Really Mike? Maybe because that's your NAME. I assume she didn't have to look at your credit cards do realize that MIKE...is short for MICHAEL.
Anyone who likes this piece of undeveloped *beep* needs to die painfully, that is all.
If u paid attention to the story... the point wasn't that Mike is short for Michael, but that he never told her his name. The only way she knew his name was because she stole his wallet from the campground. So the fact she was calling him Michael started raising questions in his head b/c people don't call him that. And the more she said it, the more questions it raised until finally he realizes, he never told her his name.
And she was acting suspiciously. The Mike-Michael moment wasn't an "AH HA!" moment, but just the nugget that got him thinking about all the suspicious stuff she had been doing.
You should calm down and maybe pay attention to the film before spouting and screaming out of control. You've been ranting on 3 different boards about the same thing. And exactly what was under-developed? The characters? The story? What was in question? The characters were well defined. The plot was unique and executed well. The story had a beg, middle & end. What was "under-developed?"
Now even though I have explained this point logically and intelligently, I expect an out of control, crazy retort - full of "this is crap" and "mike is short for michael, duh." So do your worst.
Really? I distinctly remember the conversation going...
"You must have told me it before"
"I told you my name was Mike, only my grandmother, who is dead, as called me Michael".
So your whole explanation is now voided, thanks for stopping by though. But to add gas on the fire, thanks for giving me a good laugh about how this script was "unique and executed well".
You haven't explained anything logically or intelligently, you're completely changing the dialogue of the movie to try and make up for this horrendous script and that scene in particular.
You ever been in a court of law? You know why they have the court reporter to take down everything that is said? So someone can never claim that they said soemthing they didn't or to remind someone of what they said. Because "distinctly remember" doesn't play in a court of law. And it doesn't play when you have VIDEOTAPED EVIDENCE. The DVD is kind of like our court reporter here.
And you shouldn't argue with someone who OWNS the DVD.
1) During the 1st scene with Ida on the path... He doesn't say his name to her.
2) She calls him "Michael" as he is passing out from the bear trap. This is the first time he's seen her since the path. He doesn't tell her his name.
3) In the cabin... HE NEVER TELLS HER HIS NAME.
This is how the "exchange" you highlighted, let me say that again, the "exchange" YOU HIGHLIGHTED, ACTUALLY goes...
She leans in with the tea (after 4 minutes of him NEVER saying his name)...
MIKE: How did you know my name?
IDA: Excuse me?
MIKE: You called me Michael. You did it just now. You did it before when I woke up. Nobody calls me Michael.
IDA: Well, I am sure you're mistaken. You must've told it to me before.
MIKE: No. I would have told you Mike. Only my grandmother, etc..."
YOU CHANGED THE DIALOGUE OF THE FILM TO FIT YOUR ARGUMENT. And you got caught. You left out "Well, I am sure you're mistaken." AND "No. I WOULD HAVE told you Mike."
BUSTED. You voided yourself. Hahaha! Now apologize.
And you never bothered to answer any of my questions about "what did you mean by under-developed?' Because you are probably too lazy/ignorant to know what under-developed means. This seems like it's your only example so far that I have read, because you have been screaming about this Mike-Michael thing on 3 different blogs. It's not "under-developed." Its WELL ESTABLISHED that he never told her his name.
Thanks for stopping by and exposing yourself as the fraud. Quick tip: if you are going to try to make fun of someone or be witty... make sure you know what you are talking about. It will save you embarrassment in the future. I mean, it took all of 3 minutes to load the DVD, select the scene and play to prove you wrong.
It's one thing not to like a film. Everyone's entitled to like/dislike something. But to be so blatantly wrong. And then to defend being wrong by lying is pretty sad.
Now we'll never get a retort from you. In fact, I firmly expect you to delete these posts and try to escape this hole you dug yourself into.
I rented this last night and enjoyed the film. It is exactly how Joe's says it is.
shareThanks for writing another novel but you're still wrong. He says "I told you Mike, only my grandmother, who is dead, has called me Michael", put it on caption, it's exactly what he says. I don't have to flood the thread to tell you the facts, it's what he says, the film doesn't lie. Why would he say "I would have told you Mike"? That doesn't make any sense, even if he did say he WOULD have told her Mike he STILL would have been suspicious that she called him Michael, so even your made up dialogue would have made the movie look stupid, haha, nice one. Seriously dude you're getting way to involved in this, it is what it is and just accept that.
