EPISODE 108 — Con Air LIVE!

[Cameron H. 23786]

This observation might be colored by my own bias as an avowed homebody, but....

 

Ignoring the tug boat taxi that Poe takes to meet his wife, why is Poe even meeting up with his wife at the bar? Certainly his homecoming isn't a surprise. Would it really have been too much for her to ask for the night off? I mean, as an Army Ranger, presumably he's been enlisted for years, and here he is, home at last, safe and sound, and he's got to meet her at her work?? My job is relatively low stress and pretty safe, but when I get home, Holy Crap, it's cuddle time. I mean, I assume they aren't drinking with her being pregnant and all...

 

But maybe I'm wrong, and maybe she's not working that night. Maybe they just decided that her place of employment was the perfect place to have their joyous reunion, but does that make sense?? That would be like meeting your SO at their office and slow dancing in the copy room while Creepy Kevin, the skeevy guy whose job title no one really knows, ogles the two of you with concupiscent eyes as he pretends to fax something.

[AprilFoolsRebel 457]

This isn't exactly a correction and omission but after Paul said John Cusack refuses to be interviewed about Con Air, I wanted to see if I could find out why.

 

While I didn't find the answer to that, I DID find this BBC News article from 2012 where Cusack said he'd do a sequel.

 

Someone tell Jason!!!

 

http://www.bbc.com/n...t-arts-17237364

[PlanBFromOuterSpace 3138]

How has nobody mentioned Cage's wink to the camera during the end credits?! This alone makes this movie amazing!

Because words simply cannot describe it, it's literally THAT incredible.

[Helwilliams 1]

 

Well, in all honestly we can't even come close to accurately guessing which kind of diabetes Baby-O has, because he's a fictional character written by people who are clueless about diabetes altogether. However, I just want to point out that your own cite contradicts what you just said. From that last link, "In the earlier stages of type-2 diabetes when glucose counter-regulatory responses are still functional, hypoglycemia is less common than in patients with type 1 diabetes. However, since progressive β-cell failure is a key patho-physiological feature of type 2 diabetes, the characteristics of disease and frequency of hypoglycemic episodes eventually approach that of type 1 diabetes.[8]" So hypoglycemia is always more prevalent in Type 1, but as Type 2 progresses, they almost catch up.

 

I do agree with you that w/o Baby-O's diabetes, the movie couldn't have happened, unless they figured out a better medical emergency/Nic Cage heroism opportunity. I'm mostly amused that they gave him a problem that could have been easily solved with a can of soda and didn't know it. The movie was still tremendously fun.

 

So you're right. I'm not sure what my reasoning was for that then. I pulled the study up and then wrote half my comment and came back to it. In any case I maintain that he is probably a Type II diabetic and I agree that he just needed a soda.

[Helwilliams 1]

 

Now that you mention it, this movie would have worked SO much better if the film actually knew that all Baby-O needed was a can of soda or something. Baby-O could be periodically sweating and crashing and whatnot throughout all of Nic Cage's escape attempts, fights, and tribulations, occasionally trying to provide Baby-O with some sugary junk food (and product placement opportunity). However, just like the way the syringes get broken in the film now, the cans of soda or Twinkies or whatever get shot or smash amid all the chaos. Then, at the end, Cameron Poe FINALLY hands Baby-O something to stifle his buddy's crashing: the SAME kind of Pink Sno Ball that he handed off in the beginning of the film! Get on that, Simon West!

 

Now that is perfection.

[OoofMaGOOF 348]

That was really, really fun episode. If Zooks was that excited about this movie, I can't wait to hear this thoughts on Face/Off.

 

I really reveled in Zook's overwhleming, unabashed joy at this movie, the energy he brought was some next level shit.

 

I fell somewhere in between love and hate-Paul's Jager analogy was perfect. It was really fun during it, and then when I thought about it afterwards, I realized how absurd and kind of stupid it was.

 

Also, I'm totally with the audience member who thought the little girl wasn't real. That scene was so odd, when I was watching it I felt like I missed something, because all of a sudden Steve Buscemi is sitting down with an odd looking little girl in the middle of nowhere, with no one else around.

