Snoopy and Rosebud
GrapeApe
Did Schulz ever do a Peanuts strip in which the identity of the Citizen Kane
McGuffin Rosebud was revealed?
Was this controversial at the time? Did Schulz realize what he was doing? Or
did he already assume everyone knew?
I think the strip ran sometime before Home Video and Cable made viewings of
Citizen Kane as frequent as they might be today.
Did the strip exist? When was it published?
Eric Gimlin
GrapeApe wrote:
> I don't know if this is legend, or if the strip actually existed.
> Did Schulz ever do a Peanuts strip in which the identity of the Citizen Kane
> McGuffin Rosebud was revealed?
> Was this controversial at the time? Did Schulz realize what he was doing? Or
> did he already assume everyone knew?
> Did the strip exist? When was it published?
The strip exists. I'm pretty sure it dates from the 70's or earlier,
because I remember reading the strip when I was a kid, and I needed to
ask my Mom to explain the reference. I still haven't seen the movie,
but I still remember the key fact from that strip. I can't date it
any closer, because it could have been (and probably was) in one of the
Fawcett paperbacks that I read it.
Eric Gimlin
David Welsh
grap...@aol.comjunk (GrapeApe) wrote:
> I don't know if this is legend, or if the strip actually existed.
>
> Did Schulz ever do a Peanuts strip in which the identity of the
Citizen Kane
> McGuffin Rosebud was revealed?
>
> Was this controversial at the time? Did Schulz realize what he was
doing? Or
> did he already assume everyone knew?
>
viewings of
> Citizen Kane as frequent as they might be today.
>
>
Yes, this strip really existed. It is one of the prime examples of the
need for Spoiler Space, since it ruined the ending of the movie for
many people who had yet to see it. There is a minor spoiler in the
animated episode _Is This Goodbye, Charlie Brown?_ [21-Feb-1983], but
this was just as an "easter egg" [on the Van Pelt's moving van].
_Citizen Kane_ was frequently referenced in _Peanuts_. The strip in
question raised a firestorm of protest when it appeared. I can't
locate the exact date for it, but I have read the strip in question.
An example of another strip on the topic is 4-Aug-89, with Sally
watching the TV as she says "You sure fooled me... I though "Rosebud"
was his skateboard."
You might also try alt.comics.peanuts to find the exact date and
reprint info.
David Welsh
--
"The writer of this article is the owner of one of the most remarkable
black cats in the world-- and this is saying much; for it will be
remembered that black cats are all of them witches."
Edgar Allan Poe
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Todd VerBeek
Our friend GrapeApe said:
>I don't know if this is legend, or if the strip actually existed.
>
>Did Schulz ever do a Peanuts strip in which the identity of the Citizen Kane
>McGuffin Rosebud was revealed?
>
>Was this controversial at the time? Did Schulz realize what he was doing? Or
>did he already assume everyone knew?
>
>I think the strip ran sometime before Home Video and Cable made viewings of
>Citizen Kane as frequent as they might be today.
>
>Did the strip exist? When was it published?
["Citizen Kane" spoiler, for anyone among the dozen people who still don't
know how the movie ends, and want to be surprised.]
Not only did Schulz do such a strip, it was a recurring joke. I've just done
a bit of quick web research for references, and although I didn't find a
definitive answer to the first time he did it, I found pages with:
- a reference (without specifying when it appeared) to a strip in which Lucy
told Linus "Rosebud's his sled", who replied "AUGHHHHH!"
- a poor scan of a single-panel strip in which Sally is watching TV and says
"You sure fooled me... I thought Rosebud was his skateboard." (The file is
saved in JPEG format instead of GIF, making the copyright date illegible, but
it accompanies an 1989 essay which indicates that the strip was recent.)
- a transcript in Italian of a 1973 strip, which Babelfish awkwardly
translates back into English as:
<<
1. Charlie Brown watches the television.
2. Lucy asks to [him]: " What you are watching "
3. Charlie Brown: " Fourth power ".
4. Lucy: " I will have seen ten times at least to It ".
5. Charlie Brown: " For me it is before the time, I have not never seen it
before ".
6. Lucy exiting from the room: " Rosebud was [his] slips ".
7. Charlie Brown rolls [him]self from the pain: " AAUGH! ".
>>
- a guide to the animated TV programs which mentions a sled with the name
"Rosebud" on it appearing in "Is This Goodbye, Charlie Brown?" in 1983.
