3 Die Hard w/Vengeance Questions (SPOILERS)
Skander Halim
1. Someone please explain exactly how the guy on the boat got sliced in half.
2. Missed where McClane got that metal splinter to pick the lock on
the handcuffs.
3. That "North of the Border" thing, or whatever was written on the
aspirin bottle, what was that? A drugstore? A motel? So McClane just
mosied on up to Nova Scotia and Simon was waiting there?
Hell of a movie, BTW. Except for the ending--can we say "last minute
rewrite"?
--
"A severed ear in a grassy field, covered with ants. There's hardly
anything better than that."
- David Lynch
Susan MacLeod
1. The guy on the boat got sliced in half by the cable.
2. Not sure, don't remember.
3. It was a truckstop - "The largest truckstop in (whatever province it
was in)."
Brer Foxuria
1) Didn't really resolve the warehouse full of east germans. I mean, it
did show them grabbing all those guns...
2) The sex scene with Jeremy Irons and the east german chick. It just
didn't fit. Her character was just so cheesy. It's been done too many
times.
Overall I really liked the film. I could see where they had to take
things out of the characterization and plot so the movie wouldn't be too
long and so they could get all the explosions in.
---
Scott R. Van Horn
svan...@xmission.com
"Lurk This."
Mark Wiechnik
: 1. Someone please explain exactly how the guy on the boat got sliced in half.
: 2. Missed where McClane got that metal splinter to pick the lock on
: the handcuffs.
: 3. That "North of the Border" thing, or whatever was written on the
: aspirin bottle, what was that? A drugstore? A motel? So McClane just
: mosied on up to Nova Scotia and Simon was waiting there?
: Hell of a movie, BTW. Except for the ending--can we say "last minute
: rewrite"?
How about we say seven last minute rewrites. Six endings were shot
before the last, last minute rewrite and McTiernan liked none of them so
they borrowed Bruce from the set of Twelve Monkeys (For a truckload of
money) and shot the last scene in late March.
Mark
Chad Irby
Spoilers below...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Skander Halim (ba...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: 1. Someone please explain exactly how the guy on the boat got sliced in half.
When the tow cable from the truck broke, it sliced him in two. It happens...
: 2. Missed where McClane got that metal splinter to pick the lock on
: the handcuffs.
Out of his shoulder. Ouch.
: 3. That "North of the Border" thing, or whatever was written on the
: aspirin bottle, what was that? A drugstore? A motel? So McClane just
: mosied on up to Nova Scotia and Simon was waiting there?
"The Largest Truck Stop North of" something or other. It's a famous place.
--
Chad Irby / My greatest fear: that future generations will,
ci...@gate.net / for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
Mokoyombi
macg...@tiac.net wrote:
> Great action film, but too many riddles being delivered then solved too fast.
>
> Please explain:
>
> ...how they figured out the 3gal/5gal jug riddle (measuring 4gal exactly).
> ...how that scrapmetal "bullion-substitute" turned up
> ...why McLean was ever kept alive to begin with. He should've been dead in
> the first scene (Harlem). But then he was kept alive??
> ...why "the Samaritan" -- a private citizen -- was legally allowed and
> even pressured to stick his neck out. (Think of the lawsuit!)
>
> Maybe I didn't hear very well (because of the teens sitting behind me).
As for the first question this is how:
You fill 3 gallon bottle and with it fill the 5 gallon bottle.
This leaves you with 3 gallons in the 5 gallon bottle.
You then fill the 3 gallon bottle again and put all that fits into
the 5 gallon bottle. Leaving you with 5 gallons on the 5 gallon bottle and
1 gallon on the 3 gallon bottle. You empty the 5 gallon bottle and put the
1 gallon from the 3 gallon bottle in it. You then fill the 3 gallon bottle
again and add its contents to the 5 gallon bottle giving you a total of
4 gallons in the five gallon bottle.
The bullion substitute (though it takes a stretch) was supposedly switched with
the gold at the docks. (While McLane was busy being sprouted off a
gayser). It is assumed the Jeremy Irons character had the double cross
planned from the start.