 

CAN'T WAIT FOR FACE/OFF!

[OoofMaGOOF 348]

I have yet to listen to this podcast, but I have read both 'Pride and Prejudice and Zombies' and 'Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter' and they are two of the worst books I've ever read. I love Jane Austen, Zombies, Lincoln, AND Vampires, and Seth Grahame-Smith managed to make all of those things incredibly boring. I guess good on him for managing to sell garbage to millions of people, but still, ugh.

 

Yep, reaching back to the first page for this.

 

I got a lot of shit before (I won't go into it) for ragging on guests, but I felt like Seth was trying really hard just to be ragging on the movie, especially when he realized Jason loved it. I haven't read either of those books, but the mere premise/idea of them makes me roll my eyes like crazy.

[Cameron H. 23786]

I have yet to listen to this podcast, but I have read both 'Pride and Prejudice and Zombies' and 'Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter' and they are two of the worst books I've ever read. I love Jane Austen, Zombies, Lincoln, AND Vampires, and Seth Grahame-Smith managed to make all of those things incredibly boring. I guess good on him for managing to sell garbage to millions of people, but still, ugh.

 

Yep, reaching back to the first page for this.

 

I got a lot of shit before (I won't go into it) for ragging on guests, but I felt like Seth was trying really hard just to be ragging on the movie, especially when he realized Jason loved it. I haven't read either of those books, but the mere premise/idea of them makes me roll my eyes like crazy.

 

Here's my thing. I thought the show was fantastic, and I thought Seth did okay as a guest. The only book of his that I have read is Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, and I have seen Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. The only place he really lost me during the episode was the whole "consensual sex with a seven-year-old" joke. As a father (and really as a person with a conscience) I can say that jokes about rape and pedophilia really don't land for me. Maybe I'm being too sensitive, and I'm okay with that. It's my "comedy demarcation line," and I'll stand by it. What's odd about that though is I can still listen to the Over the Top episode and hear Bobby Moynihan, Jason, and (maybe?) Paul make jokes about Stallone and his son and laugh hysterically. I can't really put a finger on the difference, but I assume it's a contextual thing that comes from being a professional comedian and just knowing what works and what doesn't. Don't get me wrong, I didn't get angry, nor do I fault him for one ill-advised joke. I feel the rest of the episode went off without a hitch. I just think he got caught up in the moment and blurted it out without really thinking it through, and that is something that--I feel confident in saying--can happen to the best of us.

 

What I did find privately funny (especially after viewing his iMDB page), was hearing him list off his upcoming projects. His plugs were for the P&P&Z movie, Lego Batman, and IT (his iMDB page also includes Beetlejuice 2 and Dark Shadows). Now, I'm not trying to poo-poo someone who is clearly adept at his craft, God knows he's had more published than I, but all I can think to myself is, "Ah! So you're the 'I make adaptations of existing properties' guy!"

[kcrow1285 12]

I have a theory about the scene where the young girl waves goodbye to Garland Greene. A note on Con Air's Wikipedia page says: "Jerry Bruckheimer wanted to cut the final scene of Greene at the craps table in Las Vegas and end the film with the heartfelt family reunion. The screenwriters and director convinced Bruckheimer to include the scene and in test screenings, audiences loved it, thus it stayed^{[citation needed]}."

 

What if they originally left the girl's fate ambiguous and had the movie end with the "heartfelt" family reunion? (I put "heartfelt" in quotes because Tricia and Casey Poe never looked anything but horribly uncomfortable). If that were the case, and they then threw that craps scene into the end, somebody might have said something like "Huh. We should probably also throw a scene showing that the girl is ok. That way, the audience won't be pissed when this guy shows up again."

[kcrow1285 12]

Why did no law enforcement agents seem to care about where all of Cyrus's secret intel came from? And who sent him the message to "Meet at Carson City"? To know that much about the layout of this special plane AND it's itinerary, he must have had someone working on the inside. Vince Larkin didn't seem worried about that in the slightest.

 

Also, when Vince Larkin was going through Cyrus's intel, how did he possibly crack that "Last Supper" code so quickly? If he poisitioned that picture on any other line of text, wouldn't he have have come up with a completely different "message" (or set of letters)?