As for whether this was "controversial" or considered a spoiler by the
general public the first time Sparky did this, I rather doubt it. The movie
had come out a decade before Peanuts even started, after all, and even
without the current ubiquitous availability on broadcast and home video, the
ending of the film was general knowledge by the time Schulz probably got
around to making jokes about it.
Come to think of it, I think this may have been where =I= first heard the
spoiler. Not only are these accounts familiar, but I read Peanuts long
before I started watching movies made before I was born, so it's almost
inevitable I would've come across some of these first. While it may have
reduced my appreciation of "Citizen Kane", I didn't feel cheated, as I
figured that the right to a spoiler-free first-viewing of a film is pretty
much gone after a decade or so.
Cheers, Todd
--
I'm an optimist: the glass is empty, but maybe =someday= it'll be half full.
Todd VerBeek
>> I don't know if this is legend, or if the strip actually existed.
>> Did Schulz ever do a Peanuts strip in which the identity of the Citizen Kane
Our friend David Welsh said:
>Yes, this strip really existed. It is one of the prime examples of the
>need for Spoiler Space, since it ruined the ending of the movie for
>many people who had yet to see it.
Are you serious? What, do you think Schulz should have inserted a warning
and a blank panel or two before telling his jokes? About a movie released
=decades= earlier? What about before a reference to how Tom Sawyer suckered
people into whitewashing a fence for him? Or giving away the fact that
Juliet and Romeo both die?
I'm all for spoiler space on Usenet, online or print reviews (of comics,
movies, books, whatever) that don't give away any significant plot points,
etc. But I think a measure of "reasonableness" has to be applied to avoiding
spoilers for stories that have been out longer than a signficant segment of
the audience has been alive.
Robert M. Bienvenu
>I don't know if this is legend, or if the strip actually existed.
>
>Did Schulz ever do a Peanuts strip in which the identity of the Citizen Kane
>McGuffin Rosebud was revealed?
>
>Was this controversial at the time? Did Schulz realize what he was doing? Or
>did he already assume everyone knew?
>
>I think the strip ran sometime before Home Video and Cable made viewings of
>Citizen Kane as frequent as they might be today.
>
>Did the strip exist? When was it published?
I do remember the strip from one of the early Peanuts TPB's. That,
and episodes of the Dick Van Dyke show and Columbo ruined the ending
of Citizen Kane for me. Though Schultz's joke was funny.
To this day I make it a point to allow people to enjoy the endings of
movies, no matter how old they are. I doubt that Welles' intention
was for the surprise ending to be an experience enjoyed by the few who
were able to see it opening night.
I bet seeing Psycho without knowing the ending was a real treat.
Unfortunately it's become such common knowledge that only young kids
who aren't too familiar with pop history could be surprised.
Todd Kogutt: Scavenger
<TVer...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
Or giving away the fact that
> Juliet and Romeo both die?
>
Romeo and Juliet die? You bastard...I haven't read that yet!
---SCAVENGER
GrapeApe
sled".
Yarn Spinner
>sled".
No, you're thing of "The Crying Game" vs. "She's A Man, Baby."
Jesse Leon McCann, comic/children's book writer-guy
*What I'm working on RIGHT NOW:
"Scooby-Doo & The Jungle Jeopardy"
*Visit my cheezo-web page
http://hometown.aol.com/jleon2001/myhomepage/index.html
Patrick MARCEL
> I doubt that Welles' intention
> was for the surprise ending to be an experience enjoyed by the few who
> were able to see it opening night.
And while it brings a resonnant end to the film, I doubt that Welles
intended "Citizen Kane" to be about that final revelation, either. I've
read interviews where he calls it - rightfully so - "pop psychology" and
says that the only thing one gets from knowing what Rosebud is, is the
knwoledge there's no way one can ever know and fully understand another
human being. As the faceless reporter says when the camera pans and ends
up on Rosebud, it's just "another piece to the puzzle", but it doesn't
give us the key to Kane.
Unless you're into comic book psychology where the whole existence of
Batman hinges on the murder of his parents. It may have been a decisive
factor, but a real human being has more complexity than a single be-all
end-all cause to his persona.
Patrick
--
"...and tho'
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are..."
Alfred, Lord Tennyson
John Taber
My one Peanuts memory about this was one of Snoopy's puppet shows, which
culminates in him holding up a sled that says "Rosebeagle" on it. :)
ali assa seen
<grap...@aol.comjunk> wrote:
> I don't know if this is legend, or if the strip actually existed.