McLane was kept alive cause if not there wouldn't be a movie. Since this
is fiction you can write it off as necessary for the plot structure. (The
truth is not the stuff of many action movies)
As for the last question I agree totally. The least they should do is give
him a medal.
--
*********************************************************************
o/*****\o o/*****\o
/O *** O\ Guillermo L. Mena /O *** O\
/ \ * / \ men...@rpi.edu / \ * / \
*********************************************************************
Phineas
the Samuel L. Jackson character says something like "There's no airbag
over here, but there's one on your side" and then Willis proceeds to
drive the car into all sorts of stuff and the airbag never deploys. This
might be a realistic problem with car chases like this when all cars have
airbags but they're rather inconvenient to have pop open during chase
scenes.
-=-Phineas
macg...@tiac.net
Mike Benedetti
>Great action film, but too many riddles being delivered then solved too fast.
>Please explain:
>...how they figured out the 3gal/5gal jug riddle (measuring 4gal exactly).
I'm worried that everybody will be asking this next week, so I'll try
to explain it clearly this once:
1. Fill the 5 gallon jug.
2. Fill the 3 from the 5. Now one has 3 gallons and the other has 5-3=2 gallons.
3. Empty the three. Now the 5 has 2 gallons and the 3 has none.
4. Fill the 5.
5. Pour from the 5 to the 3 until the 3 is full. You have poured 1 gallon
from the 5 (2 already in the 3 + 1 from the 5 = a full 3 gallon jug).
6. Now the 5 contains 5-1=4 gallons.
>...how that scrapmetal "bullion-substitute" turned up
Wasn't well explained, I'll agree. Seemed like that one bad guy was just
poking around and found out.
>...why McLean was ever kept alive to begin with. He should've been dead in
> the first scene (Harlem). But then he was kept alive??
Simon was trying to trick the NYPD into thinking he was some psycho-bomber.
There was no real reason to kill McClean--in fact, because of the ensuing
publicity of a dead cop, the whole heist would have been much harder.
On the other hand, he sure wasn't very easy on McClean. My guess is that
he didn't much care what happened to him--either way, his school-bombing
scheme was right on schedule.
>...why "the Samaritan" -- a private citizen -- was legally allowed and
> even pressured to stick his neck out. (Think of the lawsuit!)
This is pretty unlikely, I'll agree. However, when faced with a mad
bomber, I suppose the cops would be willing to bend any rule and take any
risk.
>Maybe I didn't hear very well (because of the teens sitting behind me).
The people I went with had the same problem--yakking nuts. Luckily, I
was out of range. I can't imagine the movie would be half as good without
the roaring crowd around me--one more argument for seeing movies in the
theatre rather than in your own secluded cave.
Mike
--
bene...@ugcs.caltech.edu
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~benedett/
The Cunning Linguist
: macg...@tiac.net writes:
: >Great action film, but too many riddles being delivered then solved too fast.
: >Please explain:
: >...how they figured out the 3gal/5gal jug riddle (measuring 4gal exactly).
: I'm worried that everybody will be asking this next week, so I'll try
: to explain it clearly this once:
: 1. Fill the 5 gallon jug.
: 2. Fill the 3 from the 5. Now one has 3 gallons and the other has 5-3=2 gallons.
: 3. Empty the three. Now the 5 has 2 gallons and the 3 has none.
: 4. Fill the 5.
: 5. Pour from the 5 to the 3 until the 3 is full. You have poured 1 gallon
: from the 5 (2 already in the 3 + 1 from the 5 = a full 3 gallon jug).
: 6. Now the 5 contains 5-1=4 gallons.
Uhh, I dunno.
I thought it was:
1) Fill the 3.
2) Pour the 3 to the 5
3) Refill 3
4) Pour 3 to 5 till 5 is full (slowly and don't spill)
5) This should leave 1gal water in 3.
6) Empty 5
7) Pour 1gal left in 3 to 5
8) Fill 3
9) Pour filled 3 to five.
