The_Triple_Lindy

Good answer

Dude ... is that a Back to School reference? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZfpwfQ58Ds

I suddenly don't think that a "perfect world" scenario is possible with this. The idea about bodyjacking is that they are getting the person from the past at the moment of their deaths, so no harm, no foul to the future -- everyone will proceed as if the guy dies. But we hear Buster Poindexter say that he didn't get the insurance money from Furlong because they couldn't recover his body from the wreck. This means that Furlong's body being absent after the crash was significant to the events of history moving forward. Therefore, there is likely a timeline where Furlong's kith and kin would have had a normal funeral with his charred remains present. But now, everyone affected by Furlong's death would have a lingering question about what happened and why his body disappeared in the crash, and that absolutely would affect the future. Julie Redlund in 2009 is brooding, sullen, and part of a soulless corporate entity ... who knows just how much of that is based on the lack of closure over putting an empty casket in the ground, but I'd say it has to factor in a little. Not to mention all the other families who knew someone who was jacked ... the more bodies that are jacked, the greater the likelihood of one over-zealous family member seeking answers and altering the past in major ways. There can be no safe bodyjacking if the past is altered even a little bit. The web of human interaction just doesn't work that way.

When Vacendek is calculating the moment to jack Furlong from the past, what footage is he using? And, how is that remotely accurate? You see Vacendek telling a guy "back up, zoom in, enhance" as they zero in on the moment just before the car crash occurs. I'm sure there were cameras at the race track that day, but who would have bothered getting a tight close up of the Nissan sign, just in case someone were to shoot up into the air and hit it? Plus, 1992 was before every camera in the world was kept in lock-step time with a central clock via wi-fi. There's just no way Vacendek could use old VHS footage to ascertain the exact moment of anything happening in the past. I think the implication is that time travel technology comes with a window to the past. You can go to the location of any historic event and stream the event. Like a YouTube of the past. (JackTube?) (No) How is this not an entire 2009 industry? "Wanna to watch the 'I Have a Dream' speech live? Wanna see Marilyn Monroe fuck JFK? Wanna witness the moment you beat up that bully in kindergarten?"

I get the rationalization ... the prime directive of time travel is always "Don't alter the past." So if they pull people from the past just at the moment of their deaths, then there is no real effect on the past. The trouble is that the second someone is pulled from the past and survives, all that ethical rationalization is right out the window. Plus, even though they are no doubt using medical records, news reports, archive footage, etc, to determine that they are dead, that can't possibly be fail-safe. What if it was one of those "missing, presumed dead" events, where the person goes on to live life, effecting things, altering the future, and then gets pulled? The consequences might be bad.

Ok, I'm about to go to bat for this movie in a serious way, because I thought this movie was awesome fun and aside from some poor mis-en-scene choices, bad FX, lazy costuming, tone/continuity problems, and other what-have-yous, it makes perfect sense and hangs together. Allow me to go point-by-point: 1. A breakthrough came for me when I realized that Vacendak is not in the same timeframe as pre-crash Furlong, even though they are shown in consecutive shots. Vacendak goes to the point of the crash (which is nothing now, just a bombed-out area) in order to pull Furlong from the past. Just putting this out there since I was confused by this at first. 2. I think the central concept of pulling a person into the future just at the moment of their untimely death is actually a pretty interesting idea. Maybe I'm morose, but I get the logic -- pay to have a guy "bodyjacked" from the past just as he dies, so that I can have someone do a Get Out surgery on him and extend the life of my consciousness. I mean, yeah ... I'm on board. 3. A "freejack" is therefore someone who was "jacked" from the past and then got "free" in the future/present. Maybe a hyphen would've fixed the confusion (Free-jack). And yeah, I imagine that's a big deal, since they probably morally reason that, well, they were going to die anyway, so no harm, no foul ... but if people who were going on to live full lives were being jacked, that's just kidnapping across time. 4. McCandless picking Furlong's body makes sense once you realize he loves Julie Redlund. Here's this woman in his employ who he lusts and pines for, and he learns somehow that she once had a boyfriend who died tragically in a racing accident. And, I just happen to be future-rich and bodyjacking is a thing. So, yeah ... let me just jump into this body and that will make her love me. I mean, that's crazy, of course, and gross, for sure, but rich people in a time travel-equipped future can get that way. 5. Ray Kurzweil predicts that we are, max, 50 years away from being able to upload our consciousnesses into virtual afterlife ... so that holds up. 6. Finally, this movie fairly accurately predicts the evolution of the auto industry, which seems to have splintered into two camps of environmentally-friendly self-driving minicars ... and personalized tanks:

Dude, again ... Young Guns. In thinking about how to respond to your question, I've recovered memories of my mother talking about how sexy he was as Billy the Kid. Thank you, Taylor. I'm going to go kill myself now. Luckily, since 2009 ...

