Cakebug Tranch

Except sorry, Dan and Shannon. The best movie has already been chosen.

I would like to bring up the miracle of surgery that was depicted in this movie. The achievement of reattaching a donor arm is acknowledged several times, through the media coverage, and from Bill's declaration that she should win the Nobel Prize for Cool Surgery. But I don't think they're giving themselves all the credit they deserve, even if both of his kids say they have 'no questions' about his new arm when he gets home. The process of limb donor surgery is not confined to the realms of science fiction: there are case studies of such surgeries being undertaken as far back as the early 1960's. These surgeries have become more sophisticated over time, but they remain risky and hold great potential for rejection and complications. Primarily these surgeries have been confined to below-the-elbow amputations - which mean there is only the single joint (the wrist) that comes into play, as opposed to above the elbow or shoulder, which make the rehabilitation process much more difficult. http://globalnews.ca...ully-in-canada/ The complexities of the reattachment are enormous: These surgeries have taken into account injuries sustained in industrial or agricultural accidents (such as losing arms in wheat threshers or by crushing), and are very rarely 'emergencies' in the way it's depicted in 'Body Parts'. Obviously, people live long and fruitful lives after losing a single limb, and the fact that the doctor forces Bill's wife to sign the consent form under duress is unconscionable. The fact that he is still bleeding heavily and is not yet sedated shows just how much he's rushed in to surgery, as though it's an emergency on par with a heart transplant. The technology in arm transplants post-date 'Body Parts' significantly - the first successful short-term transplant was completed in 1998, with a few other successes in the following years. The first double-arm transplant was completed in 1998, and took a team of THIRTY doctors over SIXTEEN hours to complete. I'm certain no power tools were involved. http://www.dailymail...gers-limbs.html Complications after the fact are often to do with nerve reattachment, skin damage, and muscle recovery. And here we come to the difficulty. In the many medical studies revolving around limb transplant and donation surgeries, the recovery time is gruelling, difficult, and reliant on huge discipline from the patient. In many studies patients' limbs did not do well because they neglected their rehab or medication, or because they felt alienated from their new limbs, like Bill was. One case study showed a recipient of new limbs who took eighteen months of intense rehabilitation to proceed to a point where he was able to catch a ball: https://www.statnews...arm-transplant/ This man took a year to regain feeling or movement: The functional results of such surgeries are mixed at best, and require massive work just to allow minor movements. Bill's very short recovery is nothing short of miraculous. https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC1422660/ In the movie's timeline, even if he is injured in the autumn, to gain that kind of use from the limbs (for all three men), we're talking YEARS of rehab, montages or not. Even if they recover that use, Jason's point about throwing footballs, fingering wives and lifting children is fantasy at best. The timeline we're talking about is this: November 1991: Bill Cruishank gets into a car accident, rushed to emergency. November 1991: Serial killer Charlie Fletcher is finally sent down for his final series of murders, and is deemed eligible to be executed by buzzsaw in an operating theatre. December 1991: Bill Cruishank awakens with Charlie Fletcher's arm; has difficulty embracing his new limb and is upset at the surgery he didn't choose to have. January 1992: Bill Cruishank starts rehab and recovery, trying to do tiny incremental things with his new limb, which his body is rejecting due to the differences in the skin graft, nerve bonding, and infections. July 1993: Bill Cruishank has shown remarkable fortitude to recover enough in his rehab that he can jerk a small weight unexpectedly above his head. July 1993: the media is fed a story about the amazing surgery performed some eighteen months earlier on a now-forgotten serial killer's arm. December 1993: Bill Cruishank, now completely healed and able to move his arm like it's part of his body, is released from hospital and confronts a mob of media. January 1994: Bill Cruishank punches his son in the face, potentially because his son has not aged over the requisite two years it would take to allow the limb surgery to take hold. March 1994: Charlie Fletcher, still in neck brace, confronts the owners of his former limbs, requesting their prompt return. I'm just saying that the timeline of this movie, which appears to take place over a couple of weeks at best, seems to cover several years of recovery time. And the main question I have is: if Bill's arm is so strong that it survives being handcuffed to another car and dragged through the streets, why does Brad Dourif's arm tear off like it's held on with Velcro? And if this is over what the movie suggests is only a couple of weeks, that's some pretty strong surgical stitching!

Yeah! Tomspanks made the undisputed WORST PICK EVER without any doubt, conversation, or question. No one could ever do worse! No one!

Problem with this theory is...

Naw, I'm sorry for being a grumpy bugger. Welcome to the boards!

Good find, but this was referred to only a few posts in on the first page of the thread. There has been a lot of posting without reading the prior threads, which lead to a lot of double posts. The Simpsons posts, and the posts with C+Os outlining things that are actually mentioned in the podcast: this stuff clutters the boards. Please just read through before adding.

^ While a great set of observations, this was covered fairly explicitly (almost word-for-word by Gillian in the colour symbolism section) in the early part of today's episode, no?

That is usually the case, but they use HDTGM All-Stars mostly to designate replacement hosts, for whenever June or Jason are missing, which distinguishes them from regular guests. I would guess that Gillian is there to replace June this week, and Claudia is the guest, but they've been lumped together for promo purposes.

It'll never happen.

I think that's just me. Taylor is re-watching. I'm a late convert - I watched it for the first time in Oswego a couple weeks ago (because it's on American Netflix but not Canadian) Canadian Netflix is a

Agreed! My only gripe about it is that as one-hour episodes they tend to a drag a little in the middle. I know the logistics of the musical numbers must be fairly huge but having 2-3 per ep means I spend a lot of time looking forward to the next song, and not really enjoying some of the millennial angst. Plus I hate Valencia. I do, however, have a massive crush on Rachel Bloom. So I'd be all about discussing this (although i'm still halfway through season 1).

"Brian? Are you sure zat zis is de way zat zit luff scene between the Baron undt ze noblewoman should be?" "What's wrong with it?" "I had an English publisher read it zis mornink. He says der moments uff true passion are all now includink ze tea drinkink undt talkink of ze weazzer." "Quite, quite. I shouldn't be surprised if they never let me back into England, peddling such smut." "But..." "Don't you tell me that you want people looking into each others' eyes or speaking in second-level innuendo! I write as is fit!" (etc)

I feel like the key to this gif would be to now say 'THIS IS A RAMBLE' and then really go nuts ranting. But the point is mostly to say that that's not a ramble, that's a great set of observations. Ramble on, Jam!

Guys I really have to step up my C+O game this week if for no other reason but I want to force Scheer to say 'Baby CakeBug'. It'll be my gift to tomspanks.

Count me in as a member of team...

Well, obviously, but the Toecutter is a much more interesting character than Immortan. I love his theatricality (I guess they're both pretty theatrical, but when he reacts to Max's interceptor facing him on a desolate outback road with this: I find that way cooler than any silly facemask Immortan can throw at us. Don't get me wrong, I saw Fury Road four times in the cinema. Bloody love it. I do really love that George Miller brought Hugh Keays-Byrne back for Fury Road, although it made the timeline problematic if you want to believe that they're the same man (I know that's not suggested)... No matter how tough he is, I don't know if he could survive this: Also, in the Mad Max graphic novels, it's made clear who Immortan Joe is, and it's not old Toecutter, sadly.