>
> Did Schulz ever do a Peanuts strip in which the identity of the Citizen Kane
> McGuffin Rosebud was revealed?
>
> Was this controversial at the time? Did Schulz realize what he was doing? Or
> did he already assume everyone knew?
Believe it or not, that f***ing strip, which I read when I was eight,
ruined the movie for me even though I didn't see it until I was arounjd
thirty! (Mainly because it's reprinted in one of the fifty or so
Peanuts books I've had and reread many times since I was a kid)
And believe it or not, my song about just how furious I was with Schulz
will appear on the debut CD from my band the Peat Fountains when it
comes out next year. The song is called "Rosebud (No, Don't Say It!)"
and the CD doesn't have a title yet.
(It's unlikely you'll ever see our CD - this isn't meant as a plug,
just evidence of how serious I am when I way that that stupid strip
completely ruined "the greatest film ever made" for at least one
person.)
- ali assa seen
Hosun Specious Lee
Actually, an episode of The Real Ghostbusters ruined it for me. This was
the cartoon show based on the movie. One of the ghosts they had to catch
was constantly after Rosebud, and it wasn't until the end when they
realized that Rosebud was the sled. He ended up flying away on the
sled....
Not planning any anti-Ghostbusters songs though...
--
\\ \\ Hosun S. Lee // Vorpal Bunny(TM) // http://www.vorpalbunny.com
\\-\\ "Why it is that Xavier's team has impressive skills, while
( 0-0) Magneto's team has specialties that would prove invaluable to
{_^_} a stripper?" -- Roger Ebert on X-MEN - The Movie.
Nat Gertler
>
> I'm all for spoiler space on Usenet, online or print reviews (of comics,
> movies, books, whatever) that don't give away any significant plot points,
> etc. But I think a measure of "reasonableness" has to be applied to avoiding
> spoilers for stories that have been out longer than a signficant segment of
> the audience has been alive.
I'm known for my love of Peanuts... and yet I don't think he should
have chosen to do strips which do damage to another great work in
that manner. What is lost is more than what is gained.
GrapeApe
At the time of the first Schulz Rosebud gag, (someone pointed to ' 72 at least)
Citizen Kane was not that easy a film for most people to see. It was not
common late movie fare in most markets due to its length and had not been for
several years. ( I think the distribution of the film during this period is
documented in one of the many books that discuss the film) There were not an
incredible amount of prints making the rounds to art houses, or the college
circuit. Film Criticism was just starting to break through to the masses from
its smaller circle, although even then, Kane had a bit of infamy and fame
attached to its name. Didn't make it any easier to see however.
Schulz lived in an area where it was not difficult to catch showings of the
film, and even could have been referring to viewings he watched much earlier in
his life. Schulz didn't realize the film was more available to him than others,
and made an assumption that the film had actually been seen as often by his
readers. It would make a good gag, a film where much of the action is driven by
the "what is rosebud" question, to have siblings taunt each other with the
knowledge of the answer.
Of course, it really doesn't ruin the movie at all to know this, does it?
spike316
"GrapeApe" <grap...@aol.comjunk> wrote in message
news:20001004193917...@ng-md1.aol.com...
> I don't know if this is legend, or if the strip actually existed.
>
> Did Schulz ever do a Peanuts strip in which the identity of the Citizen
Kane
> McGuffin Rosebud was revealed?
>
piano...what was his name again?) is halfway through watching the movie.
She then blurts out; "Rosebud was his sled!"
> Was this controversial at the time? Did Schulz realize what he was doing?
Or
> did he already assume everyone knew?
>
> I think the strip ran sometime before Home Video and Cable made viewings
of
> Citizen Kane as frequent as they might be today.
>
> Did the strip exist? When was it published?
as usual, any corrections/extra info are welcome.
spike316
Nat Gertler
>
> Of course, it really doesn't ruin the movie at all to know this, does it?
Ruin, know. Change the nature of the first viewing, losing a nifty
moment of impact, yes.
Robert M. Bienvenu
>Robert M. Bienvenu wrote:
>
>> I doubt that Welles' intention
>> was for the surprise ending to be an experience enjoyed by the few who
>> were able to see it opening night.