Omission: Any and all mention of Amanda Plummer's badass, shotgun-wielding, ball-kicking, arms-redistributing nun: I feel this was another edit from the 40-minute reshooting. Her part is laughably unnecessary and slap-sticky. The face Michellette makes when she kicks him in tonally jarring. She doesn't do anything for the plot except give Emilio a gun, that he never really uses (save for one awesome moment; see below). And yet, she is my absolute favorite part of the film. I love when she says that Jesus never had to deal with dickheads like Michellette. Um ... does she know Jesus was crucified? She doesn't seem like the best nun. I loved her ... this is what happens to Hunny Bunny after she leaves the diner in Pulp Fiction and then Pumpkin dies in whatever Holocaust the world of Freejack seems to have gone through. EDIT: Someone in the audience mentions her, and they talk about all of this. Well, shit ... Also omitted: This guy ... ... whose only purpose in the film is to nearly draw Emilio back into Billy the Kid mode ... ... for anyone who missed the fairly obvious shout out to his turn in the Young Guns movies, to wit:

I don't know why the "In the future, suicide is an industry" trope was so surprising to the gang. It's everywhere in Sci-fi. My go-to reference is, of course, Futurama: Rene Russo's hair was amazing in this movie. There ... fixed that for you.

Last one. Nothing will ever be better than these guys:

One of my favs ... Primus doing "Have a Cigar" ... one of the best bassists on one of the best basslines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD1L_LOxme0 Like, Claypool is a beast (and imma let you finish), but Roger Waters came up with some of the best basslines of all-time. Animals is full of nice little moments where the bass takes the lead over Gilmore's jangly backdrop, and "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" is just fucking groovy. He's really underrated as a bass player, but he's been an major influence on me. I just wish he wasn't such an insufferable douche ...

Then there's Class of '99 (a grunge supergroup of Layne Staley, Tom Morello, and the rhythm section from Jane's Addiction) doing "Another Brick in the Wall" for The Faculty soundtrack. It's pretty rad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4UVfTbTHjY

The Flaming Lips did a cover of Dark Side of the Moon in its entirety. It's a pretty far-out interpretation, not for the faint of ear/heart (hEARt?). This version of Us and Them is probably the closest true rendition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwfUk2IDc1E

100%. I am not ashamed to admit that I like the kinds of art that make you want to go home and write essays. It's one of the things that attracts me to this forum. I also like art that deliberately falls beyond the tip of the bell curve ... the stuff that challenges you to like it and makes you think deep, with or without weed. I WANT TO FEEL THE FRAGILITY OF SELF AND EXPLORE THE LIMITLESSNESS OF INNER AND OUTER SPACE ... that's not so bad, right? I agree with every word of this ... especially missing "Mother." It's my favorite song from The Wall. I would've like to at least seen a shout out, like when the teacher busts Pink with the lyrics to "Money." Edit: Not "Mother" ... "Hey You" is the one I'm missing.

Question: Since I watched this with my two-year-old in the room, how much therapy is she looking at? I'll take your estimates in terms of billable hours.

