by being controversial and vulgar, he was trying to get people to actually think about it and decide for themselves (well, okay, the controversial part was on purpose, but that was far from the point of the movie). Also, it adds to the psychological thriller aspect when you find yourself either conflicted about who to root or be afraid for, or rooting/fearing for both parties, when, contrasted with just about any other protagonist, they'd be monsters who you'd want to see taken down. There is no right answer, it's subjective, and yes, that does add to the weight of the film.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 183 (click to see context) from:
* The producers of ''DropDeadFred'' want you to believe it's a story about a woman whose ImaginaryFriend is actually a NotSoImaginaryFriend, and helps her conquer her fears. The more reasonable explanation (contradicted by alarmingly little in the film itself) is that it's the story of a woman suffering from late-onset schizophrenia and increasingly violent delusions. And yes, this was taken from TheNostalgiaCritic's review.
to:
* The producers of ''DropDeadFred'' want you to believe it's a story about a woman whose ImaginaryFriend is actually a NotSoImaginaryFriend, and helps her conquer her fears. The more reasonable explanation (contradicted by alarmingly little in the film itself) is that it's the story of a woman suffering from late-onset schizophrenia and increasingly violent delusions. And yes, this was taken from TheNostalgiaCritic's review.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* John Carpenter's TheThing has a few of these, still debated about on the Outpost 31 forums. Most of these questions were intentionally left ambiguous to allow the viewers to try to figure it out for themselves, according to [[WordOfGod Carpenter on the DVD commentary]].
** Is/Are Mack and/or Childs infected?
** Would a person be aware that they're a Thing? Or would they experience something like blackouts when the Things take over?
** What is the origin of the Things?
*** Biological weapon?
*** Science experiment gone horribly wrong (or for that matter, GoneHorriblyRight)?
*** Primitive life form that uses assimilation as a means of reproduction?
*** Super highly evolved life form that has evolved into a shape-shifter that can incorporate the genetics of other creatures into its own?
*** Some sort of alien "super flu"? Or alien cancer?
*** Nanotech. Some believe the Things are not actually carbon-based life forms.
** How is it possible for the Things to remember so many DNA signatures?
*** They don't. They get rid of old or less-useful DNA signatures when they squire new ones. This would mean that they can only imitate so many organisms.
*** All of the cells act like braincells, remembering the DNA signatures like any other memory. This limits their forms to what information can be stored in an individual form (ie: the Blair Monster could remember more genetic information than the blood sample).
*** Quantum computing. This means that even a small amount of Thing biomass could store nearly limitless amounts of information.
*** "LEGO Genetics". The Things don't have to remember entire DNA strands, as they can re-arrange their own DNA structures. They only need to remember how to organize their DNA, much like one would learn LEGO diagrams. This is compatible with the latter two theories and explains mutations that seem to be more along the lines of "merged parts of other creatures" (like the "dog tongue/teeth flower"), rather then identifiable appendages (such as the spider-like legs, tentacles, eye stalks, etc.).
** Does the Thing like the cold? Or would it have preferred to have been on an inhabited tropical island?
*** They can survive being frozen for hundreds of thousands of years.
*** If they were used to cold weather, then Blair-Thing could've shifted into a couple of sled dogs and run off, to jump into the ocean and start assimilating the rest of the world. Instead, it stays where it's warm and builds a ship to at least get the hell out of Antarctica.
** Are the "rules" such as "it has to be alone to assimilate someone" or "it rips your clothing when it takes you over" actual rules governing the Things? Some feel these are absolute rules, others feel that they're situational observations.
*** They may prefer to be alone with the victim during assimilation, since that lessens the chance of attack by the victim's comrades. But if the victims are perceived as non-threats, they may try to assimilate many of them at once. The mass assimilation theory is supported by the "dogtown" sequence, where Jed attacks and assimilates multiple dogs.
*** The clothes ripping thing may only be because of a "fast" or "aggressive" assimilation, which would cause the victim's body to mutate rapidly. A slow assimilation may simply manifest itself as an infection, with no outward mutations, and thus, no clothes ripping.
** What's up with the alien ship?
*** It crashed. (Supported by WordOfGod)
*** It landed on purpose, but began to sink into the ice, due to heat from re-entry.
*** It was a "controlled crash", minimizing damage to the top of the craft, but perhaps grinding off the bottom portion of the craft.
** Why did the ship crash?
*** Mechanical malfunction. Causes vary from impact or weapons damage, to damages caused by Things or the fight with the Things onboard the ship. Also includes the possibility of simple wear-and-tear causing the space ship equivalent of a flat tire, with the guidance and/or propulsion systems.