>
>And while it brings a resonnant end to the film, I doubt that Welles
>intended "Citizen Kane" to be about that final revelation, either. I've
>read interviews where he calls it - rightfully so - "pop psychology" and
>says that the only thing one gets from knowing what Rosebud is, is the
>knwoledge there's no way one can ever know and fully understand another
>human being. As the faceless reporter says when the camera pans and ends
>up on Rosebud, it's just "another piece to the puzzle", but it doesn't
>give us the key to Kane.
>
>Unless you're into comic book psychology where the whole existence of
>Batman hinges on the murder of his parents. It may have been a decisive
>factor, but a real human being has more complexity than a single be-all
>end-all cause to his persona.
>
>Patrick
>
>
If the meaning of "Rosebud" is such an insignificant part of the
movie, then why would the Peanuts joke be funny? I think that
everyone gets the joke. Doesn't that point to the pivotal role that
"Rosebud" played in the film?
What your quote of Welles' illustrates is that while the final
revelation is not the point of the entire film, it is the great
insight that is only revealed to the viewer.
Sorry, but I just don't get off on throwing around spoilers. It's bad
enough that the movie media machine allows huge chunks of films to
appear in the promos and trailers, but now you've got to see the movie
opening weekend, or risk hearing an idiot at the office scream the
surprise ending.
I know that Schultz's spoiler was twenty years after the fact, but the
better the film, the longer the moratorium should be on spoilers.
GrapeApe
>movie, then why would the Peanuts joke be funny? I think that
>everyone gets the joke. Doesn't that point to the pivotal role that
>"Rosebud" played in the film?
The Peanuts joke is funny because the meaning of "rosebud" is both signifigant
AND relatively insignifigant to the actual enjoyment of the film.
Folks that already knew the meaning of Rosebud would realize that on one level-
perhaps one viewing the film for the first time where every scene starts with
the question- it matters, and on another level it really doesn't matter beyond
its value as a metaphorical gloss on the story and theme unraveled in its
quest.
I mean, its really tough to spoil Citizen Kane, if you like it at all, merely
because someone 'gave something away'. Its not the destination, its the ride.
Todd Kogutt: Scavenger
<n...@gertler.com> wrote:
>
> I'm known for my love of Peanuts... and yet I don't think he should
> have chosen to do strips which do damage to another great work in
> that manner. What is lost is more than what is gained.
I agree...It's certainly wrong to reveal the ending of a film that was
made 30 years prior, because you never know when someone might get
around to seeing it.
And I wish movies wouldn't make Crying Game references, because even
though it's from 1992, some people haven't seen it and the big surprise
shouldn't be spoiled for them.
I'm also upset about all the press about Phantom Menance that refered
to the Queen and Anakin as Luke and Leia's parents, because not
everyone saw Empire and Jedi 20 and 17 years ago.
And on the comics front, stop mentioning how the Thunderbolts were
villains. It'll spoil it for anyone who hasn't read #1 yet.
---SCAVENGER
Patrick MARCEL
> If the meaning of "Rosebud" is such an insignificant part of the
> movie, then why would the Peanuts joke be funny?
Because it's what Hitchcock later called a McGuffin: something to propel
the story forward, while its nature itself matters little: the sans in
"Notorious", for instance, or the confusion of identities in "North by
North-West". Rosebud is more important in that regard, and it is a
surprise worth preserving if it so happens, but knowing that Rosebud was
his sled doesn't quite cover the way in which it's shown on screen, and
knowing what his sled symbolises.
For the record, althouh a Welles fanatic, I had seen many other Welles
films before I finally saw "Citizen Kane", and so, I had read a few
criticism books on the subject, where the ending of CK was gleefully
"spoiled" for me. Strangely enough, I still loved the film the first
time I got to see it, and still got a shiver up my spine when the
meaning of Rosebud was finally revealed.
I hate spoilers, but there are things one should be able to discuss
sixty years afterwards.
If you think "Citizen Kane" is spoiled by knowing beforehand the meaning
of Rosebud, you have no appreciation of what makes a great film.
Besides, that would mean seeing that film twice is pointless. Once you
know what Rosebud is, why bother seeing the film again?
GrapeApe
>If you think "Citizen Kane" is spoiled by knowing beforehand the meaning
>of Rosebud, you have no appreciation of what makes a great film.
>Besides, that would mean seeing that film twice is pointless. Once you
>know what Rosebud is, why bother seeing the film again?
Its the ride you take, not your ability to use a particular sled to do so.
