Flubber 1997 Not because it was such a memorably great trailer, but just because it was so misleading. I don't want to watch that shitty movie all over again just to verify my claims but what I recall was, there were entire scenes or shots in the trailer that weren't in the movie at all, and they were kind of the best bits. I definitely expected a lot more crazy hijinks and time spent in the flying car with sentient mischievous green goo then what I remember ending up with. The whole flubber material having some will of its own too I seem to recall was a much less prominent aspect of the movie than was implied, it seemed to be just goo most of the time. So much screen time was spent worrying about the Professor's marriage and conflict with the University faculty, which was so boring for a kid especially when they marketed it so heavily and I was given to expect so different. Don't know if I'd have liked the 60's version better, from what I read and see in the trailer it does look like pretty much the same movie so likely suffered the same issues.
- Posts
- 22
- Comments
- 611
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 22
- Comments
- 611
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
Hmm yeh that's definitely a pressure point issue there. I guess I do self-censor somewhat in that I know the type of reception that can be expected on that topic if not following the orthodoxy so unless I'm prepared to vigorously defend something I have to say on it, then I generally don't say much on it, wouldn't want to go in half-cocked or try to persuade any one of anything unless I was pretty sure it was a new insightful take that might be able to ride above the fray and bridge some fundamental disagreements.
From my perspective, it's difficult to say how your comments exactly contravene this rule 1 as stated directly. But then you did go ahead and suggest Russia should be wiped off the map as part of your defence of why it isn't reasonable to use corruption as a pretext to wipe another country off the map. I think suggesting that as a fait acompli conclusion and the only option was bound to raise a few eyebrows and while it doesn't neatly explicitly fit the categories mentioned in rule 1, I guess one could say that that suggestion dances around a mixture of 3 of them. Maybe someone was trying to shoehorn the statement in to one of the existing rules as pretext.