Timbosteron

I just want to try to give a bit of sense about time travelling, because the movie does so much wrong. And, because time travel is only a theory, there is no truth my thoughts are based on. So, the biggest problem of time travel is a probable paradox: you go back in time and keep your younger you from traveling back in time. This is only possible in a multiverse. So, if every decision creates a new timeline, this might all work. Just pretend time and the universes are a tree and its branches. A lot of branches. Every decision made a new branch. It you ever toss a coin at least there are two branches: one where you got head and one where you got tails. Your timeline starts somewhere in this tree: from your birth to your actual now (in this case you really can’t travel into the future, only back into YOUR present). Now you travel back in your timeline to a point, where you tossed that coin from before. You somehow manage it to disturb this coin throwing and it falls into the gutter. In that moment, a new branch is created. And this timeline is now unwritten and you travel with it. You will not be able to go into this new future and you can’t go back onto your branch to go into your old future. You have created a new timeline where you and your younger you exist. But if you go back to that coin toss and keep your previously time traveled yourself from disturbing the toss, then you are back on your first branch. The future hasn’t changed and you can travel to your old life, but you successfully created another future, where your coin toss went another way.

I hope that there will be Sequels: Sonarbabies - One beep beyond Polarbabies - The frozen ones Molarbabies - Now they bite

Wow, that was really a great story he told Blake. It's like Paul said, if we get a Brookcast, were Mel tells stories about his life, that would be great. I just think about, that not only people from the showbusiness, but elderly people in general have great stories to tell and they like to tell them. I think that might be an idea for a great podcast. Earwolf, anyone? Anyone?

Yeah, I did grow up with the old Mad Max. Only liked the first. I do get your points, I think my biggest problem with fury road are just the characters. As soon as I do not care for even one of them, I get bored. Just like Lord of the rings. I just did not care. I'm with CinemaSins on this one.

I do not understand, why people like fury road (no offense). I found it boring and I didn't care about the characters. But it was better than Frogtown...

Yeah, we want to know which piece of movie history we have to watch next. Maybe something with less rape, less frogs but more trained seduction techniques in army underwear...

I heard that once in a documentary. Just went to wikipedia and it seems like I'm totally wrong.

And, to contribute information no one asked for: Döner is a german invention. Well, kinda. It was the idea of a Turkish immigrant in the 70s or 80s (Yes, 1970/1980) who thought about a food you could eat on the go.

Oh, he just dreamed about a princess walking in to kiss him. Oh, wait. They should have put that in the movie. The reading frog walking up to blondie and beg her to kiss him.

I think I can answer it. In the commentary the director says the art department fucked it up a little and made it to unreadable. The sign says: "Welcome to Frogtown - If you lived here, you'd be home". Which is insanely correct. And by the way: I prefer the live episodes. Even though sometimes the audience is hard to understand, I just think it is more fun.

Thank you for that. Didn't knew it and it is one of those beautiful knowledge that no one needs.

They could have shaped the whole plot around that. Instead of "fucking for freedom".

The director had planned to have several stages of mutation. Some light ones, where only a part is frog, and some full frogs. So I think they supposed to be humans.

They say that the male population was reduced by 68%. And from that 32% living men, most of them are sterile. So, the movie takes place around 2010. At that time the population of the USA was about 300,000,000. Let's say m/f ratio is about 50/50, that makes 150,000,000 men. "Most of the population is sterile". Let's say that means 75%. So there might be 12,000,000 fertile men left in the US. Sounds like a lot. But the big problem is to find them. There is no real government, no good infrastructure and every man counts. Even though it would be more than enough men to repopulate earth, the big problem might be the organisation. But that makes it even more insane, that they didn't collect his sperm.

So, first of all: a woman who sees Sam Hell starts ovulating immediately. And if not: They just inject "Odadol" to "facilitate procreation". And it's the future and that's how it works now.