Thanks for taking all that time to type it up but no matter how much you type it doesn't change the facts. He still says it, again, thanks for coming.
In fact just stop talking in general, if you really consider this POS a unique film then you really need to watch more movies. This movie was a carbon copy inspiration rip off of TCM with the usual antics. Deformed guy, sherriff that starts out nice but ends up being with the family, stupid characters, crazy old lady, pointless and cliche ending, relies on gore more then anything else, yeah...real unique, haha.
I didn't want to resort to name-calling, but you are a Moron... I own the DVD. I put it in, found the scene and TYPED EXACTLY what was said. He NEVER SAYS, "I told you Mike." This is undisputed. You have no argument here. You lost. Proven wrong beyond a reasonable doubt.
Try not only reading what someone writes, but try listening to the film. He never tells her his name. He never says he told her his name. I don't have to answer "why would he say 'I would have told you Mike.'" Do you know why? Because it's what he says. I didn't write it. The character SAID it. It's like saying, "why would Forrest Gump say, 'Life is like a box of chocolates.'" It's not a question to answer. It's just a fact.
You have been spewing venom about this film, most specifically on three posts because you HEARD a line wrong.
The more you argue the dumber you sound. Actually... scratch that. Keep talking. You're only digging yourself deeper and deeper.
And as far as your other points... **possible spoilers** 1) citing 2003's TCM is stupid b/c that film is 100% ripped off. It's a remake. And not a very good one at that. While the structure does have some similarities the the 1st (and only TCM), that would be the only thing. I found the 2003 version to be all style and very little story. 2) No cannibals or Sheriffs in TF. It's a Park Ranger. Minor difference to some, but still, not what you claimed it was. And was Leatherface deformed? He just wore a mask (yes of human skin, but it was a mask.) And Deacon was scarred, not deformed. 3) Relies on gore? I don't think so. The gore in this film complements the story. It's not excessive like most films. And 2003's TCM didn't have needless gore? 4) The film is about a child. One couple has one (an unborn child that the girlfriend is waiting to tell her boyfriend), the other wants one. Most pics establish things in the 1st act and never pay them off in the 3rd act. Most horror pics become simply about survival. While this has that aspect, it also keeps the story about the child alive throughout.
Like I said, dislike if you want. It's your opinion.
And you say I am getting to into this? Pot calling the kettle black there, Moron. And your response was not that much shorter than mine so if I wrote a book... so did you.
I love it when you shut them up.
shareAnd the winner is Eat_At_Joes_Coffee_Shack!! LOL
Good job!
I liked the movie, too. The only dumb thing was the fact that out of I-don't-know-how-many-hiking-couples they got maybe the only already pregnant girl. Or at least the only pregnant girl with a boyfriend who doesn't know about his future fatherhood. That was dumb. The rest was really nice!
this whole argument would never have existed if they didn't use such a generic name as Michael, since that threw me off as well. Why not something like Scott where there is no freaking short-name, it's just more stupidity from this crap movie.
share[deleted]
I LOVED THIS FILM. I own the DVD as well. Sorry f_f_f... it's just like Claudia typed it.
"The Dude Abides"
Ya i just watched this and Mike clearly says " I WOULD have told you my name is Mike"
f_f_f is an idiot alright.
And notice how he never came back to respond? I love that.
shareWell I will respond for him then. I totally agreed with his comments, I thought it made no sense.
I think this because, in my opinion, whether or not he told her his name makes no difference, it's the fact that she was calling him Michael ('his full name') that made his ears prick up. So we can stop talking about courts of law and the script - it is irrelevant. You see if I introduced myself as Kelly, and she called me Michaela my ears would prick up too as it is NOT a known shortening of the latter. I do have a name that is unusual and one that would not be guessed from the shortening of it - but if my name were, for example Kathy and some one referred to me as Katherine - I would simply think they had over heard it, or been told it and were being old fashioned in it's full use, or polite - not that they had stolen my wallet.
I think you all leapt in on the original poster with an amount of childish glee, I presume because you are defending to the death a film which you enjoyed. And, as such, take it personally when it's quality is called in question. I suggest you grow up, and take criticism in the way it is intended, as debate - not a personal affront. It makes you look very small indeed.
