DrGuts1003

This was an idea that was raised in the Drop Dead Fred thread, but I thought it was a topic that merited it’s own thread. What is the film(s) that the show has covered that you not only unapologetically love, but also hated hearing Paul, Jason and/or June say negative things about it? For me, the only two that come to mind are A View to a Kill - I don’t really think any Bond film belongs on a show like this and it felt like they only did it to do the crossover with the James Bond podcast hosts. And if you are going to do a Bond film, I feel there are worse films in the franchise that they could have chosen instead. Jingle All the Way - This is one that my family makes a point of watching every Christmas and while it’s not a good movie, there are a lot of lines from it that we quote from it all the time.

If true, it would be ironic that a Paul is a proponent of Team Sanity.

Can someone explain to me why they needed to take the blood machine out of the Ukraine facility? Wouldn’t it have been easier for her to remove the virus there while Hobbs and Shaw distracted everyone? Given that this was a time-sensitive matter it seems stupid and reckless trying to get the machine out of the facility.

As someone who has never seen any of the F&F movies, I too was wondering if there was a backstory for The Rock’s wife that I wasn’t aware of. There is a throwaway line when the Rock is talking to his daughter where he says that she needs to stay with her aunt. This makes that whole family tree project confusing. Why wasn’t this aunt included on the tree? And even if the Rock’s wife is dead, wouldn’t the wife have had some relatives that she could have added to the tree as well?

I completely agree. I also found Fred to be more tolerable too. Perhaps we should be Team Movie vs. Team Deleted Scenes.

So has anyone else watched these deleted and alternate scenes? There is some very interesting and revealing stuff. Highlights include: A different meet cute scene between Lizzie and Mickey at a bank (after she discovers that Charles has already removed her name from his bank account) Lizzie meeting Mickey’s daughter during the meet cute One of the imaginary friends eating the psychiatrist’s table More upskirt peeping in the ladies’ room at the wine tasting party And most important of all - a scene where Fred takes Lizzie to a place where all the imaginary friends live that VERY much resembles Monsters Inc. And while they are there a “boss” says on a loudspeaker that Fred needs to report to his next child immediately.

I agree that that would have been a better ending. But if you're going to do the ending that they go with, then there needed to be more scenes with the daughter throughout the movie. Show that her mother was similarly awful (hence why Ron Eldard got a divorce from her) and that now that Fred was no longer needed in Lizzie's life he could move on and help this girl instead. BTW, I don't think this gets brought up in the episode, but the little girl also calls him Drop Dead Fred. If he was simply a manifestation of Lizzie's mind, then that would be an awfully big coincidence that this little girl would give him the exact same name.

I was confused as to whether Lizzie was actually allergic to gladiolas or not. If you notice, in every instance it is not until Fred points out that she is near the flowers that she starts sneezing. If I walk into a person's house and they own cats, I will start sneezing automatically. I don't need the owner to point out the fact that they own a cat for me to start sneezing. The film had a tendency to drop in a lot of weird things like that they never really had any pay off. Like the fact that in the one flashback, the headline on the paper states that we just landed on the moon. Why choose such an iconic moment in history as your headline if it has nothing to do with anything else? That said, because of that information, that would make Lizzie close to 30 if the adult scenes are to have taken place in 1991. There's also the weird cop behavior after Lizzie and Fred go on their burglar trip. They bust down the door of the house rather quickly and then immediately arrest the dad when there is no indication that he is the one who is actually robbing the place. I briefly thought they were trying to suggest the dad ultimately left his family because he was tired of being the victim of Fred's and/or Lizzie's antics. The "meet-cute" scene with Lizzie and Ron Eldard also seems to suggest storylines that never come to fruition. The way the scene is filmed, he sets down his attache/briefcase in the middle of the floor, making me think he wanted her to trip over it and bump into him. The fact that he inspires Lizzie to discover Fred again and that his daughter has bonded with Fred made me think that he was communicating with or working with Fred in some capacity. Ron Eldard says that his divorce happened a couple of years ago, so it is never clear why he is at the courthouse on the day he sees Lizzie. And why was he carrying a document that had a picture of his daughter attached to it?