This should do it, but maybe the first is right (although, step
four of the first responce throws me). Then again, Im a computer guy, not
a mathematician.
Will
Kris Georges
>: macg...@tiac.net writes:
>: >Great action film, but too many riddles being delivered then solved too fast.
>: >Please explain:
>: >...how they figured out the 3gal/5gal jug riddle (measuring 4gal exactly).
>: I'm worried that everybody will be asking this next week, so I'll try
>: to explain it clearly this once:
>: 1. Fill the 5 gallon jug.
>: 2. Fill the 3 from the 5. Now one has 3 gallons and the other has 5-3=2 gallons.
>: 3. Empty the three. Now the 5 has 2 gallons and the 3 has none.
>: 4. Fill the 5.
>: 5. Pour from the 5 to the 3 until the 3 is full. You have poured 1 gallon
>: from the 5 (2 already in the 3 + 1 from the 5 = a full 3 gallon jug).
doesnt work. there are now 0 gallons in the 3, not 2, and its not clear
how to get 2 in the 3.
Darren Walker
: Great action film, but too many riddles being delivered then solved too fast.
: Please explain:
: ...how they figured out the 3gal/5gal jug riddle (measuring 4gal exactly).
: ...how that scrapmetal "bullion-substitute" turned up
: ...why McLean was ever kept alive to begin with. He should've been dead in
: the first scene (Harlem). But then he was kept alive??
: ...why "the Samaritan" -- a private citizen -- was legally allowed and
: even pressured to stick his neck out. (Think of the lawsuit!)
: Maybe I didn't hear very well (because of the teens sitting behind me).
9073h...@vms.csd.mu.edu
>macg...@tiac.net writes:
>>Great action film, but too many riddles being delivered then solved too fast.
>>Please explain:
>
>>...how they figured out the 3gal/5gal jug riddle (measuring 4gal exactly).
>
>to explain it clearly this once:
>
>1. Fill the 5 gallon jug.
>2. Fill the 3 from the 5. Now one has 3 gallons and the other has 5-3=2 gallons.
>3. Empty the three. Now the 5 has 2 gallons and the 3 has none.
>4. Fill the 5.
>5. Pour from the 5 to the 3 until the 3 is full. You have poured 1 gallon
> from the 5 (2 already in the 3 + 1 from the 5 = a full 3 gallon jug).
>
You missed a step. Should be:
3. Empty the three. Now the 5 has 2 gallons and the 3 has none.
3a. Pour the 2 gallons from 5 into the 3. Now the 3 has 2 and the 5 has none.
4. Fill the 5.
Christopher Dean
: >Mike Benedetti (bene...@mince.ugcs.caltech.edu) wrote:
: >: macg...@tiac.net writes:
: >: >Great action film, but too many riddles being delivered then solved too fast.
: >: >Please explain:
: >: >...how they figured out the 3gal/5gal jug riddle (measuring 4gal exactly).
: >: I'm worried that everybody will be asking this next week, so I'll try
: >: to explain it clearly this once:
: >: 1. Fill the 5 gallon jug.
: >: 2. Fill the 3 from the 5. Now one has 3 gallons and the other has 5-3=2 gallons.
: >: 3. Empty the three. Now the 5 has 2 gallons and the 3 has none.
Forgot 1 step.
3-Part 2- put the 2 gallons from the 5 into the 3.
: >: 4. Fill the 5.
: >: 5. Pour from the 5 to the 3 until the 3 is full. You have poured 1 gallon
: >: from the 5 (2 already in the 3 + 1 from the 5 = a full 3 gallon jug).
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: doesnt work. there are now 0 gallons in the 3, not 2, and its not clear
: how to get 2 in the 3.
Now it works.
: >: 6. Now the 5 contains 5-1=4 gallons.
A Robertson in 489
> That's the only thing you found inplausible in the film??????