Robert M. Bienvenu
>Robert M. Bienvenu wrote:
>
>> If the meaning of "Rosebud" is such an insignificant part of the
>> movie, then why would the Peanuts joke be funny?
>
>Because it's what Hitchcock later called a McGuffin: something to propel
>the story forward, while its nature itself matters little: the sans in
>"Notorious", for instance, or the confusion of identities in "North by
>North-West". Rosebud is more important in that regard, and it is a
>surprise worth preserving if it so happens, but knowing that Rosebud was
>his sled doesn't quite cover the way in which it's shown on screen, and
>knowing what his sled symbolises.
>
>For the record, althouh a Welles fanatic, I had seen many other Welles
>films before I finally saw "Citizen Kane", and so, I had read a few
>criticism books on the subject, where the ending of CK was gleefully
>"spoiled" for me. Strangely enough, I still loved the film the first
>time I got to see it, and still got a shiver up my spine when the
>meaning of Rosebud was finally revealed.
>
>I hate spoilers, but there are things one should be able to discuss
>sixty years afterwards.
>
>If you think "Citizen Kane" is spoiled by knowing beforehand the meaning
>of Rosebud, you have no appreciation of what makes a great film.
>Besides, that would mean seeing that film twice is pointless. Once you
>know what Rosebud is, why bother seeing the film again?
>
Please read my entire post before rebutting it. And please don't
assume that you are able to appreciate films at a greater level than
others.
I'm glad that your first viewing of Citizen Kane was an enjoyable one,
but my first thought on seeing it was, "I bet that would've been a
great surprise." I had the same feeling when I saw the first two Star
Wars movies ("Man, I just saw this great movie, and in the end...")
Advance knowledge of a story's result affects the initial reading or
viewing. I never said that knowledge of the final scene keeps Citizen
Kane from being a great movie.
While the meaning of "Rosebud" may not induce viewers to see the movie
again, as the ending of The Sixth Sense did, it still has a
significant place in the movie. If it was an insignificant,
throw-away piece of the puzzle, it would not have become a part of pop
culture, and Shultz's joke would neither have been funny or
controversial.
If your friends don't mind you giving out plot points to classic
movies then go for it. But if I'm discussing Planet of the Apes, The
Crying Game, The Sixth Sense or Citizen Kane, I usually ask if the
other person has seen it. And if a movie has a famous twist that they
haven't heard of already, I warn them that they may want to make a
point of seeing it, since the twist is a part of pop culture, and they
will eventually hear about it.
Patrick MARCEL
> Please read my entire post before rebutting it. And please don't
> assume that you are able to appreciate films at a greater level than
> others.
Please don't assume that I am, either. I was just saying that, though an
important part of the film, Rosebud is not the be-all and end-all of it,
and that while it is certainly better to see the film without knowing
about Rosebud, as it is better to see *any* film without knowing
anything about it, the Rosebud incident only occurs in the final thirty
seconds of the films and is just a final touch.
> If your friends don't mind you giving out plot points to classic
> movies then go for it.
Who's assuming again?
I don't spoil films if I can help it - and I usually can. I just said
that knowing about Rosebud wasn't a catastrophic spoiler for "Citizen
Kane", the way a spoiler to "Sixth Sense", "Crying Game" or "Planet of
the Apes" pretty much wrecks the whole point of the film (a bit less for
"Crying Game", where characters are interesting beyond the mere
incidents of the plot, and where the revelation occurs mid-way through
the film, while it's the shock ending for the other two films. Rosebud
is not a shock ending. IMHO).
As for "Sixth Sense", I've have it spoiled for me. I know about the
ending. And I haven't seen the film yet. Because I consider that THAT
revelation, unlike Rosebud for "Kane", pretty much puts paid to the
whole point of the film.
While the spoiler on Rosebud is regrettable, it's not THE spoiler of the
century. The film endures on other strengths beside that one. And,
speaking just for my own experience (and not considering that "I can
appreciate film at a greater level", and blah blah blah), I did love the
film notwithstanding. I thought the power of the scene did not come from
the revelation itself - unless you consider it was the whole point of
the film. "Citizen Kane" is not a Whodunit.
We were not - or so I thought - discussing whether it was a good thing
to spoil "Citizen Kane". I thought this was about, once someone, for
good or bad reasons, has spoiled the film (Schulz, here), whether
"Citizen Kane" was pretty much dead in the water. I just argued it wasn't.