The movie is so muddled it is tough to really debate on either side, but I do enjoy a good debate so I'll just offer a few counterpoints here. In terms of the two "abusive" relationships - Tim Matheson had tried to end things with Lizzie when he originally got together with Annabella. It's not like Fred really helped her see that he had feelings for someone else. As for the mother, I would contend that any malice or abuse that the mother exhibits towards Lizzie is all a result of her bad behavior when Fred is around. We never (at least I don't recall) see any scenes of the mother being verbally abusive to Lizzie prior to Fred showing. That doesn't excuse the abuse, just saying that if Lizzie doesn't have Fred in her life, the mother may have acted completely different. Again, the movie is so poor that it's tough to really figure out what is the correct interpretation, but I enjoy the back and forth nonetheless.

I did think about that and wasn't sure whether or not to add that point because of it. But you could argue that after Carrie Fisher's embarrassing incident at work where she appears to beat up an imaginary child and exposes her relationship with the wet dreams guy that she may have realized it is not worth it to be friends with Lizzie anymore.

Here's a different way to look at this. Based on the comments they made, June and Jason seem to feel that Lizzie is better off for having Drop Dead Fred return. But let's run down the state of Lizzie's life by the end of the movie. She has: No job No car No place to live Lost her best friend (this is not explicitly established, but why would Carrie Fisher want to be friends with her after sinking her home?) No relationship (she doesn't really seem to want to pursue anything romantic with Ron Eldard) Severed ties with her mother She's not only worse off than she was when the movie began, but she's probably now ill-equipped to deal with the real world as an adult on her own.

I should also add that "Team Fred vs. Team Sanity" is probably not the best way to phrase this debate because it suggest that the film has a point of view that can be interpreted in different ways. At its core, the debate is whether or not this movie is a hot piece of garbage (and it 100% is). There are several pieces of evidence to suggest that Phoebe Cates is insane. There's even the throwaway line by the guy on trial suggesting that she 'plead insanity' after she returns late from lunch. But there are also several scenes that point to Fred being his own thing and not a manifestation of Lizzie's mind. The movie is all over the place and thus has no redeeming value. I was saddened to see Jason defend it as I almost always agree with him (I hope he just decided to do a bit the whole show by supporting this movie) and I was disturbed by June's infatuation with this movie. Her love of this movie is more troubling than any story Paul has shared about his childhood.

I know most of the posts on here will be simply be offering their stance on the primary debate (I'm 100% Team Sanity, btw) But I wanted to focus on a scene before Fred arrives when Phoebe Cates gets fired. She is a court reporter and after coming back late from lunch gets fired by the judge. First of all, the judge is not her boss. Court reporters either work for the court system or are freelance. That judge would not have the power to fire her. And even if he did, why would you fire the court reporter in the middle of a trial like that. All that would do is delay the trial even further until a new court reporter is available. There's also the possibility that whatever shorthand Phoebe Cates had used when recording the previous parts of the trial wouldn't be understood by anyone else. She would still be needed to transcribe all that she had already typed/reported. However, seeing her get fired as a court reporter did make me recall a news story from a few years ago where a court reporter was fired from his job after it was discovered that he would frequently just by typing random keys or typing repeatedly "I hate my job" instead of actually reporting what was happening in the court cases. Now those cases could be potentially thrown out because lawyers could claim crucial evidence is missing. If you do not have a consistent, reliable court reported, it could be a real mess. The bottom line is that there is no way she's getting fired mid-trial over being late (for a reasonable reason) from lunch.

I believe this week will mark 2 appearances for Bridget Fonda - Lake Placid, Drop Dead Fred

Has anyone contacted Paul (or anyone else associated with the show) about the Swordfish episode?

Doing a quick search, I discovered that this is in reference to Gargoyle sunglasses, which had this as their slogan. A shirt with this phrase is also seen in Say Anything (I hope Paul discusses that on Unspooled). The sunglasses gained popularity when Arnold wore a pair of them in The Terminator.

