It is sometimes a mistake to revisit what you thought was perfection. I’m a long-time admirer of the “Back to the Future” trilogy, which I view as the pinnacle of original, careful, creative, professional scripting and direction. I’ve seen all three films many times, but this week I started watching them again after at least a decade.
This time, for some reason, I noticed logical fallacies and holes in the plot (and time travel logic) that had never registered on me before. (No, I’m not talking about Marty’s cute girlfriend being inexplicably replaced by Elizabeth Shue, never to be seen again.) It didn’t diminish my enjoyment or admiration for the trilogy (I regard “Back to the Future 2” as by far the best middle installment of any film trio), but it was disappointing. Mostly, I was disappointed in myself for taking so long to pick up on the flaws.
But I digress. Let’s see what ethics controversies you can unpack today.
Ethics Alarms 
Ehh… I’m usually decent at shutting off my brain a little for enjoyable movies. I may note issues, but I try to move on. It has to be mostly enjoyable though. The more fun it is, the easier it is to cope with things that might otherwise cause a response like Lewis Black had in his “International House of Pancakes” bit. Back To the Future is easily good enough to ignore the logic flaws. Had some nice things like renaming the mall from Twin Pines to Lone Pine because Marty crashed into a tree. Star Wars qualifies for the same treatment.
For an extreme example, consider the Pacific Rim movie. Described by Honest Trailers as “either the awesomest dumb movie ever made, or dumbest awesome move ever made. Either way its awesome… but so so dumb.” that may be a little off on the actual wording, but it’s about how I feel about it.
It’s heavily affected by how serious the movie seems to be taking itself.
For an extreme example, consider the Pacific Rim movie. Described by Honest Trailers as “either the awesomest dumb movie ever made, or dumbest awesome move ever made. Either way its awesome… but so so dumb.” that may be a little off on the actual wording, but it’s about how I feel about it.
I’m sorry, that movie belongs to Starship Troopers…or my wife’s personal favorite, Hot Fuzz.
I have only seen clips of Starship Troopers, not the whole thing (thank goodness).
All I can say is that 1)Heinlein is spinning in his grave over what they did to his novel, and 2)Heinlein is also cursing them for not having bought the rights whilst he was still alive. One can only hope that the estate got a good chunk for it.
“I noticed logical fallacies and holes in the plot (and time travel logic) that had never registered on me before.”
Just wondering if you’re talking about this Jack:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBoPdUOWfXo
I would warn you if you delve too deep into this rabbit hole, you might find out Indiana Jones is utterly useless to the plot in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
So is Luke Skywalker in both “The Empire Strikes Back” and “Return of the Jedi”. I’m seeing Hamill in a few hours, but I’m not going to tell him that.
Indy isn’t useless, though. The Nazis followed him to Nepal and the headpiece of the Staff of Ra. Presumably, if they had known it was there, they wouldn’t have waited for Indy to lead them to it. Without him, the ark doesn’t get found.
But since it gets squirreled sway in a massive government warehouse anyway, it made no difference whether it was found or not, except a bunch of people were killed in the transfer from one hole to another. True, most of the victims were Nazis.
except that, as Indy or his friend said to the government agents: an army that holds the ark would be invincible.
at the end, America had the ark, meaning God is on our side.
Yay, America!
-Jut
But the Nazis never would have found the ark except that Indy, like an idiot, ostentatiously dug for it so the Nazis could see the real location. He was willing to risk Hitler getting the thing because he wanted the glory. Since Jones knew that they didn’t have an accurate map, the safest thing was to just let the ark stay where it was. And “an army that holds the ark would be invincible” was obvious superstitious nonsense. In fact, the army that opened the ark to see what was inside would have their heads melted. Hack, if Indy let the Nazis keep the ark, it might have wiped them out!
Another plot hole…His escape from being left in the Ark’s cave was through a structure clearly visible nearby on the surface, though somehow apparently never looted or explored.
Just finished watching the National Geographic three (3) episode Cult Massacre: One Day In Jonestown.
1) Pleased to see they’re capable of producing something where a thinly veiled Global Warming advocacy wasn’t injected into every nook-n-cranny.
2) YOIKES!!! Being a footloose-n-fancy free 23 at the time, I never paid it much attention, but this special sure showed there was unbelievably more to it than I’d remembered.
3) This would be (IMO) the earliest example of a merciless press Feeding Frenzy. In the 3rd episode, a reporter brow-beat a black woman and her child (both of whom had escaped) by unrelentingly badgering her to confess that had she been there, she would have offed herself AND her child; disgusting.
PWS
Was Shokin on to something?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/13/us/politics/hunter-biden-ukrainian-company.html
I’ve been a Mets fan since their inception, and I despise Fox News with every fiber of my being… but this truly was a remarkably tone-deaf move on the Mets’ part.
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/hawk-tuah-girls-first-pitch-mets-game-draws-angry-reaction-from-fans-awful-decision?intcmp=fb_fnc&intcmp=fb_fnc
I often share Jack’s articles over several Usenet newsgroups.
See here.
https://soc.culture.israel.narkive.com/sZQJuE54/another-day-another-fact-free-anti-trump-smear-from-the-axis#
Vogue magazine interviewed Tim Walz’s dog. We are toast.
jvb
My wife and I were discussing the DNC platform regarding pushing for removing parental notification for “gender-affirming” treatments, and I was struck with a thought. Could it be that the DNC and its supporters are not thinking they are trying to strip parental rights away from conservatives, but are instead trying to support the continued abdication of parenthood in their ranks? Is it possible they think getting rid of parental notification is actually an aid to those “parents” who have the attitude that school is entirely about daycare for their kids, and the kids should be able to do whatever the {insert profanity here} they want, just don’t bother me with it? Is this coming from a worldview that looks at abusive parents, absent parents, parents who view their children as a nuisance at best and a crippling handicap otherwise, and thus sees parents themselves as the greatest threat?