I didn't get any smug vibe from him. Straight forward and to the point is not smug.
Not only was he being smug, but it was unwarranted smugness, which is hilarious. In other words, his smugness is based on him "getting" a fan theory, which he laughably presented as a fact.
I'm sorry that you didn't get that scene
LOL! Given that his fan theory is stupid, and I've already explained why, and even if it weren't stupid, it's still just a fan theory, there's nothing to "get".
However, it is not just a fan theory.
Yes, it most certainly is.
It has been discussed to death since the film came out and is exactly what TxMike said.
Anything that isn't evident from onscreen events is a fan theory, no matter who proposes it. In this case, the fan theory is not only not evident from onscreen events, it is actually at odds with them. Once again, she didn't initially suspect that Jerry was lying. As I said:
Also, she didn't suspect that Jerry was lying; she merely suspected that he may not have actually verified that there were no cars missing. She asked him, "How do you know?" and then asked about their methods of keeping track of all their cars and such. Had she suspected him of lying, she wouldn't have been satisfied with him going and doing a lot count by himself, because he could just lie about the results of that too. She didn't suspect any intentional deception/wrongdoing on his part until she saw him "fleeing the interview".
reply
share
The LA Baker (799)
7 years ago
The cohen brothers confirmed it. You are the smug one and you are grasping at straws.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4093)
7 years ago
>The cohen brothers confirmed it.
Again:
Anything that isn't evident from onscreen events is a fan theory, no matter who proposes it.
>You are the smug one and you are grasping at straws.
Your non sequitur is dismissed. And given that you have no actual arguments with regard to onscreen evidence, your tacit concession on the whole matter is noted.
reply
share
The LA Baker (799)
6 years ago
You are welcome to think whatever you wish, but I was trying to explain that it is confirmed by the film makers(and most obsessive fans). You can disregard that if you wish, but that doesn't alter reality for everyone else, only you.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4093)
6 years ago
It doesn't matter what the movie maker (or anyone else) says. For example, if there is a scene in a movie with a white cat, and the film maker says it was a black cat, it doesn't change the fact that it was a white cat, because only onscreen events matter, as I've already pointed out. Just because a movie maker intends/tries to convey something, doesn't mean he was successful.
If you have an onscreen events-based argument which actually addresses the following...
What you posted is nothing more than a fan theory, and it isn't even a good one. So you think that Mike was the first person who had ever lied to her? Prior to that, she had no idea that people were capable of lying?
Also, she didn't suspect that Jerry was lying; she merely suspected that he may not have actually verified that there were no cars missing. She asked him, "How do you know?" and then asked about their methods of keeping track of all their cars and such. Had she suspected him of lying, she wouldn't have been satisfied with him going and doing a lot count by himself, because he could just lie about the results of that too. She didn't suspect any intentional deception/wrongdoing on his part until she saw him "fleeing the interview".
... then present it. Otherwise, your tacit concession on the whole matter remains noted.
reply
share
The LA Baker (799)
6 years ago
"For example, if there is a scene in a movie with a white cat, and the film maker says it was a black cat, it doesn't change the fact that it was a white cat"
LMFAO. Dumbest analogy ever. I'm done here. This is like playing chess with a pigeon; amusing at first but ultimately pointless.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4093)
6 years ago
You fail Analogies 101 forever, and given that you have exactly zero arguments, your tacit concession on the matter remains noted.
>This is like playing chess with a pigeon; amusing at first but ultimately pointless.
Comical irony, coming from someone who just established himself as an utter idiot. Also, the idea of you knowing the first thing about chess is even funnier.
Tell me this, dumbass: if she suspected him of lying, why did she ask him to do an unsupervised a lot count? That would be a case of asking a liar to confirm his own lie.
You + an idiot = 2 idiots.
reply
share
jekoch21 (9)
5 years ago
You can like or not like the scene but I do think the Coens have made it clear that it was meant to wake up Marge from her Midwestern naivety and blind trust and made her suspicious of Jerry. I watched this several times and, though I liked the scene, I always wondered what the point was. A similar scene is the one where the officer talks with the older man about what he heard while tending bar. It barely moves the story along but I find it hilarious - "Well, that don't sound like too good a deal for him then."
reply
share