[FisterRoboto 7499]

This isn't exactly a correction and omission but after Paul said John Cusack refuses to be interviewed about Con Air, I wanted to see if I could find out why.

 

While I didn't find the answer to that, I DID find this BBC News article from 2012 where Cusack said he'd do a sequel.

 

Someone tell Jason!!!

 

http://www.bbc.com/n...t-arts-17237364

 

I thought they said Malkovich refused to be interviewed about Con Air because he had no idea wtf was going on in the movie or with his character.

 

IMDb mentions that there were daily rewrites that caused him to be pretty upset, so I'm guessing that all plays into it.

[JaimeGandarilla 85]

I hope that Paul appearing in Cage's next film won't affect the podcast doing Cage movies in the future.

 

Nah, Cage is perfectly well aware of his craziness.

[Herself 107]

Was anyone else hoping for a Paul F. Tompkins hat trick?

[FisterRoboto 7499]

Was anyone else hoping for a Paul F. Tompkins hat trick?

 

It would have been nice, but I wouldn't have been hoping for it. Paul F was only on both Deep Blue Sea and Lake Placid because they were recorded on the same night.

 

Also, Con Air and Face/Off were recorded on the same night, so I'm worried that will mean no June for Face/Off.

[Semi Employable Office Drone 5]

Somewhere in the three year, Adderall-fueled, financial Gallipoli that was law school, I wrote a paper focusing (to an academically imprudent degree) on Con Air. The relevant section is copied below, but some finer points to note are:

 

First, in addition to having quite possibly the world’s worst criminal defense attorney who urges Poe to plead guilty to manslaughter in the first degree rather than raise a fucking self defense argument, as a jurisdictional matter, it is unclear how an Alabama STATE court trying Poe for the STATE crime of manslaughter could possibly put him in a FEDERAL prison. Further, Poe flies home to be paroled when in fact federal prisons have not offered parole since The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 abolished it.

 

Second, the judge refers to Poe as "deadly weapon" despite the fact that the relevant Alabama state criminal statute, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Alabama, held that the "natural, plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning” of the the term clearly indicates that “deadly weapon” applies only to inanimate objects.

 

Third, In absolutely no jurisdiction is martial arts or military training alone determinative that a defendant’s body, or any part thereof, is a weapon; deadly, dangerous or otherwise.

 

Finally, as anyone who has read any of the signs posted at airport security knows, it’s a federal offense to carry a concealed “dangerous weapon” onto an airplane if that weapon is accessible during flight. Now, if that’s the case, and if Cameron Poe’s body was such a weapon wouldn’t that mean that every time he boarded a plane (after release, of course) he would be committing a felony and subjecting himself to a punishment of up to 10 years in prison? This of course raises the question, if Poe wished to comply with the law by preventing the concealment and accessibility of his own body he would be required to fly fully nude and heavily sedated?

 

Also, and I know Jason alluded to this already, jet fuel can't melt steal beams.

 

 

Excerpt from “Films, Television and Popular Culture as Sources and Perpetuators of Legal Myths and Misconceptions” ©2012:

 

The Human Body as a “Deadly Weapon”

 

One of the most pervasive myths examined in this paper, both in terms of its use in television and film, as well as the sheer prevalence of this belief in the general population, is the idea that someone’s hands or body alone can be a per se “deadly weapon” in the eyes of the law.[1] Though reason and the letter of the law make clear that an act such as “assault with a deadly weapon” necessarily requires a weapon, time and time again storylines hinge upon an unarmed character facing inflated criminal charges simply because they have received special military or martial arts training.[2] One of the best examples of this legal urban legend is the 1997 action film Con Air, starring Nicolas Cage as Cameron Poe, a recently discharged and highly decorated Army Ranger. Shortly after returning home to civilian life in his native Alabama, Poe kills an intoxicated bar patron in self defense after the man and two others attack Poe and his pregnant wife.[3] In sentencing Poe for manslaughter the sitting judge states,

 

