MovieChat Forums > The D Train (2015) Discussion > The most 'suggestive' title.

The most 'suggestive' title.


I'm sorry. What a stupid title. Lately all comics and TV shows use 'the d' as a reference to male genitalia.

reply

d

reply

Haha

"Whatever happened to Fay Wray?"

reply

[deleted]

Reality is, it was misleading to me. I saw Jack Black, Ultimate Reunion, D Train. I thought tenacious D. Very Disappointed when I came to this page and read its just a High School reunion flick.

reply

TV shows use 'the d' as a reference to male genitalia.



Really? What does the "d" stand for exactly?





I really like your car Mrs. Larusso!

reply

Check the on-line urban dictionary.

Probably originated in New York; based on the "D" subway route.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.418340.1314524762!/img/httpImage/alg-d-train-jpg.jpg

reply

The name of the film is appropriate in more ways than one after seeing this film most people will come to the same conclusion.

reply

Which BTW is THE WEST END LINE which was the route where the train ran
during the train/car chase in THE FRENCH CONNECTION



Only back then it was the "B" line much as they used an "N" train (both are sister lines)


on location with SUPERMAN I,& OTHER STARS
http://www.vbphoto.biz/

reply

Also proudly serving the Grand Concourse in the Bronx since 1933, I think.

Still wondering though: why would Dan call himself D Train if he's from Pittsburgh? Is it explained in the movie?

reply

Right I dated someone who lived near the end of the "D" line back in 1971-72.
Funny how the Brooklyn (south) parts of the lines are switched around and yet the north terms (Queens & The Bronx) stay the same.
For yrs the "D" was the Brighton Line, sometimes express, sometimes local.
Now days the "B" is the Brighton Line express, and the "Q" is the local.

on location with SUPERMAN I,& OTHER STARS
http://www.vbphoto.biz/

reply

Doppelganger.

"Whatever happened to Fay Wray?"

reply

I thought it was also meant to reference the character of Oliver Lawless being a D-list actor, the protagonist's name being Dan so D is for Dan (he says something to the HS reunion committee gut about his nickname being D something...and he says like naw you are Dan), and the obvious sexual meaning.

Wasn't it alternatively called Bad Bro-mance?

I dreamt of a roaring river and a woman that was a fish. Dead she drifted, with red tears...

reply

I consider myself pervy enough and I hadn't even thought this title was a reference to anything—except maybe Tenacious D, so an inkling of misdirection, but whatevs.

http://i.imgur.com/0KmvOHL.jpg

reply

daniel is the loser who keeps trying to come up with clever names for himself to make himself likable to everyone and to make himself sound cooler.. Dan the man, D-money, danny boy, d machine, D monster ect. when frankly it doesn't work at all nobody cares about him anyhow..

hince the title of the film D-Train

reply

I thought the train referred to a sexual train.

reply

Well done Optims. You're spot on. It's crazy how everyone goes off on these mental tangents. Oh, it must be a sexual thing! Oh, the D refers to his D. If you actually watch the movie, and you're someone who has the capacity to think logically, there is no other conclusion one can come to other than the one you stated.

reply

It's about the alter ego.

Titles and synopsis don't have to give everything away you know.

reply

American is obsessed with sex, I tell ya. Sexual insecurity often seems like the norm. Especially when it comes to sexuality. It's so weird.

But many things are weird I guess. I saw public toilets in America that have signs that says "remember to wash your hands" to adults. Seriously.

I know, I'm sorry. I'll let myself out.

reply

I saw public toilets in America that have signs that says "remember to wash your hands" to adults. Seriously.

Those signs are way more complicated than what you think. You were in a restaurant and the signs weren't just to adults, they were reminders to employees of the restaurant. The signs actually said something like "All employees must wash their hands after using the restroom."

Except they weren't really for the employees, they were for the customers to see and subconsciously think the employees are extra hygienic. It's marketing to customers, not hand-holding for stupid adults.

reply

Yes, that's exactly what it was. And that's also what I thought was odd. Because washing your hands is given in the culture where I'm from. If you didn't, you'd have no business (and you would likely not have went into the business in the first places, because you'll need an education to do so, and also withstand random unexpected inspections from the DVFA).

But where I'm from, it's how you treat the food beyond that, that sets the standard (such as how long you allow food to be out of the fridge before it's served, how thorough you clean the kitchen and how often etc.). So even if the least concerned restaurants ensure to always wash their hands - then who is the sign for? You'll know better than me, if you know the hygienic standard in the US.

Either way, it made me consider that there was a reason for them to not be hygienic - and that's the crazy part to me: "Is it a culture where it's not given that you keep hygienic standards to minimize risks for customers?"