As stated, many times, it's not simply because he said, "You called me michael" that was the alarm. (try reading my first post on this thread). She says this many times. He's slowly coming to from being unconscious. It's the fact she called him "michael" + all the other things he starts remembering. She says it many times and it builds. She's also acting weird the whole time.
And that was a polite, debate I had entered. And then if you read his retorts, you would have discovered it was f_f_f that got out of line.
But that's if you had bothered to read the posts. Which you didn't. You simply agreed with the poster "original thought" about the "mike-michael" thing. You wanted to defend the orginal poster, call me small/insult me, make you "the bigger person for putting it all in perspective."
Because anyone who read the thread would have seen it was HIS remarks which were childish. He pounded his chest while being WRONG the whole time. I only told the truth to back up my point. He had to lie to defend his.
Opinions are different. If you think that it wasn't an interesting plot point, fine. That's your opinion. But the original poster was trying to manipulate the facts. Saying things were in the film that weren't.
And that's why he was open to attacks (hence the "court of law" stuff.)
But you didn't bother with actually reading all the posts. You just wanted to attack me. Fine. You skimmed the posts, caught a few lines here and there and "went to town" attacking me.
If you read the posts, you would have seen this clearly. His "opinion" was debated, and he even had a chance to say, "sorry my mistake, I remember it wrong." But he choose to continue to fabricate stuff. Which is why he got the "pile on" treatment. Or as you call it the "childish" treatment. Well, when you act like one, prepare to be treated like one. That's why 2 or 3 other posters actually had to come out and say, "Dude, you're wrong."
He's not wrong for not liking the film or thinking the "Mike-Michael" thing wasn't a great moment. He was wrong for lying to try to make his point. Which is why he lost the argument and never came back to the thread.
You should learn to read, then offer constructive criticism. Now don't take that personally, it's not meant that way. And FYI: when you offer advice as a thinly guised insult... it makes you look small too.
Now you're presuming (incorrectly) that I didn't read all the posts.I assure you I did, and I fail to see where the OP became childish. Please stop saying I did not read all the posts. And calling him a liar is a bit rich. At least you admit to being small.
By the way shouting BUSTED and calling someone a moron, in my book - are both childish and offensive. Now you can point out to me examples of where he was being childish and we can discuss it.
I'll indulge you...
In his first retort post (3rd overall):
"So your whole explanation is now voided, thanks for stopping by though." In which he's making up stuff to prove his point.
And... "you're completely changing the dialogue of the movie to try and make up for this horrendous script and that scene in particular."
(That's not calling me a liar?)
In his 2nd retort:
"so even your made up dialogue would have made the movie look stupid, haha, nice one."
"Thanks for taking all that time to type it up but no matter how much you type it doesn't change the facts. He still says it, again, thanks for coming. In fact just stop talking in general, if you really consider this POS a unique film"
This was all before I "name-called". And after someone else responded telling him he was wrong about his dialogue.
Also... on another thread for TIMBER FALLS, which I cited in my 1st post, he wrote:
"I don't care if it's a horror movie or not. Mike is short for Michael, this isn't a horror movie, it's the first credited movie that was written by a bunch of monkies."
I'll assume he meant "monkeys", but with him... you never know.
4 more people jumped in and told him he was wrong. So he never bothered to come back to the board.
How could you have read all the posts and thought I was attacking him first? He clearly launched the first attack. I defended the film no more than he attacked it. But then he responded personally with incorrect facts. When I tried to correct him, he had a chance to take it back. Say, "I got it wrong, but I still hate the film." That would have been fine. Instead he makes up more lies and then is too cowardly to come back when multiple people call him out.
If he made the mistake once, it's innocent. When he says it again even after multiple people confirm what he's saying is untrue... he's lying. He wrote in great length how he said the conversation went, even so far as to say, "put it on caption"... I own the DVD, I wrote out how the scene played, multiple others confirmed this. So... he was trying to lie to prove his point and when he got caught... he bailed (like a coward).
And as I said, he started the name calling first. He attacked first and I responded. Was it not offensive for him to call me a liar first? and "your whole argument is voided, thanks for stopping by..." that's not demeaning and insulting? What book are you reading? BUSTED came well after VOIDED.