"With your military skills, you are a deadly weapon, and are not subject to the same laws as other people that are provoked because you can respond with deadly force. It is the order of this court that you be remanded to a federal penitentiary where you shall remain incarcerated for a term not less than 7 to 10 years." [4]

 

The law on point makes short work of this legal myth, as the applicable Alabama statute defines a “deadly weapon” as “A firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purposes of inflicting death or serious physical injury. The term includes, but is not limited to, a pistol, rifle, or shotgun; or a switch-blade knife, gravity knife, stiletto, sword, or dagger; or any, black-jack, bludgeon, or metal knuckles.”[5] Furthermore, in 1996 the Supreme Court of Alabama overturned a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, which involved only the use of bare fists, because the “natural, plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning” of the above statute clearly indicates that the term “deadly weapon” applies only to inanimate objects.[6] The Court further buttressed its reasoning, stating that even if the definition of “deadly weapon” was ambiguous enough to allow for judicial interpretation the principal of ejusdem generis mandates that only weapons similar to those expressly enumerated within the statute should be considered “deadly weapons.”[7] Accordingly, because human fists, unlike the shotguns and switch-blade knives listed within the code section, are not inanimate objects which are by design created to inflict serious injury or death, they clearly are not a “deadly weapon” contemplated within the meaning of the statute.[8]

 

The Alabama statute examined above is fairly typical, both in terms of its general definition and in its use of examples to illustrate what qualifies as a deadly weapon. Accordingly, the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling is illustrative of both the position held by the majority of courts, and the legal principles underlying such decisions, which, upon closer examination demonstrate why this legal urban legend is utterly asinine.[9]

As a precursory matter, it warrants a brief explanation of what exactly a “deadly weapon” is in a legal sense. Statutory language and exact definitions may vary from state to state, however, the purpose of including terms like “deadly weapon” or “dangerous instrument” in criminal statutes is twofold.[10] On one hand, it can be a necessary element of a crime itself.[11] For example a North Carolina statue, which prohibits carrying a “dangerous weapon” during a riot, necessarily requires that an individual (1) be carrying a “dangerous weapon,” and, (2) do so during a riot, in order to be held in violation of the statute; failure to do either does not satisfy the elements of the crime and cannot support a conviction.[12] On the other hand, use or possession of a “dangerous weapon” may serve to enhance the severity or punishment of an underlying crime.[13] For example, the California Penal Code states that any person who uses a “deadly or dangerous weapon” in the commission of a felony shall be punished by an additional one year term of imprisonment.[14] In such a case an individual has already satisfied the elements of a felony, such as assault, but the fact that they have used a “dangerous weapon” to do so enhances the penalty because it has enhanced their ability to inflict harm.[15] Keeping these facts in mind it is easier to illustrate the inherent problems of finding a defendant’s body to be a “deadly weapon.”

 

First, consider a statute where the use of a “deadly weapon” enhances the severity of a crime; for example, battery, defined as willful and unlawful use of force upon the person of another.[16] Now keep in mind that, unlike the weapons commonly listed in “deadly weapon” statutes, which are usually inanimate objects extrinsic to the body, the human body is both living and necessarily composes the entirety of a your physical being.[17] If an individual’s body by itself could be considered a “deadly weapon” it would be impossible for a person like Cameron Poe to commit basic battery because the commission of that crime necessarily requires the use of some part of the human body, and thus any battery, no matter how insignificant, would be battery with a deadly weapon.[18] This not only undermines the legislator’s purpose in making the use of a deadly weapon a factor aggravating the severity of a crime, it is also unnecessary, because many state statutes also include aggravating factors that do not rely on the use of a weapon but can achieve the same or similar enhancement of the applicable punishment, such as battery committed with “deadly force.”[19]

 

The true absurdity of the idea that an individual’s body can be a weapon is far better illustrated when next considering what happens when possession of a weapon is a necessary element of a crime. For example, many states and jurisdictions have criminal statutes where the only necessary elements are: (1) the possession of a weapon, and (2) being present in a particular location. Under such laws Poe’s status as a “deadly weapon” would put him in violation of the law any time he took his daughter to school,[20] or happened to be present during a riot.[21] Further, under an Arizona law he could effectively be barred from voting.[22] My personal favorite illustration comes from a statute making it a federal offense to carry a concealed “dangerous weapon” onto an airplane if that weapon is accessible during flight.[23] If Cameron Poe’s body was such a weapon this would mean that every time he boarded a plane he would be committing a felony and subjecting himself to a punishment of up to 10 years in prison.[24] This of course begs the question, if Poe wished to comply with the law by preventing the concealment and accessibility of his own body he would be required to fly fully nude and heavily sedated?

