U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision

[Foxi4]

That says more about you, than it does about the movie.

It perfectly describes the situation of Marty who’s stuck between existence and oblivion. He technically doesn’t fully exist or vanish until the fate of his parents is ultimately decided, just like the Schrödinger’s cat is neither dead nor alive until we observe it.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

I told you that the film is sexually charged regardless of what you think, you responded with indignation.

And I told you the way narration is delivered matters, my only indignation is at how you people are making BTTF sound like it was some sort of incest pornography. The fact that American censorship had it changed 40 times is a testament to the hypocritical flimsiness of American puritanism, not a detriment of the movie.

Am I to understand that you agree and we’re wasting time?

In this specific instance it is also a waste of time as you disingenously equate things that are not the same.

This is a legitimate out for you - take it while you can.

I don't need any out as I've been very clear, you as always decided to understand whatever you wanted. It's not my fault your lack of intellectual honesty and your clearly oversized ego get in the way of conversations.

 

[smf]

It perfectly describes the situation of Marty who’s stuck between existence and oblivion. He technically doesn’t fully exist or vanish until the fate of his parents is ultimately decided, just like the Schrödinger’s cat is neither dead nor alive until we observe it.

Schrodingers cat has more problems with it's science than BTTF.

Schrodinger was being a jerk. He especially forgot that humans aren't the only thing that observe.

 

[Foxi4]

And I told you the way narration is delivered matters, my only indignation is at how you people are making BTTF sound like it was some sort of incest pornography. The fact that American censorship had it changed 40 times is a testament to the hypocritical flimsiness of American puritanism, not a detriment of the movie.

I said that the film is sexually charged and touches upon themes of mother-son incest. The rest you came up with yourself, no idea why - I never said any of that.

In this specific instance it is also a waste of time as you disingenously equate things that are not the same.

I don't need any out as I've been very clear, you as always decided to understand whatever you wanted. It's not my fault your lack of intellectual honesty and your clearly oversized ego get in the way of conversations.

So doubling down it is. Like I said, that’s totally fine by me, I don’t care. Your stubbornness and inability to admit that you were wrong is only detrimental to you, not me. I’m sorry that I ruined a “wholesome family flick” for you just because you have some weird reservations regarding lighthearted exploration of human nature, including its sexual aspects, in movies.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

I said that the film is sexually charged and touches upon themes of mother-son incest. The rest you came up with yourself, no idea why - I never said any of that

No, you all did portray it as some sort of incest porn when the "theme" of incest is only used for comedic effect.

So doubling down it is. Like I said, that’s totally fine by me, I don’t care

Of course you'd be fine, you love puerile sterile debates.

Your stubbornness and inability to admit that you were wrong is only detrimental to you, not me

More projection.

I’m sorry that I ruined a “wholesome family flick” for you just because you have some weird reservations regarding lighthearted exploration of human nature, including its sexual aspects, in movies

Lots of projection and clear signs of reading comprehension shown, especially for someone displaying such a misplaced sense of superiority seasoned with all that smarmy attitude. Are you feeling all right? You didn't ruin anything, your interpretation of a classic doesn't bother me the slightest, as it's obviously wrong.

 

[Foxi4]

Schrodingers cat has more problems with it's science than BTTF.

Schrodinger was being a jerk. He especially forgot that humans aren't the only thing that observe.

Quantum physics aren’t a referendum on anyone’s personality, and Schrödinger isn’t an exception. The cat example is just a thought experiment on superposition. If I were to reference it to Marty’s predicament, he is simultaneously in two quantum states - he exists, but he technically shouldn’t as he interrupted his own parent’s meeting which is a prerequisite for his existence. Not only that, he is physically in the past, but he is to be born in the future. He’s in a superposition state not just in space, but also time.

*Stubborn whinging*

I understand that you won’t concede and have no interest in discussing this with you further. You can revisit the previous posts in this thread and reevaluate your position on your own time, don’t waste mine. I didn’t say anything that Zemeckis or Gale didn’t say about the film before me.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

I understand that you won’t concede and have no interest in discussing this with you further.

Ah, your easy way out.