But my understanding was also, that the rhetoric is about putting the legal responsibility on the employees, if anything should happen. Is this false?
It seemed true to me both because I've heard the stories of the ridiculous things you sue for (cat died from being in microwave oven, bee sting in restaurant, crash after hole in the road etc.).
But also because I've seen so many other reminder/policy signs in written text everywhere in odd places. To me it seemed to suggest that there is little-to-no cultural norm, and that everyone was suspects of not living up to what it says on the signs.
And it seemed intuitive to me, because it's a country of immigrants, i.e. people that have very different cultural backgrounds and thus don't share a norm.

But also that the US is so proud of the notion of "freedom" that there's a clash between the fact that everyone is allowed to do what they want (including, forgetting to wash hands in a restaurant), and the law that tries to ensure that things don't go bad.
And thus, it seems to me like a paranoid culture where you can't intuitively trust strangers, because you almost have to threaten them with the law if you want to be sure. I understand this is probably not the case for many people, but even if it is for a minority, that is still paranoid to me.

But if you're from the US, you might be able to help me out, and bust a few of these myths for me. I'd be happy if you did.

reply

It is none of that. Those signs are never in nicer restaurants, only hole-in-wall and fast-food places. They exist to try to "class up the place" - it is like the owner has an inferiority complex. The owner feels like their restaurant is stereotyped for being unsanitary because it is cheap, so they are trying to fight the stereotype with the sign. Such a sign definitely has no effect on any legal liability for unsanitary food handling.

reply

Thanks for the reply - and for the clarification. It's also how I understood it though. Maybe it doesn't show in my long reply (that just goes to show that extensive explanation isn't a good method for clarification). And I stand by that I think it's odd that even low class restaurants use such a "trick".

I'm wondering if you know the law (since most people don't - neither myself, for the most part), or if you're just guessing that it has no effect on legal liability. To me it sounds like a logical thing to use in the court, especially if you get them to sign a contract that says they're responsible for living up to the standards.

reply

I'm not a lawyer, but as a general rule the employer is responsible for damages caused by the negligence of employees while on the job. More specifically, the customer purchases food from the restaurant, not from the employee, therefore the restaurant has a duty to assure that the food is fit for consumption. The restaurant might try to sue the employee to recover damages (pointless since the employee will be too poor) but that they can't take themselves out of the loop.

reply

Why does it matter if the employee is poor or not? Can't you sue a poor person? I mean, most poor people still own houses and cars, right? They only own them due to a loan, but can't those things be taken from them?

I had no idea the US had special (positive) treatment for poor people in that regard.

reply

You can sue a poor person, you can even win. But there is no point in winning if there is nothing to take. And you certainly can't take something that is owned by the bank.


I am starting to think I am being trolled, so I won't be responding any further.

reply

Fair enough. I just tried to research it a bit myself, and it seems to me that there's even something to take from poor people:

http://www.masslegalhelp.org/consumer/debt/court/no-money

But it's not clear to me if this is only for banks suing their debitors. Anyway, it seems like we're not equally interested in the topic, so I'll just move on.

Have a nice day.

reply

Wow, this thread HAS to be the definition of "going off on a tangent"...

Oh, almost forgot, the actual movie was very much in the "wish I'd watched something else instead" category.

reply

Is this the time where I reveal that I haven't actually watched the movie? :D

reply

Haha, why not.

reply

Is this the time where I reveal that I haven't actually watched the movie? :D


You just came here to gloat about how your country is so superior because it doesn't have hand-washing signs. You're a loser.

BUGS

reply

I'm glad you took the time to write that comment. Hopefully it made your day better.

reply

It did.

BUGS

reply

reply

I'm glad someone took the time to knock you off your pedestal. It's just too bad someone took the time to, "Feed you" -Bloody Troll.


"Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it." Norman Maclean

reply

What are you on about?

reply

askebisgaard
You cannot get blood from a stone (or turnip --pick your cliche)

It is a waste of your time & money to sue someone who does not have any money. You sue & get a judgement against them and hope they win the lottery or get an inheritance someday but they'll likely hide any money from the courts from the judgement date forward.
-for example the Goldman family has not received any $$ from OJ.

I dreamt of a roaring river and a woman that was a fish. Dead she drifted, with red tears...

reply

I hardly remember this entire topic, and frankly doesn't interest me enough to look into it again.

Some thoughts though: Are you sure you can only sue people for cash? Surely poor people could posses assets of value, like a home etc.
Maybe the US isn't insane enough to go so far to allow things like that - I don't honestly want to guess, because it often seems like a dog eats dog kind of society they run.

Anyway, thanks for your reply. It's just that I'm not really interested in this topic at the moment. Also, I think I might have been kidding in my replies too. Not sure :P

Take care!

reply