 

Taking a moment to address the minority view,[25] it should be noted that those courts did not find that a defendants body was itself a weapon, only that part of a defendant’s body, such as fists or teeth, could be a weapon depending on how it was used, and only in the context of the particular crime for which the defendant was on trial. [26] Additionally, these courts have arrived at this tenuous legal determination only after considering all the circumstances surrounding the crime, including the defendant’s conduct, the amount of harm done to the victim, and often only as a result of some special circumstance. [27] Further, even within the minority only a scant handful of courts have even weighed martial arts or military training in considering whether a defendant’s conduct in the particular situation constituting the crime amounted to the use of a weapon.[28] In absolutely no jurisdiction is such training alone determinative that a defendant’s body, or any part thereof, is a weapon; deadly, dangerous or otherwise.[29]

 

Finally, though it is unclear whether screen writers applying “Hollywood Law” view the Supreme Court of California and the Ninth Circuit as binding, or merely persuasive authority, it is worth noting that despite their reputations for decisions out of step with reason and the majority of courts, both have come down on the side of Alabama and the majority, holding that the body alone can never be deadly a “deadly weapon.”[30]

 

ENDNOTES:

[1] Statutory language varies from state to state and even within the same set of statutes, and accordingly the terms “deadly weapon” and “dangerous weapon” will be used interchangeably in this section to conform to the statute being discussed. Because the main thrust of this myth is that military or martial arts training alone can transform the human body by itself into a weapon the need to differentiate between the two is not relevant. However, many statutes differentiate between different kinds of weapons, and generally, terms like “deadly weapon” or “deadly instrument” are used to refer to something that is inherently deadly or capable of inflicting severe bodily harm, such as a gun or knife. Conversely, statutory terms like “dangerous instrument” or “dangerous weapon” often refer to objects which may not ordinarily dangerous but are used in a way likely to cause great bodily harm, such as intentionally using an automobile to strike someone, or possibly even using a pillow to smother someone.

[2]For example, in the film The Firm it is implied that the only reasons Mitch McDeere’s brother is in prison is because he took boxing lessons and as a result what would otherwise have been self defense was ruled manslaughter. See THE FIRM (Paramount Pictures 1993).

[3]Con AIR (Touchstone Pictures 1997).

[4]Con Air also features a host of other legal errors. In addition to having quite possibly the world’s worst criminal defense attorney who urges Poe to plead guilty to manslaughter in the first degree rather than raise a self defense argument, as a jurisdictional matter, it is also unclear how an Alabama state court trying Poe for a state crime could put him in federal prison. Further, Poe flies home to be paroled when in fact federal prisons have not offered parole since The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 abolished it.

[5] See Ala. Code § 13A-1-2 (2011).

[6]See Ex parte Cobb, 703 So. 2d 871, 875 (Ala. 1996).

[7]Id at 876.

[8]Id.

[9]See generally Tracy Bateman Farrell, Annotation, Parts of Human Body, Other Than Feet, as Deadly or Dangerous Weapons or Instrumentalities for Purposes of Statutes Aggravating Offenses such as Assault and Robbery, 67 A.L.R.6th 103 (2011).

[10]See Michael D. Cicchini & Amy B. Kushner, BUT THEY DIDN’T READ ME MY RIGHTS! MYTHS, ODDITIES AND LIES ABOUT OUR LEGAL SYSTEM, 93-96 (2010). See also FN 7, supra.

[11] Cicchini at 94-95.

[12] See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14–288.7(a) (2011).

[13] Cicchini at 94-95.

[14] See Cal. Penal Code § 12022(B)/>(1) (West 2011).