And as I said in my post, I didn't want to resort to name-calling... perhaps I was out of line, but it was only after his personal attacks. Push, and I push back.
You don't like the film. Fine. You agree the Mike-Michael thing didn't work fine. But to say I am out of line for defending a film I like, and then responding to personal attacks (which I didn't start) only confirms your bias in this situation. Your posts have taken the tone of "the high road" but they are not. They are quite transparent. You should be bigger than f_f_f, just say, "I don't like the film and the Mike-Michael thing didn't work for me." But you are choosing to spin it. Say I am out of line.
That's lame.
[deleted]
You asked for examples and then you never respond?
Just like f_f_f? When the going gets tough, the tough don't answer.
I hope to christ that you lot never have to discuss anything that matters ....
shareWhat does that mean? I mean, literally, what does, "I hope to christ that you lot never have to discuss anything that matters ...."
Is this not a board to discuss films? And if this stuff doesn't matter to you, why contribute at all? You're trying to be cool and funny but only come off as sad and lame. Even lamer that you contributed to 6 message boards on this one film.
In the big scope of things... yes, nothing discussed on these boards matters. It's only movie talk. But no one is claiming we're discussing world peace or the economy.
Get over yourself.
Et toi aussi, putain. What makes you think I'm trying to be cool and funny? And why do you feel it is appropriate to call me sad and lame? Did I call you names?
I don't care that it's "only movie talk". What does exercise me somewhat is the amount of time and energy spent arguing about the tiniest of points in what is, after all, a cack film.
I suggest you follow the advice contained within your last paragraph yourself. Do you imagine you are running these boards? You certainly seem to have more to say than just about anyone else.
I never suggested I was running these boards. I have only contributed like many, many hundreds of thousands of others.
Your intent was to belittle myself and the other posters engaged in a chat, was it not? That's not making fun? That's why you were called sad and lame because you yourself are contributing to the board.
And who cares about belittling a point? This is a forum of fans and I guess anti-fans to either celebrate a film they like or to tear one down they don't. And it's that passion that leads to the discussions.
To you it's a cack film. So what? That's your opinion. I liked it. It was a small, independent film. I saw it at SCREAMFEST IN LA last year. most $2million films don't get released in the theaters. I got to meet the cast and crew and really enjoyed them and the film. If I am passionate in the film's defense, sue me. I feel like it's a film I found and when people attack it (or in the case of f_f_f - lie about it) then I go to work.
What "exercises me" is the amount of time (contributing to 6 boards - multiple messages) someone would spend to a film they considered "cack."
Contribute your thoughts... love or hate... but don't critisize others for contributing to a board when you yourself are contributing to the same boards.
"I'm not the kinda dad that does things or says stuff or looks at you. But the love is there."
"Critisize"? Well, I suppose you *are* American. And there's nothing wrong with the term 'exercise'. If you have problems with the language go away and study it.
Like many people who have been issued a skull too large for their brain (which includes the vast majority of your countrymen) you seem to equate the amount of noise you are generating with the amount of sense you are making. Doesn't work that way, I'm afraid.
You aver that I am belittling you, and write on that basis. But it is your decision that I am belittling you; in fact I was mocking you. There is a difference.
So you saw it at some schlock horror film festival. So what? Does that mean we have to pay you special heed, or that your opinion is better focussed than anyone else's?
There were only two good things about this film: the photography, which was first-class, plus the fact that it had a relatively short running-time. It failed just about every other test, for me at least.
What did amuse me, however, was to see the number of people jumping up and down because they perceived the film to have an anti-Christian message. Now *that* was amusing.
Firstly... I am from Canada. So you are already wrong. Which kills a huge chunk of your attack right away. Too bad. Look who's taking to politics on a board for a, how'd you put it, cack film?
Secondly, no one here is screaming. But I can tell someone's using their user thesaurus alot. Good job. You're smart.
Thirdly, I only highlighted "exercise" to prove a point... That you are a pompous fool. Belitte? Mock? You are splitting hairs. The point was... i was right. When you said, "Et toi aussi, putain. What makes you think I'm trying to be cool and funny?" And then you just admitted, "But it is your decision that I am belittling you; in fact I was mocking you. There is a difference."
You were choosing - in one way or another - to make fun of me and the other posters. Which is what I said and exposed you and then you tried to lie about your intentions. Fine. But you just admitted to lying.