*** The Pilot got killed or assimilated at a bad time.
*** They crashed on purpose as a last-ditch effort to stop the Things from gaining control of the ship.
** Why Antarctica?
*** It was a crash. They didn't have a choice in the matter.
*** It was the aliens trying to land somewhere where the Things couldn't get very far from the ship.
** Why were they in the area, anyhow?
*** Just passing through.
*** Exploration.
*** Seeking new life to assimilate.
*** Smuggling Things as bio-weapons, or otherwise on the run from the space cops.
*** Navigation system failure. (Supported by the wobbling of the ship in flight).
*** Enjoying the sights. Given the ship's size, maybe it was an interstellar luxury liner. (insert Titanic joke here).
** Why do the Things make so many mistakes? I though they were supposed to be super-smart.
*** See [[Tremors Tremors 2]] for a parallel situation. They may simply seem smart in some cases, but are acting purely on instinct.
*** Alien intelligence may not work on the same type of logic as human intelligence. Even some intelligent earth creatures do things that are counter-intuitive to humans (and no-doubt perceive much of what we do as counter-intuitive). As such, their actions may have payed off for eons before they came into contact with humans.
*** Things may be powerful aliens, but they're not God. They're certainly not omniscient, at least.
*** They've been frozen for hundreds of thousands of years. Maybe they're suffering from an epic case of brain freeze, or cabin fever, or something.
*** At the very least, they predate humanity. They could've been frozen or kept in stasis for billions of years prior to the crash, giving them little time to brush up on situational protocols. Note that toward the end of the movie, one can't be sure that either or both of the survivors haven't been assimilated.
** Is/Are Mack and/or Childs infected?
** Would a person be aware that they're a Thing? Or would they experience something like blackouts when the Things take over?
** What is the origin of the Things?
*** Biological weapon?
*** Science experiment gone horribly wrong (or for that matter, GoneHorriblyRight)?
*** Primitive life form that uses assimilation as a means of reproduction?
*** Super highly evolved life form that has evolved into a shape-shifter that can incorporate the genetics of other creatures into its own?
*** Some sort of alien "super flu"? Or alien cancer?
*** Nanotech. Some believe the Things are not actually carbon-based life forms.
** How is it possible for the Things to remember so many DNA signatures?
*** They don't. They get rid of old or less-useful DNA signatures when they squire new ones. This would mean that they can only imitate so many organisms.
*** All of the cells act like braincells, remembering the DNA signatures like any other memory. This limits their forms to what information can be stored in an individual form (ie: the Blair Monster could remember more genetic information than the blood sample).
*** Quantum computing. This means that even a small amount of Thing biomass could store nearly limitless amounts of information.
*** "LEGO Genetics". The Things don't have to remember entire DNA strands, as they can re-arrange their own DNA structures. They only need to remember how to organize their DNA, much like one would learn LEGO diagrams. This is compatible with the latter two theories and explains mutations that seem to be more along the lines of "merged parts of other creatures" (like the "dog tongue/teeth flower"), rather then identifiable appendages (such as the spider-like legs, tentacles, eye stalks, etc.).
** Does the Thing like the cold? Or would it have preferred to have been on an inhabited tropical island?
*** They can survive being frozen for hundreds of thousands of years.
*** If they were used to cold weather, then Blair-Thing could've shifted into a couple of sled dogs and run off, to jump into the ocean and start assimilating the rest of the world. Instead, it stays where it's warm and builds a ship to at least get the hell out of Antarctica.
** Are the "rules" such as "it has to be alone to assimilate someone" or "it rips your clothing when it takes you over" actual rules governing the Things? Some feel these are absolute rules, others feel that they're situational observations.
*** They may prefer to be alone with the victim during assimilation, since that lessens the chance of attack by the victim's comrades. But if the victims are perceived as non-threats, they may try to assimilate many of them at once. The mass assimilation theory is supported by the "dogtown" sequence, where Jed attacks and assimilates multiple dogs.
*** The clothes ripping thing may only be because of a "fast" or "aggressive" assimilation, which would cause the victim's body to mutate rapidly. A slow assimilation may simply manifest itself as an infection, with no outward mutations, and thus, no clothes ripping.
** What's up with the alien ship?
*** It crashed. (Supported by WordOfGod)
*** It landed on purpose, but began to sink into the ice, due to heat from re-entry.
*** It was a "controlled crash", minimizing damage to the top of the craft, but perhaps grinding off the bottom portion of the craft.
** Why did the ship crash?
*** Mechanical malfunction. Causes vary from impact or weapons damage, to damages caused by Things or the fight with the Things onboard the ship. Also includes the possibility of simple wear-and-tear causing the space ship equivalent of a flat tire, with the guidance and/or propulsion systems.