Just my opinion. YMMV.
Andrew Ducker
<39DF6E18...@wanadoo.fr>:
>As for "Sixth Sense", I've have it spoiled for me. I know about the
>ending. And I haven't seen the film yet. Because I consider that THAT
>revelation, unlike Rosebud for "Kane", pretty much puts paid to the
>whole point of the film.
Actually, it doesn't. The point of the film is the child. While the
'surpirise twist' adds something to the film, it's te child's triumph over
adversity and his acceptance of his power that is the point.
Now go see it.
Andy D
BradW8
Kane
>> McGuffin Rosebud was revealed?
>
>Yes. Lucy comes in while (either Linus or...that young fellow with the
>piano...what was his name again?) is halfway through watching the movie.
>She then blurts out; "Rosebud was his sled!"
Actually the viewer was Linus.
But no one's mentioned Schulz' FIRST use of the gag.
Snoopy sleds down a hill.
He walks back uphill, passing Charlie Brown who looks at the dog's sled.
C.B. goes, "Rosebud?"
"There was a sled named Rosebud and a Citizen named Kane.
He rode it till the snow was melted, now he's Singing in the Rain."
-- Animaniacs, "Video Revue"
GrapeApe
>Actually, it doesn't. The point of the film is the child. While the
>'surpirise twist' adds something to the film, it's te child's triumph over
>
>adversity and his acceptance of his power that is the point.
And the twisting doesn't necessarily end there -perhaps it applied to more
characters than the most obvious as revealed.
Paul "Duggy" Duggan
> Actually, it doesn't. The point of the film is the child. While the
> 'surpirise twist' adds something to the film, it's te child's triumph over
> adversity and his acceptance of his power that is the point.
And it works as a spooky film... I thought it worked better than most
"horror" films...
---
- Dug.
---
Not for human consumption.
To be read by Pets only.
---
Paul "Duggy" Duggan
> Please don't assume that I am, either. I was just saying that, though an
> important part of the film, Rosebud is not the be-all and end-all of it,
> and that while it is certainly better to see the film without knowing
> about Rosebud, as it is better to see *any* film without knowing
> anything about it, the Rosebud incident only occurs in the final thirty
> seconds of the films and is just a final touch.
I don't know... I watch a half hour of it once, and couldn't get past the
sled thing...
Patrick MARCEL
> Screw that movie, mate, go watch Fight Club! 1000% better whether
> they've also spoiled the ending of that for you or not.
Saw it before being spoiled. Couldn't care much for it all through the
story, actually started getting interested when the big revelation
occured - too bad it was at the end. It's not a bad film, it's a
virtuoso directing feat, but I have problems caring about guys who need
to punch each other in the face to feel something in their dreary lives.
Still will watch it again to see if it works better now that I know the
truth about the story.
Andrew Ducker
<8ro56...@enews3.newsguy.com>:
>On 7 Oct 2000 19:04:22 GMT, And...@Ducker.org.uk (Andrew Ducker)
>wrote:
>
>>mant...@wanadoo.fr (Patrick MARCEL) wrote in
>><39DF6E18...@wanadoo.fr>:
>>
>>>As for "Sixth Sense", I've have it spoiled for me. I know about the
>>>ending. And I haven't seen the film yet. Because I consider that THAT
>>>revelation, unlike Rosebud for "Kane", pretty much puts paid to the
>>>whole point of the film.
>
>
>Screw that movie, mate, go watch Fight Club! 1000% better whether
>they've also spoiled the ending of that for you or not.
I _own_ fight Club. I'm also capable of seeing multiple movies in the same
year.
Andy D
Andrew Ducker
<Pine.OSF.4.05.100100...@barra.jcu.edu.au>:
>On 7 Oct 2000, Andrew Ducker wrote:
>> Actually, it doesn't. The point of the film is the child. While the
>> 'surpirise twist' adds something to the film, it's te child's triumph
>> over adversity and his acceptance of his power that is the point.
>
>And it works as a spooky film... I thought it worked better than most
>"horror" films...
Me too. Most horror films aren't spooky, they're jumpy.
Andy D
Adrian Brown
>><39DF6E18...@wanadoo.fr>:
>>
>>>As for "Sixth Sense", I've have it spoiled for me. I know about the
>>>ending. And I haven't seen the film yet. Because I consider that THAT
>>>revelation, unlike Rosebud for "Kane", pretty much puts paid to the
>>>whole point of the film.
