I shouted out loud when I read this Cracked article last night because I've been saying the same thing about Titanic since the damn movie was released and everyone says I'm way over-thinking it. Which, yeah, but also....the poor other guy!!!
"Ewok Holocaust" is the name of my new Star Wars-themed Death Metal band.
"THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT ADVOCATE OR CONDONE THE EXTINCTION OR BETRAYAL OF EWOKS"well it bloody well should
An early date with Mrs Earthling was to see Titanic and I made much the same comment to her. She didn't think that I was being particularly romantic.
If only there were a "love" button instead of a "like" button. You win the Internet for today!
I have always thought about that at the end of "Big" - that young Josh Baskin is going to come home, and how is he going to explain where he was? Isn't there going to be a police search for his kidnapper? Isn't he going to have to go to therapy to deal with his "ordeal"? However, it never occurred to me that there might be a search for Adult Josh Baskin (I suppose if I thought about it, I figured Susan would tell the other execs at the company that he'd moved on), or that young Josh was now screwed because he knew he could live on his own.
I rewatched Big about a month ago; the film totally cheats in ignoring the trauma that Josh's mom is going through the whole time while he's out frolicking in the City.
See where I thought, that although it would be a bummer to be the other husband/love of Rose's life, people get remarried all the time and not only when the first time was a big horrible disaster. People fall in love more than once too. Maybe not in exactly the same way, but we aren't given very much information about Rose's dead husband so how do we know what that marriage was about even if the weird reunited only with Jack in heaven business is just bizarre (and unnecessary, says I).
That deeply upset me as a kid when I watched it. I was so worried for his mom. Unless it was also some sort of timeslip?
I appreciate that it's less harsh than Peter Pan: where Mr. Darling is so distraught at the children's disappearance he literally moves into the doghouse (he blames himself for kenneling nana). Of Mrs. Darling, she never leaves the house, sitting in front of an open window waiting for her children -- "and remember the gaiety of her in the old days, all gone now just because she has lost her babes." And for the children, they've almost forgotten their parents by the time they return.
Agree - it has always stressed me out.
They don't ignore the trauma that she's going through. They have her breaking down when he calls. They have her wandering around his room and using the walkie talkie to talk to his friend.
I feel like they ignore it for long stretches, and there's no question raised as to Josh's being an awful human being for putting his mom through this. (Rather that, um, tell her the truth?)
He's only awful from the point at which he could have gone back (late in the film) but ignores Billy. Before that, he is trying to get home. (He did try to tell her that he was Josh, and she -- understandably -- doesn't believe him.) But the scenes where she cries on the phone and when she talks to Billy have always upset me -- the poor woman!
And Billy rather makes clear that he's being awful at that point. Billy might not have specifically cited his mom, but the timing in the movie is the conversation with his mom, followed by Billy pushing Josh to come home.
There is that one scene where Josh's mom uses his walkie talkie and talks to his best friend, in the house next door, and the friend assures her that Josh will be home soon. You can see her sadness in that scene, and I think it's meant to represent a hint of what she's going through. (In the end, this really isn't the story of a mom dealing with her kidnapped son, so I can see why they don't do more of it...)
So you figured out how to like it twice instead. Well played, sir; I reward you with a like of my own.
I've thought about it before, but man I never noticed the part about the photographs.
Incidentally, this brings up a disagreement I have with my blushing bride. I maintain that the Ewoks, vicious little guerilla warriors that they are who almost ate three hominids who are plainly from either another sentient species or from a tall tribe down the road, were not banging on empty stormtrooper helmets in the celebration scene and that they plainly decapitated said stormtroopers whome had been garotted or beaten to death. Christina thinks I'm full of it (in my defense, I had to provide visual evidence that said drumming occured).So in conclusion, Ewoks were vicious creatures, cannibals by intent and deserved what they got.
I have spent *way* too much time thinking about this movie:http://www.farscapeweekly.com/weblog/2005/12/revisiting-camerons-titanic(I noticed Rose's lack of admirable qualities when the movie first came out.)
That "Endor Holocaust" article is some serious high level geekery! I have to say, it was quite interesting from a science point of view even though I know little of Star Wars and am not sure I have ever even watched ROTJ.
Good lord, the Ewoks are straight-up savages. Of course those are the decapitated heads of stormtroopers.
You're not sure? Man, how I wish I could master that kind of repression...