Way to win an argument!
When I said, what does that mean? I didn't mean literally, but obviously your intelligence can't comprehend, what we call in Canada, a rhetorical question.
Try - I believe the phrase is - getting your head out of your own ass - long enough to realize that you - mr. pompous Europe (?) guy, that my point was about your hypocrisy.
You came to a board, spouted your opinion which criticized others for having an opinion. In this country, and i think in any country, we call that: the pot calling the kettle black.
My opinion is my own. As is yours. On a film board, your opinion matters to me as much as anyone's. And I have always respected a differing opinion. The debate you stumbled into was about correcting facts. But that didn't interest you as much as "mocking" me and other poster did.
You didn't like the film, fine. But your post was about mocking the posters and not the film. The hypocrisy is the fact that you contributed to 6 boards on the film. So to "mock" the posters only means to mock yourself. The more you post, the more you mock yourself.
I think what you need to do is to examine the number of people with whom you argue, time after time repeating the same mantra.
I don't have to consult a 'user thesaurus', whatever that is; I have been using my language for many years and am quite at home with it. And I do know that 'alot' is actually two words.
Canada, pfft. I have several Canuck friends, but I've only come across one before who had an agenda like yours. She was fat, ugly and self-hating.
So farewell, dear Claudia. You have nothing interesting to say, and you think a discussion on an IMDb board about a fifth-rate slasher film is a 'debate'. As for mocking you, you obviously don't need me for that. Heh.
"So farewell, dear Claudia" - Haha... Coward.
And yes, it does get frustrating when someone like f_f_f repeats the lies over and over again, but hey... people are strange and crazy. Some people, like you, just don't get it. If f_f_f simply stated (and I said this many times), "Hey, I got the dialogue wrong, but I still hated the film" - there wouldn't have been pages of retorts. But he kept lying, as you did, so he needed to be hit with the truth. And that's when you made your comment.
And you comment on "alot" as a mistake? And "cack's" a proper scrabble word? Hypocrite.
I unlike you have no agenda. I was simply commenting on a film I liked. Look into the mirror: You had the agenda.
And once again *cough* hypocrite * cough*... you contributed to 6 message boards on this fifth rate slasher film. What does that say about you?
Wow.. that was interesting. Looks like ClaudiaGermann23 is 3-0.. LOL. I hope I never get into a debate with you! I will run the other way ;)
shareWas I that bad?
"I'm not the kinda dad that does things or says stuff or looks at you. But the love is there."
Well you tend to take over other peoples threads and attack them from the get go. Plus there's the part where you will ignore your own childish insults and then point to them as being the instigators with evidence that wasn't really an example of an instigation (also ignoring that it was their post that you initially responded to). Then you base your winning of a "debate" because people have stopped responding.
Here's news for you:
1) most people don't spend their whole life responding to one thread. I know I visit a thread section for a movie once or twice, maybe post, and then don't go there again.
2) It's not that they don't have arguments, it's that they got tired of talking to a brick wall. How can you have a debate when you never actually focus on what your opponent is saying. All I've read is you telling people that they are entitled to their opinions and not to criticize other people for theirs over and over again. Yet you started all the criticizing by not allowing the original posters to have their own opinion.
3)The other guy in the thread about things I've learned was much funnier than you and yes I find the Chuck Norris joke funny (a little played out but still good for a chuckle)
4)Even with your corrected dialogue of this scene the OP has a point. Even if he hadn't told her his name, when he says that he would have told her Mike -- She could have still transposed that into Michael. She's an old fashioned, reserved character. It's entirely plausible that she wouldn't endorse nick names.
Now I'm going to go and probably not even read your response because I have a life and won't be back to this thread. And by the way, the way I see it... It's 2-0 in favor of the other people. Only 2-0 because I haven't read the other thread you've apparently taken over.
It's cowardly to respond to a thread, attack me personally and then say, "Now I'm going to go and probably not even read your response because I have a life..."
You don't see the hypocrisy? The insinuation I have no life for contributing to a board, but you have a life by contributing to a board?
Check your ego at the door. You said nothing of value. And you are obviously too ignorant to understand the very simple concept that eluded the OP.