I'm not sure about this. I mean, yes, it all sound like he's a rapist, but it couldn't be the intention of the writers to make a rapist the hero of a movie. Let's say he didn't rape the daughter of Count Sodom but he surprised them lying in bed and is protective about his daughter and the little whore says "He raped me daddy!" because...well she's a slut. So then she realizes she's pregnant (don't think about the timeframe, makes no sense) and changes her mind. Because she sees the Flag outside the window and as patriotic as a mattress can be she calls medtech and reports him as fertile. So maybe he just likes to fuck ("You've left a string of pregnancies everywhere you've been.") and the charges are others. I only remember "theft" as one of them. I know, he still rapes the girl from the desert. But that's his job.

There is something that really bothers me. So he's one of the few men (not the only one) who can reproduce. As mentioned in the podcast they really should get as much sperm as they can from him, put it in the freezer and use it over and over. But, instead of sending armed men, a few soldiers with rifles to Frogtown, who then get the kidnapped women, they sent him. He, who is so valuable, is sent on a dangerous mission, because...? Because he needs to fuck'em as soon as possible? Just keep him safe, let him wank in a cup, get the girls and stop let him hump every woman he sees.

Believe it or not, this was intentional. The director and the writer claim that it was supposed to look like the typical movies, like Flash Gordon (not my example), where the hero is dirty and maybe full of blood and the next scene cleaner that ever.

Yes, it is shot at Vasquez Rocks (they talk about it in the commentary). Then I think he might just said it wrong and thought about "unit" or something. So ECR makes sense. (btw.: the director still owns it)

Ok, I just watched the movie a second time (which wasn't fun at all), but this time I listened to the audio commentary by director Donald G. Jackson and script writer Randall Frakes. And they shared some nice information about the movie. And I want to share some of it with you guys. The idea for frogtown came to Donald G. Jackson during the shooting of the last scene of his movie "Rollerblade". Wile on the set he "turned around and somebody [...] had spray-painted on a brick wall the name "Frogtown". And I turned to the actors I was working with and said: 'You know what? That's a sign. That's our next movie: Frogtown.'" The script was written in under a week due to a bet. The director told the scriptwriter (Randall Frakes), that he'll get 500 extra Dollars if he can write the script in under a week. He finished it in 6 days which explains a lot. The director always thought of Hell Comes to Frogtown as a franchise. He wanted comic books, toys, a tv-series "all the things that 'Turtles' later get". Imagine a franchise based on a rapist. Sounds promising. Some raunchiness of the script had to go, because over time too many producers where involved, and they all wanted to change parts of the script. So a lot of nudity was cut from the script and even the dance for the three snakes was shortened. Bergman improvised the dance (which is kinda obvious) and even got a bit more further and be more erotic but was cut due to executives. Jackson and Frakes wanted Pam Grier to play Centinella (and she was interested in the part) but the executives producers thought "an interracial love scene might hurt businesses". In the early "vision" it was more like a martial arts movie with fight scenes with wires, swords and samurai-inspired costumes but the executives just didn't like it. "I really wanted it to be a samurai spaghetti western" (Donald G. Jackson) The strange sexist vibe of the movie, might be the fault (or the intention) of writer Randall Frakes, who wanted it to be a pro-feminist and simultaneously a pro-chauvinist movie. Jackson and Frakes share another interesting fact, how their vision of the movie got pushed back. The main villain Toady should have had not only three dicks but also four arms. And even though the costumes where already designed, one executive said, it would be to expensive to pay the extra puppeteers. The writer got extremely angry about this, because the executives already changed too much. The same executive asked one day: "Could we do the movie without any frogs?" Anyway, after writer Frakes wrote a letter to all executives he officially was no longer part of the project and director Jackson was threatened that he would be next. ECR meant "electronic control ring" but was originally written as "electronic cock ring".

I want to delete my post. But that doesn't work. So, here's nothing to see.

I just found this little gem: 24 Reasons Solarbabies & Maze Runner Are The Same Movie

I'm wondering what this line might be in the german version. I'm quite sure they changed it so much, that it makes no sense at all. Buuuut, I'm no willing to buy that movie so I will never know. But I don't hink I'll miss much.

Just found a review of the NY Times: "Bruce Jenner plays an uptight lawyer, and the comic high point of the film occurs when he spills dinner and has to take off his pants. Valerie Perrine plays a woman. In the boy-meet-boy world of the movie, this is something of a novelty, but it doesn't make for much of a role. The intervals between musical numbers are mostly dead air." http://www.nytimes.c...755C0A966948260