>
Bijan Mohanty
|> >Mike Benedetti (bene...@mince.ugcs.caltech.edu) wrote:
|> >: macg...@tiac.net writes:
|> >: >Great action film, but too many riddles being delivered then solved too fast.
|> >: >Please explain:
|> >: >...how they figured out the 3gal/5gal jug riddle (measuring 4gal exactly).
|> >: I'm worried that everybody will be asking this next week, so I'll try
|> >: to explain it clearly this once:
|> >: 1. Fill the 5 gallon jug.
|> >: 2. Fill the 3 from the 5. Now one has 3 gallons and the other has 5-3=2 gallons.
|> >: 3. Empty the three. Now the 5 has 2 gallons and the 3 has none.
|> >: 5. Pour from the 5 to the 3 until the 3 is full. You have poured 1 gallon
|> >: from the 5 (2 already in the 3 + 1 from the 5 = a full 3 gallon jug).
|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> doesnt work. there are now 0 gallons in the 3, not 2, and its not clear
|> how to get 2 in the 3.
|>
|>
Here is the answer.
1. Fill the 5 gallons jug.
2. Fill the 3 gallons jug from 5. Now the big jug has 2 gallons and the
small has 3 gallons.
3. Now empty the 3 gallons jug and fill it from the big jug which has 2 gallons.
So now 3 gallons jug contains just 2 gallons and the big one is empty.
4. Now fill the 5 gallons jug. So now the big jug contains 5 gallons and the
small one has 2 gallons.
5. Now fill the 3 gallons jug from the big jug. And you will get 3 gallons
in the small jug and 4 gallons in the big one.
Bijan ...
Lazlo Nibble
To put it bluntly, I was *seriously* disappointed with this film. A few
things that stick out in my mind:
Given that the components of this horrible deadly binary-liquid
explosive are completely harmless if they don't mix, why doesn't it
occur to anyone in the film (Willis, the NYPD explosives geek, et al.)
to disarm the bombs by simply *preventing the liquids from mixing*?
The wholesale swipe of the "terrorist-as-thief" plot from the first film.
The offhand "oh, we switched out the gold back at the dock" business.
Fourteen dump trucks full? Without "Torgo" noticing? Oh yeah, you bet.
Acres of cipherlike characters (Simon's assassin girlfriend, the FBI
guys who turn up for one scene then disappear completely), unresolved
situations (how many construction workers died in that flood?),
confused characterizations (Simon won't kill Sam Jackson or the school
full of kids, but he has no qualms about blowing up a subway car or a
department store full of people at the beginning of the film), and
by-the-numbers plot devices (MacClane in trouble with his wife
*again*; the cop who was marked for death the minute his badge number
was pointed out).
I wouldn't necessarily discourage anyone from seeing the film -- it had its
good points. But once again they failed to come up with a script that came
anywhere near the quality of the original.
--
::: Lazlo (la...@rt66.com)
::: Check out http://www.rt66.com/lazlo for the Internet Music Wantlists,
::: many artist discographies, and other record collecting resources.
Gil Rosin
: Great action film, but too many riddles being delivered then solved too fast.
: Please explain:
: ...how they figured out the 3gal/5gal jug riddle (measuring 4gal exactly).
: ...how that scrapmetal "bullion-substitute" turned up
: ...why McLean was ever kept alive to begin with. He should've been dead in
: the first scene (Harlem). But then he was kept alive??
: ...why "the Samaritan" -- a private citizen -- was legally allowed and
: even pressured to stick his neck out. (Think of the lawsuit!)
: Maybe I didn't hear very well (because of the teens sitting behind me).
The 3/5 gal jug thing is simple.. You fill up the 3 gal jug and dump it in the
5 gal jug, that gives you 3 gals in the 5 gal jug, you repeat this, this gives
you 5 gals in the 5 gal jug and 1 gal in the 3 gal jug, you dump out the 5 gal
jug and put the 1 gal in it, then you fill the 3 gal jug and put it in the 5
gal jug and voila.. I believe they did it another way though.
Christopher Schmidt
> film -- it had its good points. But once again they failed
> to come up with a script that came anywhere near the quality
> of the original.
My feeling exactly. However, I will not post a list of the
things in the movie that I found objectionable. When I
posted a detailed list of objectionable things in SPEED, the
bottom line was that, while nobody disagreed with anything
on my list, a lot of people simply liked the movie anyway.