He never told her his name. It wasn't that Mike was short for Michael. He realizes he never told her his name. He's slowly coming to. Having been in shock and pain and crazy from looking for his girl. It's Ida's constantly saying "Michael" that finally builds up and then he realizes. I never told her my name. The only way she knew was by stealing his wallet from the campsite. That's all I ever tried to say. To simply correct a fact.
You're not worth any more words. Go continue your great "life"
I can't believe this thread's still going.
Horizon, it was clear the OP was insane. Maybe Claudia went over the top to get the point across, but the OP was the one not listening to anyone. He only left because he probably finally re-watched the scene and discovered it was like she said (and myself and others) said it was.
And I agree with Claudia, don't come to a board and say you're not going to read/respond to someone's response after you attack them. Grow a pair.
"The Dude Abides"
[deleted]
Been a long time since I have been here, but stumbled across this. Thought's you'd enjoy.
Check out page 48 of the script.
And that's the last word f_f_f.
http://www.simplyscripts.com/scripts/Giglio/TIMBER_FALLS_SHOOT_SCRIPT. pdf
your post would have some meaning if you had left out that *beep* at the end about "anyone that likes this needs to die painfully"
wtf...
moron
Just watched this movie and that scene did strike me as a bit odd. My name is Michael and that's how I introduce myself. A lot of people will still call me either Mike or Mikey in return assuming that I wouldn't mind.
I don't see why the reverse wouldn't apply. A lot of times people who are a bit older or more old fashioned don't like to use abbreviated versions of names. If it had been me and I had introduced myself as Mike, given that she was a religious person and Michael is a Christian name (i.e. the angel Michael) I wouldn't have thought it odd that she called me Michael. Of course I've never woken up in a strange place after standing in a bear trap out in the woods with a lot of strange people around and my girlfriend missing. That kind of thing could make you a tad suspicious of people.
I don't understand why this is so hard a point to understand. Disregard if you are famous, but if you never told someone your name. And they kept calling you by your name... Wouldn't you wonder how they knew your name? That's all that's happening here. He remembers he never told her his name. This isn't trying to find the relevance of ROSEBUD people.
shareI can't believe you guys have been arguing this for nearly a year.
That is incredible.
ClaudiaGermann23, I completely agree with everything you said. I watched this only once (which was enough for me!) and even I understood and remembered the exchange in question. I don't get how anyone could even dispute your point when all you did was post fact, not opinion or speculation. For the OP to even come back with insults and, even worse, a wrong recounting of dialogue, was amusing to watch. Some people are just so thickheaded and stubborn that no matter what you say, they will still dispute it. I have a feeling if I tell the OP the sky is blue, he may tell me to wait while he goes outside to check.
"Nobody puts Baby in a corner."
Thanks. Not sure why no one could grasp a simple premise or why I cared so much. But at the time they didn't and I did.
shareI love you, Claudia. :]
I actually liked this movie. I know it's got a bit too much idiocy going on in the girl's mind (what with getting rid of the bullets after getting mugged country-style), but I still enjoyed it.
Tent scene was nice. P:
>]
I watched this 2 nights ago on a DVD I OWN. Loved it.
Mike told Ida his name......in some of these idiotic people's make believe mind's.
In all seriousness I 100% agree with you Claudia, you rock. I also wouldn't be surprised if the 3 people you shut up is the one and the same OP under an assumed name because let us face it, you must be pretty abnormal to actually believe what and support the OP's flawed argument. If it was a court of law there would be no verdict.....all due to the jury needing help off the floor from laughing at the proposterous argument the OP was putting forward.
I for one found it hilarious, even more so when they vanish knowing they are being owned (or pwned) and run away with their tails tucked firmly between their legs.
I only axed ya for a smoke - Jack Frost
Once when I was a little kid, we were in Disneyland and the ride operators kept calling me by my name. I thought how do they know my name? This really IS a magical kingdom! I was simply awestruck and maybe a little freaked out too.
Later in the motel, eating corn dogs on the bed with my big sister, I commented on this they-all-knew-my-name phenomenon. My sister reached over and without a word pulled the Mickey ears off my head, turning them around to display "Rebecca" in gold cursive stitching on the back. I was all.... ohhh maaannnn!
Thanks for the memory jolt .. was a nice cap-off to this hilarious thread.
I do understand that he thought she only knew his name from stealing his license but I thought it was dumb that he got pissed at her because she called him Michael instead of Mike. Lol.