MovieChat Forums > aavfreak > Replies
aavfreak's Replies
There's a lot to unpack in that scene for sure. But my final takeaway was that Joe said all the things to Alex that his parents would like to have said but never did. They wanted to wash their hands of Alex and Joe was their "cleanser" so to speak.
He couldn't have been underpaid if Hammond was paying him what he agreed to do when he bid on the work.
What I don't get is Hammond always yammering on about how he "spared no expense." Yet he hired a single guy for all of his automation work. This is incredibly incompetent on so many levels.
Let's put aside the questionable character of Nedry and assume for a minute that Hammond hires a respectable vendor for the work, but it's only one guy. What happens if the one single guy has a heart attack? What happens if he gets hit by a truck? What happens if he wins the lottery and walks away with his finger in the air? So much can go wrong.
Awarding a contract is about more than just the money. It's about the value you get for the money. You'd pay more for a reputable vendor with a history of good work and a staff with support and safeguards than you would for an individual person, but it's worth the investment. Putting it in context with "spared no expense" makes it even more of a foley that he awarded the contract to Nedry - trying to pinch pennies with the lowest bidder, instead of hiring a proper vendor with full support.
<i>I thought that was just done because while he was in prison <b>they needed either company or more money so they rented the room out.</b></i>
<i>Alex may have been unhappy for a while but could his parents have offered him shelter elsewhere?</i>
You may have answered one of your own questions here. If they needed to rent out the room for money, then obviously they couldn't have rented another place just for Alex.
<blockquote>some bad science on here and voyager
posted a month ago by tyrannosaurus_sex (397)
5 replies | jump to latest
especially when they encounter nebula's that have strange and powerful entities and on voyager they found fully formed planets in them.</blockquote>
For all of the bad science in Star Trek, there's equally bad grammar here.
I did and I remember being upset because it pre-empted the NBA finals game I was watching.
Then I embraced it and was like "well at least I'll have a good story to tell." And here I am, decades later, telling it.
Eating a McDonald's hamburger is better than eating dry dog food. But a McDonald's hamburger is still not good.
I'm not sure how this is wishy-washy. I understand why you may feel that way, but there is room on the continuum of bad to good.
What I mean is the humor of the joke appeals to a narrow crowd, not that Star Trek fans are a narrow crowd.
Yes, "a brighter tomorrow" is better than "the American way" in this context, but still not good, in my opinion.
You spoiled the 8888 post count.
Wilford Brimley was only 51 when he was in Cocoon. He looked ancient.
The only time I've heard on-line was at the DMV when I first got my permit in the 80s. One of the workers had a heavy Jamaican accent and said "I told you to wait over there, not on line."
This was before the internet. I'm wondering if the younger generation that grew up with the internet has something to do with the generation gap here.
I think you're on the right track with this. While the "value" of paying $50,000 per night for a hotel room is subjective, if it is consistent with the going rate or "market value," then it should qualify.
Paying a single staff member $30M for an hour's work is not within the acceptable norm, which in your example should be disqualifying.
If a designer handbag has a retail price of $5k, then that is the value in terms of retail pricing. A subjective opinion may be that it's not worth it and therefore not value for the money is not at issue. If others are paying the same price, then that's the value.
It makes for an interesting discussion.
As bad as the storylines were in seasons 5 and 6, at least they were in different settings with different circumstances.
The hospital arc was not great, but at least it was a hospital and not a prison or train terminal. Then they were on the move to Virginia and finally Alexandria. And while the plot lines recycled themselves, the setting was new.
I couldn't go past the start of season 7.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Was Obi Wan's age ever established in the prequel trilogy?
There are many continuity errors both between the prequels and the original trilogy, and within the original trilogy itself.
This may just be one more, but it is minor in comparison. It could also just be a mismatch between the characters and the actors that are playing them as well. Alec may have been 60, but the character he was playing could be younger. He had an air of experience and wisdom that comes across as old age, but may not have been meant to be.
The most often cited formula is 1/2 plus 7.
So 29 for you.
1/2*44 = 22
22 + 7 = 29
But did you watch it for the first time as a kid? I think that makes a lot of difference as well.
I agree. At least show him watching in the park with an expression that he's taking in what they are doing. And maybe ask a question or two from the players.
I think the intent is that he is such a savant that he learned how the pieces move and the basic strategy just by watching the players at the park for the short time he did.
Then he was able to play and beat his dad from the bathtub without even having to look at the board. He could just see it in his mind.
This really needs to define "problematic" to put it in context.
When I first read the post title, I took it to mean difficult to work with on set or disruptive to the production process.
I don't know that I'd use "most problematic actor" to describe the fact that he's not a good person outside of the acting part.