Well, maybe I will mention just one thing, since nobody else
has mentioned it yet. [MINOR SPOILER] The drive through the
park was supposed to be thrilling, but for me it was tedious
because Mclane would not have threatened the life and limb
of pedestrians by driving that way. It was like a cartoon.
Absolutely no thrill at all.
Christopher Schmidt
Tucson, Arizona, USA
sch...@ccit.arizona.edu
A Robertson in 489
only person who found this film a failure. Major dissapoinment...
On 22 May 1995, Lazlo Nibble wrote:
> [Plenty of stuff to ruin the film for you below]
>
> To put it bluntly, I was *seriously* disappointed with this film. A few
> things that stick out in my mind:
>
> Given that the components of this horrible deadly binary-liquid
> explosive are completely harmless if they don't mix, why doesn't it
> occur to anyone in the film (Willis, the NYPD explosives geek, et al.)
> to disarm the bombs by simply *preventing the liquids from mixing*?
>
> The wholesale swipe of the "terrorist-as-thief" plot from the first film.
>
> The offhand "oh, we switched out the gold back at the dock" business.
> Fourteen dump trucks full? Without "Torgo" noticing? Oh yeah, you bet.
>
> Acres of cipherlike characters (Simon's assassin girlfriend, the FBI
> guys who turn up for one scene then disappear completely), unresolved
> situations (how many construction workers died in that flood?),
> confused characterizations (Simon won't kill Sam Jackson or the school
> full of kids, but he has no qualms about blowing up a subway car or a
> department store full of people at the beginning of the film), and
> by-the-numbers plot devices (MacClane in trouble with his wife
> *again*; the cop who was marked for death the minute his badge number
> was pointed out).
>
> I wouldn't necessarily discourage anyone from seeing the film -- it had its
> good points. But once again they failed to come up with a script that came
> anywhere near the quality of the original.
>
Doug Elrod
> [Plenty of stuff to ruin the film for you below]
>
> To put it bluntly, I was *seriously* disappointed with this film. A few
> things that stick out in my mind:
[good points omitted]
> I wouldn't necessarily discourage anyone from seeing the film -- it had its
> good points. But once again they failed to come up with a script that came
> anywhere near the quality of the original.
I entirely agree. Also, the contrivances of this film (see spoilers below)
had me gritting my teeth.
I find that the "scavenger hunt" idea generally is a bad sign in
movies -- a way to avoid thinking up real, suspenseful drama. Maybe
someday someone will make a great movie around it, but this isn't it.
The villian insisting that the shopkeeper tag along? When I see
scenes like this I can only think of a committee of writers asking
"Well, how can we get some one-on-one interaction with Willis? I've got it!
The bad guy forces an ordinary shopkeeper to join him!"
The "waterspout" reuniting strained my suspension of disbelief
beyond the breaking point (surely there was a better way to do this?).
A minor quibble: The major enjoyment I (and probably others) got
out of this film was seeing things blow up. Why not show the cofferdam
if you show the subway cars???? A stylistic decision, to be sure, but
I don't think it paid off.
Good acting, weak script, surprisingly so-so directing.
Oh, and did the ending remind anyone else of
"On Her Majesty's Secret Service"? :-)
-Doug Elrod (dr...@cornell.edu)
"wOuLd yOu LiKe tO TrY BoNwIt'S LaTeSt fRaGrAnCe?..."
Michael Crawford
: > That's the only thing you found inplausible in the film??????
I loved the movie (smoking cigarettes and watchin' captain Kangaroo...heh
heh), but I want to know that if there are only about 5 guys guarding the
largest gold depository in the world and you can just burrow into the
basement, what the heck was Goldfinger doing screwing around in Kentucky?!
Great movie, tho...