I found it odd that we do not get much closure on several of the film’s characters (unless I just wasn’t paying close enough attention). Does Louis Gossett Jr. live? Last I recall seeing of him was when he was swimming to safety after the shark crashed through the control room. And why no final scene involving the other Brody son? Last we saw of him was going with Lea Thomson to the hospital. Did she survive her injuries? Why not give us a scene of the Brody boys at the hospital commenting on how this keeps happening to them? (And then have a shark dressed in a doctor’s coat try to attack them again)

When Mike is identifying Shelby’s body, there is a sign on the back wall (you can see it in the trading card image that Cameron H. posted). The sign says “AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY: No one will enter this work area without explicit permission of aquarium department, in that it directly effects the well-being and behavior of the sharks”. First of all, they just captured that baby shark no more than a day ago (seemingly). It seems odd that they would have had time to make up a sign already. Secondly, “well-being and behavior of the sharks”? Sharks plural? Seeing Shelby’s body is their first indication that there might be more than one shark so this sign makes no sense.

Here are some more items that belong on the list of 'Things We're Expected to Believe the Kid Programmed Into this Game': - Djimon Hounsou occasionally speaks in a foreign language (French, I believe). Are we to assume the kid knows this language and thought it would be useful for Hounsou's character to sporadically speak in this language? - The first time The Rules misses Baker Dill, he takes off his shoes and starts walking in the water. Has the kid only programmed the character to reach Baker Dill in a straight line? - Unless I misinterpreted things, when Hathaway and Mcconaughey are talking, she makes a comment that he took her virginity when she was 16. Did the kid choose to give his parents this backstory or were his parents very open with him about how they met?

There is one shot in the film where the son is looking at a photo of him and Mcconaughey and written on the back it says "me and dad back then" This phrasing bothers me. I guess that it is meant to be vague so as not to give away anything, but who would actually write it that way? No one is going is to confuse the picture as happening in the present or future. All pictures are of something that occurred "back then". Why not write the actual year or date that the event took place? Or give some sort of additional information about what happened then so that when you or someone else re-visits that picture there is some proper context for what you are looking at?

My mind was blown when it was revealed that “Michael Bay” seemingly lives in Parma, OH which is only about twenty minutes away from where I live. Maybe I should stop by their library and see which of their librarians is a big Transformers fan.

I know I’m late to the party, but did anyone else think that the confusing “I’m FU” comment in one of the Second Opinion reviews was a Francis Underwood/House of Cards reference?

So I came across this video interview that Jo Nesbo did before the movie came out and there are some stunning things said in it... First, Nesbo calls him Harry Hole, not Holy or any sort of accented version of the word. He said he was 'relieved' that Fassbender was cast as Harry, but other than Shame it doesn't really sounds like he has seen anything else he has done. He says he's a "bit worried it [the film franchise] might take over my universe" - I don't think he has anything to worry about there. He is in the movie (or at least he filmed a scene for the movie) where he is holding a 'dangerous' and 'forbidden' dog from Slovakia. WHAT?!? Aside from filming that scene he seemingly had no input on the film's production. Nesbo says it was important for the director to shoot the film in Norway, but Nesbo says they could have shot it anywhere because the character is more important than the place. He was really looking forward to the scenes shot in Bergen. - I'm guessing he ended up being massively disappointed. The video also shows a picture of the book cover which has a tagline that says "Beware the falling snow" which would have been a much better tagline for the film than any of the convoluted ones that Paul mentioned in the show.

I’m almost positive there was a comment made in the show that indicated they recorded it on Halloween.

I’m no immigration lawyer, but after visiting https://visas-immigration.service.gov.uk I am shockingly finding some problems with the setup to this movie. Jane Seymour tells Emma Roberts that she has to go back to Canada to get her visa changed from a student visa to a work visa. From what I could tell, it seems like this is a process that can actually be done online. But even if she did need to go back to get some personal documents, the one thing that I did see as a requirement to get a work visa is that you have to have a clear job offer. But Emma doesn’t have that yet. All she’s been told is that is in the running with the other guy and Jane Seymour will decide based on the menus they create. And given the WordPerfect menu that we see Emma creating, I’m guessing she wouldn’t have been chosen, which means this whole effort would be for nothing.