*** The Pilot got killed or assimilated at a bad time.
*** They crashed on purpose as a last-ditch effort to stop the Things from gaining control of the ship.
** Why Antarctica?
*** It was a crash. They didn't have a choice in the matter.
*** It was the aliens trying to land somewhere where the Things couldn't get very far from the ship.
** Why were they in the area, anyhow?
*** Just passing through.
*** Exploration.
*** Seeking new life to assimilate.
*** Smuggling Things as bio-weapons, or otherwise on the run from the space cops.
*** Navigation system failure. (Supported by the wobbling of the ship in flight).
*** Enjoying the sights. Given the ship's size, maybe it was an interstellar luxury liner. (insert Titanic joke here).
** Why do the Things make so many mistakes? I though they were supposed to be super-smart.
*** See [[Tremors Tremors 2]] for a parallel situation. They may simply seem smart in some cases, but are acting purely on instinct.
*** Alien intelligence may not work on the same type of logic as human intelligence. Even some intelligent earth creatures do things that are counter-intuitive to humans (and no-doubt perceive much of what we do as counter-intuitive). As such, their actions may have payed off for eons before they came into contact with humans.
*** Things may be powerful aliens, but they're not God. They're certainly not omniscient, at least.
*** They've been frozen for hundreds of thousands of years. Maybe they're suffering from an epic case of brain freeze, or cabin fever, or something.
*** At the very least, they predate humanity. They could've been frozen or kept in stasis for billions of years prior to the crash, giving them little time to brush up on situational protocols. Note that toward the end of the movie, one can't be sure that either or both of the survivors haven't been assimilated.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Or is she a JerkassWoobie who has no one to guide her in anything but becoming a ManipulativeBastard Chessmaster and may never realise she doesn't have to be LonelyAtTheTop?
** And is Jim simply a member of the NobleProfession whose entire life was destroyed by Tracy? Or someone who couldn't admit to himself his marriage was falling apart, and took all his lifes fustrations out by sabotarging the election of a student he had resentment (and FoeYay, or NoYay) against? It was a ''student election'', losing it would hardly stop her from moving up in the world as he told himself it would.
** And is Jim simply a member of the NobleProfession whose entire life was destroyed by Tracy? Or someone who couldn't admit to himself his marriage was falling apart, and took all his lifes fustrations out by sabotarging the election of a student he had resentment (and FoeYay, or NoYay) against? It was a ''student election'', losing it would hardly stop her from moving up in the world as he told himself it would.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 182 (click to see context) from:
* ''FightClub'' (and YouShouldKnowThisAlready): [[http://ignatz.brinkster.net/cfightclub.html Jack and Tyler are Calvin and Hobbes]], grown up years later into the darkness of the very world that wanted to make Watterson sell out his vision for empty cash. This one will eventually expand out with the sub-reasons the continue to prove it.
to:
* ''FightClub'' (and YouShouldKnowThisAlready): [[http://ignatz.brinkster.net/cfightclub.html Jack and Tyler are Calvin and Hobbes]], grown up years later into the darkness of the very world that wanted to make Watterson sell out his vision for empty cash. This one will eventually expand be expanded out with the sub-reasons the continue to that continuously prove it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* ''FightClub'' (and YouShouldKnowThisAlready): [[http://ignatz.brinkster.net/cfightclub.html Jack and Tyler are Calvin and Hobbes]], grown up years later into the darkness of the very world that wanted to make Watterson sell out his vision for empty cash. This one will eventually expand out with the sub-reasons the continue to prove it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
alternative character interpretation does not equal "making stuff up"
Deleted line(s) 104,110 (click to see context) :
* ''{{Fight Club}}'': one interesting theory is that the characters from ''FightClub'' are the characters from ''{{Calvin And Hobbes}}'' all grown up. Essentially, all of Calvin's arguments with his father blew up until they had a massive falling out, explaining all of the Narrator's father issues. As Calvin grew up, he couldn't hang out with Hobbes any more, so he stopped carrying him around. Hobbes stayed in Calvin's psyche until he was particularly vulnerable, and then re-emerged as Tyler Durden. Since society frowns on people with imaginary friends or stuffed animals, Tyler's primary motivation is undermining society, so he can be with Calvin/Narrator forever. Susie Derkins finds drugs and washes out of college, adopting Marla as her hooker name until she only responds to it.
** The kids were in first grade, making the interpretation still possible, if rather far-fetched.
*** "I haven't been fucked like that since grade school!"
**** My Brain, you have broken him!
**** [[{{Squick}} God]]. [[PrecisionFStrike Fucking]]. [[CanonDefilement Damnit]].
**** Also consider that Susie always seemed more interested in Hobbes, and it's Durden that Marla ends up sleeping with.
** Given that Hobbes's argument from day one has been that HumansAreBastards, Tyler Durden really isn't that far of a stretch for him.