--
-------------------
Michael A. Crawford
mac...@nr.infi.net
e92...@vaxkab.e.kth.se
In article <D8wHx...@tigger.jvnc.net>, wiec...@beast.Trenton.EDU (Mark Wiechnik) writes:
Skander Halim (ba...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>How about we say seven last minute rewrites. Six endings were shot
>before the last, last minute rewrite and McTiernan liked none of them so
>they borrowed Bruce from the set of Twelve Monkeys (For a truckload of
>money) and shot the last scene in late March.
>
>Mark
What where the six different endings? and why did the last one stick?
Olof Lindqvist
e92...@e.kth.se
Larry Latouf
SPOILERS
In article <D8uKE...@freenet.carleton.ca>, ba...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Skander Halim) writes:
>
> 1. Someone please explain exactly how the guy on the boat got sliced in half.
The line with the truck on it caught him as it was coming down.
> 2. Missed where McClane got that metal splinter to pick the lock on
> the handcuffs.
It was lodged in his sholder from the metal line they slid down (ala Q#1).
> 3. That "North of the Border" thing, or whatever was written on the
> aspirin bottle, what was that? A drugstore? A motel? So McClane just
> mosied on up to Nova Scotia and Simon was waiting there?
>
It was the name of the drugstore that was right next to where
Simon was hiding out. You can see the flash from the stores lights
as Simon and his woman are starting to have sex. Also, at the end
of the movie...it is where the chopper explodes.
> Hell of a movie, BTW. Except for the ending--can we say "last minute
> rewrite"?
>
>
>
The Morgenstern Under the Mountain
> In article <3pnlrb$r...@helix.cs.unc.edu>, geo...@cs.unc.edu (Kris Georges) writes:
> |> >Mike Benedetti (bene...@mince.ugcs.caltech.edu) wrote:
> |> >: macg...@tiac.net writes:
> |> >: >Please explain:
> |> >: >...how they figured out the 3gal/5gal jug riddle (measuring 4gal exactly).
> |> >: to explain it clearly this once:
> |> >: 1. Fill the 5 gallon jug.
> |> >: 2. Fill the 3 from the 5. Now one has 3 gallons and the other has 5-3=2 gallons.
> |> >: 3. Empty the three. Now the 5 has 2 gallons and the 3 has none.
> |> >: 4. Fill the 5.
> |> >: 5. Pour from the 5 to the 3 until the 3 is full. You have poured 1 gallon
> |> >: from the 5 (2 already in the 3 + 1 from the 5 = a full 3 gallon jug).
> |> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |> doesnt work. there are now 0 gallons in the 3, not 2, and its not clear
> |> how to get 2 in the 3.
> |>
> |> >: 6. Now the 5 contains 5-1=4 gallons.
> |>
>
> Here is the answer.
>
> 1. Fill the 5 gallons jug.
> 2. Fill the 3 gallons jug from 5. Now the big jug has 2 gallons and the
> small has 3 gallons.
> 3. Now empty the 3 gallons jug and fill it from the big jug which has 2 gallons.
> So now 3 gallons jug contains just 2 gallons and the big one is empty.
> 4. Now fill the 5 gallons jug. So now the big jug contains 5 gallons and the
> small one has 2 gallons.
> 5. Now fill the 3 gallons jug from the big jug. And you will get 3 gallons
> in the small jug and 4 gallons in the big one.
>
> Bijan ...
With all this back-and-forth explaining and minor errors going on in this
thread, I just hope none of us ever get tapped to stop a madman from bombing
New York. At least, not if he has the kind of panache Simon did...
Az
Usman Muzaffar
A Robertson in 489 <arob...@parallel.park.uga.edu> wrote:
>Lazlo, You are awesome!!! Thanks for your posting. I thought I was the
>only person who found this film a failure. Major dissapoinment...
No, man, you're not the only one. I completely agree.
But I have to admit, I'm surprised there aren't more of us.
I mean, these same people have slashed comprably convincing films to
pieces... remember what they did to Stargate in November?? :-)
-usman
>
>On 22 May 1995, Lazlo Nibble wrote:
>
>> [Plenty of stuff to ruin the film for you below]
>>
>> To put it bluntly, I was *seriously* disappointed with this film. A few
>> things that stick out in my mind:
>>
>> Given that the components of this horrible deadly binary-liquid
>> explosive are completely harmless if they don't mix, why doesn't it
>> occur to anyone in the film (Willis, the NYPD explosives geek, et al.)