>
It doesn't spoil the film.
If you don't find the story interesting, you can watch for clues for what is
later revealed. It works well both ways. The wife in the restaurant scene was
my favourite.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
charity comic requests contributions
http://members.aol.com/adeheathen/c2000page.htm
Adrian Brown
(Andrew Ducker) writes:
>
>I _own_ fight Club. I'm also capable of seeing multiple movies in the same
>year.
You're Brad Pitt, aren't you ?
Robert M. Bienvenu
>jc12...@jcu.edu.au (Paul "Duggy" Duggan) wrote in
><Pine.OSF.4.05.100100...@barra.jcu.edu.au>:
>
>>On 7 Oct 2000, Andrew Ducker wrote:
>>> Actually, it doesn't. The point of the film is the child. While the
>>> 'surpirise twist' adds something to the film, it's te child's triumph
>>> over adversity and his acceptance of his power that is the point.
>>
>>And it works as a spooky film... I thought it worked better than most
>>"horror" films...
>
>Me too. Most horror films aren't spooky, they're jumpy.
You may want to adjust the tracking on your VCR.
ali assa seen
<bien...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> And...@Ducker.org.uk (Andrew Ducker) wrote:
>
> >jc12...@jcu.edu.au (Paul "Duggy" Duggan) wrote in
> ><Pine.OSF.4.05.100100...@barra.jcu.edu.au>:
> >
> >>On 7 Oct 2000, Andrew Ducker wrote:
> >>> Actually, it doesn't. The point of the film is the child. While the
> >>> 'surpirise twist' adds something to the film, it's te child's triumph
> >>> over adversity and his acceptance of his power that is the point.
> >>
> >>And it works as a spooky film... I thought it worked better than most
> >>"horror" films...
> >
> >Me too. Most horror films aren't spooky, they're jumpy.
>
> You may want to adjust the tracking on your VCR.
Actually, I rather liked that description. Never heard it put quite
that way before. You know, it's unfortunate that the original poster of
this thread did so separately in several newsgroups, rather than
crossposting appropriately. Don't know if they did so out of ignorance
as far as how to cross-post, or guilt after seeing others abuse the
privilege, but in this particular case, I think it's diluted the
quality of what has nonetheless been a facinating discussion here and
at rec.arts.comics.strips. If noone else does, I may end up continuing
or restarting it on the Peanuts and/or classic cinema newsgroups...
- ali assa seen
Andrew Ducker
<20001008121105...@nso-fp.aol.com>:
>In article <8FC778CB4Andr...@195.92.195.157>,
>And...@Ducker.org.uk (Andrew Ducker) writes:
>
>>
>>I _own_ fight Club. I'm also capable of seeing multiple movies in the
>>same year.
>
>You're Brad Pitt, aren't you ?
I should be so lucky.
Andy D
Adrian Brown
(Andrew Ducker) writes:
>>You're Brad Pitt, aren't you ?
>
>I should be so lucky.
>
You told us you'd say that.
Andrew Ducker
>In article <8FC8CFE5BAndr...@195.92.195.157>,
>And...@Ducker.org.uk (Andrew Ducker) writes:
>
>>>You're Brad Pitt, aren't you ?
>>
>>I should be so lucky.
>>
>
>You told us you'd say that.
The first rule of the Spoiler vlub is that you don't talk about the
spoilers.
Andy D
(off to blow up a few buildings)
a damontury ends
Adrian Brown wrote:
>
> >>mant...@wanadoo.fr (Patrick MARCEL) wrote in
> >><39DF6E18...@wanadoo.fr>:
> >>
> >>>As for "Sixth Sense", I've have it spoiled for me. I know about the
> >>>ending. And I haven't seen the film yet. Because I consider that THAT
> >>>revelation, unlike Rosebud for "Kane", pretty much puts paid to the
> >>>whole point of the film.
> >
>
> It doesn't spoil the film.
> If you don't find the story interesting, you can watch for clues for what is
> later revealed. It works well both ways. The wife in the restaurant scene was
> my favourite.
i had the film spioled.
the problem with watching it knowing the spoiler is
that, errmmm, the editing is revealed to be extremely forced and
artificial.
the restaurant scene is an example.
--
"A jury found them guilty. And it's going to be hard to punish them
any worse, after they get put to death." George W. Bush on the Byrd
murderers, while "lying" like Gore when he said all three were going
to be put to death.