[15] Cicchini at 94-95.

[16] See Cal. Penal Code § 242 (West 2011).

[17] See Cicchini at 94-95 (applying a similar argument to hands).

[18] Id.

[19] See People v. Aguilar, 16 Cal. 4th 1023, 1026-27 (Cal. 1997) (in concluding that mere hands and feet alone cannot qualify as a “weapon,” as used in Cal. Penal Code § 245(a)(1), because the term applies only to objects extrinsic to the body, the court noted that the use of hands or fists alone may still support a conviction of assault “by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury,” which carries the same penalty).

[20] See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 527.070 (West 2011)(criminalizing the conduct of one who “knowingly … possesses, or carries… [a] deadly weapon…on any public or private school campus, grounds, recreation area, athletic field, or any other property owned, used, or operated by any board of education…”)(words omitted).

[21] See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14–288.7(a).

[22] See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3102(A)(11) (2011) (“criminalizing the act of …entering an election polling place on the day of any election carrying a deadly weapon”)(words omitted).

[23] 49 USCS § 46505

[24] Id.

[25] See Bateman, (citing to United States v. Rocha, 598 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010) in stating “The court noted that most states had determined that body parts cannot be considered a dangerous or deadly weapon while other states, although a clear minority, had allowed body parts to be considered dangerous or deadly weapons”).

[26] See Rocha at 1156 (citing examples from the minority of states finding that parts of the body can be weapons the court points to State v. Allen, 193 N.C.App. 375, 667 S.E.2d 295 (2008) (hands); State v. Bennett, 328 S.C. 251, 493 S.E.2d 845 (1997) (hands and fists); People v. Ross, 831 P.2d 1310 (Colo.1992) (hands); State v. Grumbles, 104 N.C.App. 766, 411 S.E.2d 407 (1991) (fists); Turner v. State, 664 S.W.2d 86 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (hands and feet); State v. Zangrilli, 440 A.2d 710 (R.I.1982) (hands); Ellis v. State, 137 Ga.App. 834, 224 S.E.2d 799 (1976) (hands and floor); Pulliam v. State, 298 So.2d 711 (Miss.1974) (fists and teeth); State v. Born, 280 Minn. 306, 159 N.W.2d 283 (1968) (fists and body parts); State v. Heinz, 223 Iowa 1241, 275 N.W. 10 (Iowa 1937) (hands and fists)).

[27] See generally Bateman.

[28] For example see Id. citing State v. Basting, 572 N.W.2d 281 (Minn. 1997) (court determined that defendant's fist did not constitute a “dangerous weapon,” despite defendant's prior training as professional boxer); Dominguez v. State, 2004 WL 1658350(Tex. App. El Paso 2004)(unpublished opinion) (court upheld a jury conviction for assault with a deadly weapon based on defendant’s use of his fists and knees, given that the record showed that the defendant was a “big guy” with 20 years of martial arts training, the 30 minute duration of the assault and the severity of the victims injuries); Konrad v. State, 763 P.2d 1369 (Alaska Ct. App. 1988), (in holding defendant did not use his bare hands as "dangerous instruments" when he hit his estranged spouse, the court considered the fact that defendant did not inflict serious injury, had never received martial arts training, and was not otherwise skilled in using hands to inflict injury).

[29] See generally Bateman.

[30] See People v. Aguilar, 16 Cal. 4th 1023, 1034 (Cal. 1997) (holding that a “deadly weapon” within the meaning of California Penal Code § 245 must be an object extrinsic to the human body, and thus bare hands or feet cannot be deadly weapons); Rocha at 1157 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010) (holding that the mere use of a body part does not constitute the use of a “dangerous weapon” within meaning of federal assault statute 18 U.S.C.A. § 113(a)(3-6) because the court found that Congress's intent in creating the statute was to differentiate a situation in which defendant utilizes a weapon or some other object to augment force of his physical assault from a situation in which a defendant does not use such an object, even if the assault results in severe bodily harm).

[thatgoesinthere 16]

There's too much going on in this movie to ever cover all of it, but I was surprised that the whole incident that got Cyrus' plan rolling wasn't mentioned during the show at all.