** The kids were in first grade, making the interpretation still possible, if rather far-fetched.
*** "I haven't been fucked like that since grade school!"
**** My Brain, you have broken him!
**** [[{{Squick}} God]]. [[PrecisionFStrike Fucking]]. [[CanonDefilement Damnit]].
**** Also consider that Susie always seemed more interested in Hobbes, and it's Durden that Marla ends up sleeping with.
** Given that Hobbes's argument from day one has been that HumansAreBastards, Tyler Durden really isn't that far of a stretch for him.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Similarly, was the ending to ''TheKingOfComedy'' real, or just the main character finally coming completely unglued?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* The producers of ''DropDeadFred'' want you to believe it's a story about a woman whose ImaginaryFriend is actually a NotSoImaginaryFriend, and helps her conquer her fears. The more reasonable explanation (contradicted by alarmingly little in the film itself) is that it's the story of a woman suffering from late-onset schizophrenia and increasingly violent delusions. And yes, this was taken from TheNostalgiaCritic's review.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** [[TheSkywalkerParadigm Darth Vader is the hero, Obi-Wan is the villain, and Luke is being kidnapped and brainwashed.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Speaking of {{Twincest}}, Leia has a fetish for it. That's why she kept flirting with Luke when she's "always known".
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Chewbacca convinced Han to go back for Luke to keep Luke and Leia from [[{{Twincest}} doing the do]]. Chewbacca knows Luke and Leia are twins, and knows that is [[NoJustNo very wrong]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* In the first ''EvilDead'' movie Ash reacts in much the same way you'd expect someone to react to zombies. By the third film, ''ArmyOfDarkness'' he's the one-liner spouting, ladies man, parody of the typical action hero we all love. The change, of course, happens in Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn. But, what if, instead of the character just changing due to his experience, it causes him to go insane, and begin behaving in a manner suggested by movies and the media in general? In fact, this can be pinned down to one scene. At one point in Evil Dead 2, everything in the house '''begins laughing'''. After a few moments Ash begins laughing as well. Perhaps this is where the weight of his friends (Or just girlfriend depending on whether you go by Evil Dead 2's recap, or the first movie) becoming demon possessed zombies that he was forced to kill, and he himself beings possessed for a short time. Going by this theory, you can even say that everything afterward, in both Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness is just one long hallucination, and Ash ''cut off his own hand for no good reason''. Perhaps the "knights" who capture Ash are really police and doctors, and the "castle" they take him to is a mental institution. And, if he is hallucinating, this would explain the much more lighthearted tone of Army of Darkness.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 105 (click to see context) from:
**** Also consider that Susie always seemed more interested in Hobbes, and it's Durden that Marla ends up sleeping with, SoYeah...
to:
**** Also consider that Susie always seemed more interested in Hobbes, and it's Durden that Marla ends up sleeping with, SoYeah...with.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* If [[http://mandeid.pie.st/pizza/gazo/pic/jason.html this image]] is anything other than a joke or someone with a [[FridayThe13th Jason fetish]], it qualifies for both this and WildMassGuessing
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 181 (click to see context) from:
* Is {{Chloe}} a PsychoLesbian StalkerWithACrush, or is she just a troubled young woman who has been sexually exploited by a selfish woman old enough to be her mother? Does she commit suicide by letting go of the window frame because she realizes Catherine will never love her, or does Catherine murder her by pushing her out the window because she, Catherine, [[DisposableSexWorker finds her inconvenient]]?
to:
* Is {{Chloe}} a PsychoLesbian StalkerWithACrush, or is she just a troubled young woman who has been sexually exploited by a selfish woman adulteress old enough to be her mother? Does she commit suicide by letting go of the window frame because she realizes Catherine will never love her, or does Catherine murder her by pushing her out the window because she, Catherine, [[DisposableSexWorker finds her inconvenient]]?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Is {{Chloe}} a PsychoLesbian StalkerWithACrush, or is she just a troubled young woman who has been sexually exploited by a selfish woman old enough to be her mother? Does she commit suicide by letting go of the window frame because she realizes Catherine will never love her, or does Catherine murder her by pushing her out the window because she, Catherine, [[DisposableSexWorker finds her inconvenient]]?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* ''28 Days Later:'' Is Major Henry West an [[CompleteMonster utter psychopath]] completely desensitised to human suffering, or is he just a desperate commander [[AFatherToHisMen trying to make sure all his "boys" survive the apocalypse]] [[WellIntentionedExtremist by any means necessary]]? The fact that he's [[spoiler:effectively ordering women to be raped]] pushes him a good way down the slippery slope, but listen to his justification for it. [[spoiler: And watch how he comforts Jones as he lies dying from a stomach wound, and his ultimate reaction to Jim's rampage. "You killed all my boys."]]
