ExTechOp's Replies


Awww, you missed it! It's interspaced with the first set of end credit titles. It's the next day, the chopper pilot lands, sees the base on fire, and starts calling out names. The 1982 Ennio Morricone theme starts playing. We then get brief interior shots, especially of Colin with his neck and wrists bleeding frozen blood (like the body in the 1982 version). Then Lars comes out and makes the pilot show his fillings. The dog suddenly jumps out and starts running, and Lars starts shooting at it. He tells the pilot it's not a dog, and the movie ends with Lars hanging out of the helicopter and shooting as they chase down the dog. That's why they have Lars introduce Kate to the grenades - he's the one who, in the 1982 film, drops the grenade in the snow and blows up the chopper and pilot. here, just found it on YouTube: <url>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGwVfV69ssk</url> So now we know the truth. Childs WAS the Thing. The rescue team got infected. Biden's now been Thing'ed and it's only a matter of time before we all are. Huh? <blockquote>If I remember correctly, weren't the norwegians hunting The Thing in dog form using a helicopter at the start of Thing '82?</blockquote> This movie ends with two Norwegians "hunting the the Thing in dog form using a helicopter." It ties directly into the 1982 film, and even uses the same soundtrack music. Frankly, I thought this was at best an OK film, but that final tie-in with Morricone's theme ... gave me goosebumps. In fact, the filmmakers (of this film) considered having at least one scene showing Lars fumbling stuff, just so we'd realize he's the one who dropped the grenade at the start of 1982 film. Personally, I thought having him introduce the grenades was reference enough. False imprisonment's a hard sell when a jury convicts you - you only win those suits when the DA hides evidence. In this case, Richard was a victim of a "perfect storm" of circumstantial evidence, the most damning of which was his wife saying "Richard ... he's trying to kill me." Yes, we know she was dying AND she was calling TO him not accusing him, but think how it sounds in court. Almost certainly not. He committed theft, vandalism, ID theft, burglary, and could even be charged with felony murder (two people died because of his felony escape). BUT ... his case would make national news, and any DA who goes after him would face significant political pressure to ease up. It's possible Kimble gets probation and maybe community service at most. None of that will bring his wife back, though, so I doubt he cares. He accomplished his goal - catch the guys who really killed his wife. Clearing his own name was likely a side benefit. Avoiding any further prosecution wouldn't be high on his list of priorities Good point - there's something about the Keaton-is-Söze narrative that reeks of improvisation. And you're also right that it was Kujan who floated the notion that Keaton was behind "that circus at the harbor," and had faked his death, again. As he's saying this off-camera, we're given a close-up of Verbal hiding a smirk (because he knows Keaton's dead, because he killed Keaton himself). I dunno about that - it's strongly implied, but it could've ended with, "and that's how I REALLY met your grandfather" A lot of us "normal folk" ask ourselves questions like that about people like Tony Montana or Gordon Gekko or Mark Cuban I think the reason we can't relate is that we literally aren't the kind of people who build those kinds of fortunes (and of course many of them are fictional) I suspect, very strongly, that none of them are doing it just for the money. The process is what they love; the money is just how they keep score. Tony wanted to grow, become powerful and "own the world." Nothing would ever be "enough" for him, or any of those types. Embarrassingly, it was Dr. Phil who reminded me of this - in a podcast, he admitted he got into the TV business with an eye towards retirement once he got his "fuck you" money (his words, not mine), say enough for a private jet. He passed that number a long time ago, and now admits he does it because he loves the work, such as it is. I felt bad for them both in the end. First, Salieri hated Mozart for a stupid but understandable reason: Mozart had the talent that Salieri had always desired, yet squandered it by being a boorish child. What he didn't recognize was the very real opportunity to mentor Mozart as a person, and thereby "partake" of the genius he wanted for himself. Salieri always recognized the beauty of Mozart's music. Second, I think Mozart himself recognized this possibility on his deathbed, when they were finally working together productively. Their final scene together was a vision of what could've been. Also ... Mozart was self-destructive. Salieri didn't "kill" him -- that he thinks he did is actually more a reflection of his own self-importance. DISCLAIMER: I am of course ONLY speaking about the fictional characters in this movie. Interestingly, from what I've read, the real Mozart and Salieri did, in fact, have a relationship closer to what I just described. Salieri appreciated Mozart's genius very much and helped his family where he could. They had, at worst, a friendly rivalry. Besides which, I've been around enough music teachers to