WordWolf

There's a wide variety of opinions represented here. A lot of posters have moved on to other things. I consider them GSC success stories. A few people have portrayed the GSC as a place where unpopular points of view result immediately in a dog-pile on the unpopular poster. I think it's true there's strong opinions in every direction, but painting that as a knee-jerk attack is both lazy thinking and a smear campaign meant to make dissenters feel better if they say something truly inflammatory and everyone replies and disagrees strongly. Some of us are still willing to discuss things we disagree with, providing we can make something resembling a respectful discussion on it. Feel free to give it a shot. Oh, and hello. Welcome aboard.

Ok, this is a proper triple (with three titles), but you'll see I cheated in how I linked them. In this movie, an impromptu fashion shoot at a book store brings about a new fashion model discovery in the shop clerk. She gets involved with an FBI agent willing to do anything to catch the criminal who killed his son. He retires after his desperate last case and enlists in the Navy, trying to graduate Navy Flight school with her help. Stars include Audrey and Fred Astaire, John Woo directs, and Lou Gossett Jr plays a supporting role.

I'm thinking.....

I was confident Raf wasn't referring to anything animated, but that last one kept reminding me of some animated shows where the main characters don't speak-I know of a few.

The last thing he saw was his heart, still beating, and flying away.... like a BAT OUT OF HELL.

That's it. The older folks didn't get that first?

Nuts-I knew I'd heard the other song, but couldn't come up with "Young Turks" without some part of the chorus.

John Goodman King Ralph Richard Griffiths

Admittedly, I haven't put in a study of how, historically, the practice of The Law was done. I was mulling over a perceived (as I saw it) disconnect- that is, a very harsh law on the books, which was nevertheless actually carried out that we were aware of. (Statistically, I'm confident it was carried out somewhere, sometime, but I'm skeptical it was COMMON.) That reminded me of something unrelated, which reminded me of the US legal system. What I was reminded of was a meeting I attended decades ago. An organization I was in was debating an increase in a fee for its members. The debate was briefly on the need for an increase, but was mostly about the proposed size. The proposal was something like double the current fee. Most of us were thinking some fraction of that would have been sufficient- 10% or thereabouts, not 100%. I was informed by someone with more experience that the amount in the proposal had to be deliberately higher than could possibly be needed or would be put into practice. That way, when the operations board handled it, they had the option of making the fee increase any amount, from zero up to the voted-upon limit, but no higher. In other words, the vote was for the highest amount they could discuss as the increase. The actual amount was their discretion, but we set the outside limit. As I am NOT an expert on US law by anyone's imagination, I can only speak to my understanding. By my thinking, a judge can impose a sentence for a crime- up to the limit of the penalties on the books. If a crime calls for a maximum sentence of 5 years, the judge can't just assign that particular crime a sentence of 19 years just because he wants to. (For multiple crimes at a time, he can impose multiple sentences and order they be served in succession rather than concurrent, but each crime has its own limit.) So, the law states the outside limit of what sentence can be imposed, subject to the ruling of a live judge. This makes sense, because a judge can look at the particulars of a case and lighten the sentence if there are mitigating circumstances that make this a less cut-and-dried case. I'm thinking that this sounds to me like what happened with The Law. The offical "books" state the maximum sentences and maximum penalties (death is pretty much "maximum" when it's imposed, other penalties would have their own limits of time or recompense), but those responsible for judging the legal incident would have the authority to assign a lighter load than was written-but not a heavier one. The system certainly makes sense to us now-which is why we use it- and I at the very least have a suspicion it worked the same way then. It certainly would explain the discrepancy between the practice and the official penalty. One problem with checking this is that it would be something understood by all, and rarely articulated if ever (I've never read anyone explain that the US does it, let alone why.) So, I don't know if there's anything that would specify that in black and white, let alone something we would have access to. So, I have a working theory, but I currently don't have something definite to confirm it-at least not now. Perhaps someone else here has something to confirm it (or refute it, for that matter, which would put my understanding back at Square Two.)

Or "It's About Time After Time".

Are we talking Sylvester Stallone, and some movie like "Cobra" or "Tango & Cash" here?

I've got that it's a TV show about astronauts who exceed light-speed and end up in the stone age, and the name either begins or ends with "time."

I know the HG Wells/ Jack the Ripper movie, but not the astronaut one.

I'd like to point out there was a supposed method to confirm women's virginity, but not men's virginity. (I've heard that some places into the 20th century that didn't follow the Torah still made a deal about it, I have no idea if they still do.) There's a peculiar disconnect, though. There's a written provision specifically that a wife could be stoned if the husband brought her forth and claimed she had not been a virgin when he married her, and her family could not provide the expected proof she had been. It isn't phrased as "the man is required, if she's not a virgin, to do this", but it isn't stated as "here is one option for the man" outright. One might argue that it is IMPLIED, but it's not stated outright. We know it was practiced as optional because Joseph was espoused to Mary, a purported virgin, and she turned up pregnant. We know his intention was to quietly drop this and not have her stoned. So, we know he COULD have had her stoned, and he COULD have had them part quietly. We know his plan to do so quietly was considered "just." Nowadays, we'd want that stated in an unambiguous fashion and written so redundantly redundant that there was no reasonable room to misinterpret. (There will always be someone unreasonable to misinterpret everything.) There was certainly room to do that then, but it wasn't written that way. I think that's peculiar.

I could have recognized about 1/2 the past page. I just got so used to not recognizing any that I stopped checking the thread. I can resume checking it some more. (And H w/o Bean missed my comment about "Take the Money and Run", where I said I could clap along. I was letting someone else name it, thinking they could, but since there's clapping in the song, hinting I could name it, then I forgot to name it later.)

Lord of War Bridget Moynihan Coyote Ugly

We Love You Conrad

The Island Michael Clark Duncan DareDevil

Obviously a political thriller, to go from that quote. Something controversial. Oh, yeah! "The Wizard of Oz."

"AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT." That song is basically the theme for troupe Monty Python's Flying Circus. That movie was a compilation of some of their routines. That song was definitely played during the opening credits. (Probably closing, also.)

Sylvester Stallone Tango & Cash Jack Palance

"Twin Peaks"?

Face/Off Nicolas Cage Gone in 60 Seconds

Wild swing.... "Texaco Star Theater"?

That's him. For fun, I'll also invoke the owls and point out I also left out actors Cantinflas and Armando Bo. (Who? Who? Who?) Actually, you may know Cantinflas from the old version of "Around the World in 80 Days". (That's where I know him from, at least.)