In other words, it's a ....................................................................................... Jacob's Ladder scenario? The "Pink-is-Syd" parallel is tenuous, I think. "Shine On, You Crazy Diamond" is about Syd, pretty clearly, but other than they're both crazy-pants, I'm not sure it works ... Barrett quit the band loooong before they reached the height of their fame. I would love to have lived the kind of life that makes "Teachers are sometimes dicks for no obvious reason" a difficult concept to relate to

So, I'm the kind of guy who could watch something like this while listening to Tool and reading Finnegan's Wake and drinking cardinal sin/whiskey cocktails and call that an awesome time. This movie is like smoking cigarettes or getting a tattoo ... even if it hurts, the pain in your soul at least indicates that you can feel. I treat watching this movie like reading Joyce or Melville or Faulkner ... it's not pleasure reading because it requires too much work. Everything is deeply symbolic and difficult to access, and the lack of any real dialogue doesn't help. I kind of think that the dialogue is hard to hear because you aren't supposed to focus on it ... this is a 90-minute rock video, first and foremost. If you know about Floyd/Waters and understand post-WWII England, it helps to decypher the denser moments, but most of the movie requires pretty decent Junior-level symbolic analysis to really get at it. Polly and Cam hit the broad notes but The Wall is so dense, it's possible also to go scene by scene looking for symbolism -- cleaning the gun represents the act of sex, the kids breaking through the barrier represents conception, pulling soldiers out of the muck juxtaposed with Pink thrashing in the hotel pool = birth, and so on ad naseum until the wall comes down ... the whole second half is basically a metaphorical mental breakdown. However, it's been about 10 years since I last sat down to watch it, and I see the problematic things that some of you are pointing out ... he blames most of his problems on his relationship with women instead of recognizing the toxicity of his own self-centered macho ego (FYI - Roger Waters is a total elitist prick, too), he seems to unironically embrace the dictator role, and it's very unclear what becomes of Pink in the end -- does he learn a lesson? or is he dead? We see the wall is destroyed, but the lack of character resolution makes it not totally clear what that means. I love this flick, but I understand the resistance. Sidenote: I dressed up as a spot-fucking-on Dictator Pink for Halloween a few years ago, thinking everyone would recognize it and flip their lids over how cool I was, but everyone just thought I was a weird kind of Nazi. So, yeah ... it's possible that not everyone appreciates it like others do.

Trying to think of tall, skinny, deep-voiced Brits ... Cumberbatch? Redmayne? Hiddleston?

Once, my mother-in-law came to visit and we went to the theater. We decided to either see "Knocked up" or "The Waitress" (ie. the "bake your emotions into delicious pies" movie). We chose "Knocked Up" because my m-i-l thought it sounded like a cute family comedy and we weren't in the mood for a "drama." We chose ... poorly. I don't remember anything in the movie because my internal monologue was just screaming "ohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgod!"

Cleaning your gun before sex is a sure-fire way to a disappointing evening. For someone, at least. Thanks, everyone. You've been great.

One of the respondents in that forum I linked to posited that putting silver powder in a hollow-point bullet would be more effective. Lead's stalwart reputation always belies the fact that lead is pretty soft. I forget.

BTW, in case any of you were wondering whether Coors Light ever pounced on the association with "silver bullets" and werewolves ... Unsurprisingly, they missed the joke it seems they were trying to make. I guess it fits. Coors Light is damaging to all walks of life ... we are all werewolves in that regard.

Even in the fast-and-loose salad days of the 80s, bringing guns onto a plane was highly frowned upon. Question to those more knowledgable on the matter: Could you even fire a shotgun loaded with silver pellets? Silver is a pretty malleable metal ... seems like the explosion of the gunshot and the friction the pellets would encounter after being fired would basically just cause silver buckshot to melt and dissipate before reaching the target. Wouldn't it just splat on you, like a really expensive paintball? EDIT: True to my standard M.O. I asked a question before doing some very basic research. One of these days, I'll get things in the right order. BUT ... this Quora Q/A says some interesting things about the practicality of silver ammunition. Since silver is less dense than lead, the main issue will be deceleration in-flight, which translates into reduced range and accuracy. But silver projectiles will still do plenty of damage. Read it here: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-make-silver-bullets-and-would-it-work And actually, the Wikipedia page on the topic is interesting: Here

Duh ... of course.

... and the 8,000 years or so before that ... what's the working theory? Questionable virgins, I guess ... but then, where would he get off calling Stirba a monster? We know from the bible that regular joes could live to be over 900 years ... something something closer to the uncorrupted creation of god ... but that still leaves a few millenia unaccounted for. Plus, we run into math problems bringing the bible into this, since if Stirba is 10,000 years old, she's almost twice as old as the earth, according to the Hebrew calendar.