 

 

Why would anyone ever think that the best way to get this takeover plan in motion was to have Pinball (Dave Chappelle) swallow a baggy of matches and a tiny squirt bottle of lighter fluid (by the way, where do you even get that in prison?), then regurgitate it on the plane, all for the purpose of lighting whoever is seated next to him on fire? Was that really the only distraction they could think of? That's counting on a lot. I feel like so many things could go wrong with that. What if the matches got too wet? What if she made Pinball stay in his seat anyway? Did they know what the seating arrangements would be ahead of time? What if one of the people that were in on the plan ended up seated next to him? Would they play Rock-Paper-Scissors for who has to get burnt?

[babyoilbandit 81]

I'm with Zouks, this is the greatest film ever made. Do you know who else agrees with us? In How to Lose Friends and Alienate People Simon Pegg's character explains just why Con Air is the best film ever made (better than La Dolce Vita)

[BobH 26]

What if one of the people that were in on the plan ended up seated next to him? Would they play Rock-Paper-Scissors for who has to get burnt?

 

I think the only prisoners involved in the plan on board at that point were Pinball, Cyrus and Diamond Dog (both in the separate max-security lockup). I think Swamp Thing and Cindino were the only other prisoners involved in the plan, and they came in after the takeover.

[jimmywellington 9]

This isn't exactly a correction and omission but after Paul said John Cusack refuses to be interviewed about Con Air, I wanted to see if I could find out why.

 

 

It was Malkovich, not Cusack.

[Quasar Sniffer 4174]

 

Now that is perfection.

 

Haha, many thanks!

[DaraCrawley 18]

My older brother pointed this out that Nicolas Cage's hair was in a mullet specifically for the potential Cage lead Tim Burton directed Superman movie. It was supposed to be based on the Superman black era, during which bad decisions lead Superman to have the do, but it never got off the ground. After it was canceled Cage must have decided the style gave enough party in the back for him to keep the mullet.

[FisterRoboto 7499]

My older brother pointed this out that Nicolas Cage's hair was in a mullet specifically for the potential Cage lead Tim Burton directed Superman movie. It was supposed to be based on the Superman black era, during which bad decisions lead Superman to have the do, but it never got off the ground. After it was canceled Cage must have decided the style gave enough party in the back for him to keep the mullet.

 

That's just long hair. It's not a mullet.

[MaxWebb 0]

Correction &/or Omission

Whilst I'm no Doctor, I am a diabetic. So I can say with some degree of authority that Baby O is no diabetic. Not to get too technical/ medical about it, but I take insulin because my pancreas is fucked and doesn’t produce it’s own.

Insulin serves to break down and maintain blood sugar. To put it simple terms blood sugar is what gives you or June even Jason the energy to walk about and make podcasts.

It is a common misconception amongst screenwriters who can’t be bothered to research key plot devices that diabetes is basically an allergy to sugar. But I need energy to walk around and listen to podcasts too.

Baby O is having what we diabetics call a hypo, which is a result of low blood sugar levels, this commonly comes about from taking insulin and not eating enough. The insulin breaks down the energy we do have to such a degree that I or indeed Baby O would basically be running on empty. What Baby O needs is a snickers bar or some such energy source.

I know it’s a dumb assed Nic Cage movie so I won’t point out that Baby O would in the real world at best be lying on the floor convulsing his way to dead within a half of an hour of starting his hypo. But I think it should be pointed out that giving him a shot of insulin in that state would technically be murder. On the plus side that might have lead to Poe getting sent back to prison and given a decent starting point for Con Air 2.

[WalkTheMoves 3]

I know I'm a week late, but I just got around to listening to this ep. Holy shit. Amazing.

 

My brother-in-law was a US Ranger, a cop, and now works as a guard at a maximum security federal prison. I seriously think he should have been the special guest on this one. I am going to have to ask him SO many questions.

 

So many.

[WalkTheMoves 3]

 

It was Malkovich, not Cusack.

 

Actually, IMDB says it was Cusack. Paul said Malkovich.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118880/trivia?item=tr2239032