know that they often LOVE working with talents beyond their own, ESPECIALLY if they can help it along. Great answer, albeit to a frankly puzzling question This was one of the greatest payoffs in cinema history - the audience reactions all over YouTube confirm this Makes me think the OP is just trolling The ending shot - the suits made Darabont add it in but even he agreed later that it improved the film I agree Now "The Mist" on the other hand ... SlackerInc, that's a good point ... we might identify with Jack just a tiny bit less Meanwhile it doesn't improve the story at all to have Ellie remember Harry Potter Sneaky attempt to cash-in on "I Know What You Did" in order to induce people to watching this Christian propaganda You'd think if the message were strong enough, there'd be no need for trickery You being facetious? They pretty much spell it out - it wasn't an accident that Caleb came across her in the tunnel She'd seen him exercise free will and stop his fellow soldiers from exploiting her and Hanaryo in "park 5" So Dolores used the "Rico" app to get him into position, expecting him to play "white knight" again I'm in the deliberate arrest camp He wanted to feed the cops the drug-deal-gone-wrong story, AND he wanted to plant the idea that Keaton was the mastermind. He just didn't count on the surviving Hungarian being able to identify him. Dolores placed herself in Hale, Musashi and Connells, along with her own body. But I think it ended there. I took Hale-ores's call to mean she'd leaked Musashi-ores's position to Maeve I'm pretty sure Clementine and Hanaryo were resurrected as Maeve's allies, not Dolores's spare pearls. The reason I think that is that someone online managed to match one of Serac's host tanks to Clementine, somehow. Hale-ores busted Hector's pearl, but there were other tanks still making Clementine and Hanaryo. Also, Hanaryo seemed especially pissed that Dolores would sully Musashi's memory by stealing his body. That sounds more like Hanaryo herself. But you're right about the way they walk - I'm guessing that's how Stubbs identified Dolores when she was wearing Hale's body, last season. Tessa Thompson reportedly worked with Evan Rachel Woods for hours, trying to duplicate Dolores's body language and behavior without giving away the game too early. EDIT: I forgot about Lawrence - looks like he's another Dolores-pearl (he gave Bernard the case from Musashi) William (maybe) is dead but the "Man in Black" isn't. Charlotte-Delores has recreated him, so we'll still see more of him. Unfortunately, I can't see where they go from here with the host-William character. Moreover, if y9ou think MIB went out on a low note, seems Ed Harris himself may agree. He's said as much in interviews, that he was disappointed with what he was given this season. It does seem like a waste of a great actor to give him a one-note role to play. First, the showrunners have stated that it's in the far future (BUT IT HAS TO BE IN THE SHOW OR IT'S SLOPPY WRITING). Okay, IN THE SCENE his daughter tells him "the system's long gone ... this is your world, or what's left of it ... it's been a long time, William, longer than we thought." All of those lines imply that a good amount of time has passed. Same implication in Season 3's stinger, showing Bernard covered with dirt and dust. (BUT NO ONE TELLS THE AUDIENCE THAT) It's possible, even advisable, to communicate the passage of time without a detailed explanation. Indeed, explicit exposition is often deemed the hallmark of sloppy writing. Also, whether what the Delos host(s) suffered was "torture" is just semantics. Clearly, none of the Delos-hosts were enjoying the ordeal. Neither is the William-host we see in season 2's stinger. It's poetic justice (and therefore reeks of Delores's handiwork). Last point - something I just read in YouTube comments that I rather like: In the far future, humanity's gone, and the hosts are trying to recreate it for their own reasons. So this stinger DOES fit with the series arc AND with what we've seen at the end of season 3. William-the-human is dead (maybe - we know they can rescue humans from slit throats), William-the-Host is alive, and now whoever-is-in-charge is trying to achieve "fidelity" by forcing host-William to relive that last experience human-William had while in the park and wearing his Bluetooth-hat. It's clearly meant to trick us into thinking it's the present But he seemingly took the elevator down the same time as other characters took it up - yet they don't encounter him Everything we see William do after his fingers are blown off occurs in the far future - he's a host duplicate of William, right down the freshly blown-off fingers For whatever reason, the powers-that-be in the far future are forcing host-William to relive William's life from the moment his fingers got blown off In-universe, perhaps that's the last time his black cowboy hat was transmitting data to the forge. So they're forced to start there. Dramatically, it's to show William suffering the same hellish fate that James Delos suffered, for the same hubris and lack of compassion The showrunners explained that season 2's after-credits stinger was set far in the future, in the ruins of the park. It's meant I suppose to show William's ultimate payback, suffering the same fate as James Delos