>> to disarm the bombs by simply *preventing the liquids from mixing*?
>>
>> The wholesale swipe of the "terrorist-as-thief" plot from the first film.
>>
>> The offhand "oh, we switched out the gold back at the dock" business.
>> Fourteen dump trucks full? Without "Torgo" noticing? Oh yeah, you bet.
>>
>> Acres of cipherlike characters (Simon's assassin girlfriend, the FBI
>> guys who turn up for one scene then disappear completely), unresolved
>> situations (how many construction workers died in that flood?),
>> confused characterizations (Simon won't kill Sam Jackson or the school
>> full of kids, but he has no qualms about blowing up a subway car or a
>> department store full of people at the beginning of the film), and
>> by-the-numbers plot devices (MacClane in trouble with his wife
>> *again*; the cop who was marked for death the minute his badge number
>> was pointed out).
>>
>> I wouldn't necessarily discourage anyone from seeing the film -- it had its
>> good points. But once again they failed to come up with a script that came
>> anywhere near the quality of the original.
>>
Ryan R. Gile
>I loved the movie (smoking cigarettes and watchin' captain Kangaroo...heh
>heh), but I want to know that if there are only about 5 guys guarding the
>largest gold depository in the world and you can just burrow into the
>basement, what the heck was Goldfinger doing screwing around in Kentucky?!
Actually, that's one of the biggest flubs ever in a James Bond film. I guess
its just the fact the Fort Knox has a certain mystique related to gold. but
you're right---if goldfinger really wanted to make his gold valuable, he
should've gone to NY
____________________________________________________ *****
| | | * *
| Ryan R. Gile | Scale Dragon | * *
| (rg2...@student.law.duke.edu) | -==(UDIC)==- | * *
| | | * *
|****************************************************| *********
| | *
| Just what the world needs....another lawyer! | *
|____________________________________________________| *
**--> Also working my way through Ultima I - VIII again <--** *
Progress Report (Ultimas re-completed):
- Ultima (Mondain is Dead....or is He!?!?!?!?!)
- Ultima II: Revenge of the Enchantress (Find the Father, Earn the Ring)
- Exodus: Ultima III (Love, Sol, Moons, Death...All Else Fail)
- Ultima V ("Did you bring my sandelwood box?" "Uhhh, Box?!?!?!")
Current quests: Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar
Lazlo Nibble
> Oh, and did the ending remind anyone else of
> "On Her Majesty's Secret Service"? :-)
It occurred to me about a half-hour before the end of the film that I would
have enjoyed it a lot more as a Bond movie, where that kind of over-the-top
goofiness is par for the course.
Ryan Araki - Administrative Assistant (Honolulu)
: On Sun, 21 May 1995, Phineas wrote:
: > The question I had was in the scene where he's driving through the park,
: > the Samuel L. Jackson character says something like "There's no airbag
: > over here, but there's one on your side" and then Willis proceeds to
: > drive the car into all sorts of stuff and the airbag never deploys. This
: > might be a realistic problem with car chases like this when all cars have
: > airbags but they're rather inconvenient to have pop open during chase
: > scenes.
: >
: > -=-Phineas
: > That's the only thing you found inplausible in the film??????
: >
Actually, Bruce Willis asks the question about air bags before he drives
off the highway. I don't remember if the air bags popped...
Greg Humphreys
|> Lines: 19
|> Xref: fido.asd.sgi.com rec.arts.movies.current-films:5825 rec.arts.movies:270958
Doesn't Zeus rip out all the fuses in the car to turn off the anti-lock brakes?
Presumably this would prevent the airbag from deploying? Dunno much about cars, but...
--
Greg Humphreys (hum...@cs.princeton.edu) | And the
Advanced Graphics Division | wind cried...
Silicon Graphics, Inc. |
http://humper.student.princeton.edu/~humper/ | HUMPER