I didn’t say anything that Zemeckis or Gale didn’t say about the film before me.

And you managed to say it wrong anyway, an achievement in itself!

*Stubborn whinging*

More projection paired with zero self awareness.

 

[Kurt91]

Not in any message directed to me or mentioning me?

I'm probably going to regret butting in on this, but he actually did. Looking back, his post quoted you directly, meaning that you received a notification regarding the post that specifically had the three links INCLUDING the interview that you argue either doesn't really exist or that he's refusing to share. To specify, here are the links AGAIN, copy/pasted directly from his post.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/dvdextras/2010/11/back_to_your_mom.html
https://insidethemagic.net/2020/10/disney-rejected-back-to-the-future-tm1/
https://edition.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/20/bttf.anniversary.go/index.html

If you don't believe me, that the post did quote you directly, feel free to double check. It's post #1695 in this thread.

 

[Foxi4]

Ah, your easy way out.

And you managed to say it wrong anyway, an achievement in itself!

More projection paired with zero self awareness.

CNN: How difficult was it to get this script produced?
Gale: The script was rejected over 40 times by every major studio and by some more than once. We'd go back when they changed management. It was always one of two things. It was "Well, this is time travel, and those movies don't make any money." We got that a lot. We also got, "There's a lot of sweetness to this. It's too nice, we want something raunchier like 'Porky's.' Why don't you take it to Disney?"
Well, we heard that so many times that Bob [Zemeckis, co-writer and director] and I thought one day, "what the hell, let's take it to Disney." This was before Michael Eisner went in and reinvented it. This was the last vestiges of the old Disney family regime. We went in to meet with an executive and he says, "Are you guys nuts? Are you insane? We can't make a movie like this. You've got the kid and the mother in his car! It's incest -- this is Disney. It's too dirty for us!"
CNN: Did you continue to make changes to the script as time went on?
Gale: We wrote two official drafts, and it was the second that we took around to everybody. One person who was very interested in that draft was Steven Spielberg.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

I'm probably going to regret butting in on this, but he actually did. Looking back, his post quoted you directly, meaning that you received a notification regarding the post that specifically had the three links INCLUDING the interview that you argue either doesn't really exist or that he's refusing to share. To specify, here are the links AGAIN, copy/pasted directly from his post.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/dvdextras/2010/11/back_to_your_mom.html
https://insidethemagic.net/2020/10/disney-rejected-back-to-the-future-tm1/
https://edition.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/20/bttf.anniversary.go/index.html

If you don't believe me, that the post did quote you directly, feel free to double check. It's post #1695 in this thread.

That's very nice and fine, but if you notice, in the articles they said that only with Disney the issue of it being "too daring" was present, otherwise the movie was deemed "too nice" (whatever the hell that means). So the whole idea of somehow characterising the whole trilogy as some sort of incest-fest is disingenous and, frankly, false. It doesn't say anywhere that it was refused by censors 40 times - they said they made changes 40 times because it was too nice or about time travel and no one liked time travel.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

So you were wrong. The only one who made a point about the incest was Disney. The movie was actually considered "too nice" by the vast majority of producers, whatever the hell that means. I don't know why I can't quote directly anymore, so I'll just post copy paste.

Gale: The script was rejected over 40 times by every major studio and by some more than once. We'd go back when they changed management. It was always one of two things. It was "Well, this is time travel, and those movies don't make any money." We got that a lot. We also got, "There's a lot of sweetness to this. It's too nice, we want something raunchier like 'Porky's.' Why don't you take it to Disney?"
Well, we heard that so many times that Bob [Zemeckis, co-writer and director] and I thought one day, "what the hell, let's take it to Disney." This was before Michael Eisner went in and reinvented it. This was the last vestiges of the old Disney family regime. We went in to meet with an executive and he says, "Are you guys nuts? Are you insane? We can't make a movie like this. You've got the kid and the mother in his car! It's incest -- this is Disney. It's too dirty for us!"

 

[Foxi4]

So you were wrong. The only one who made a point about the incest was Disney. The movie was actually considered "too nice" by the vast majority of producers, whatever the hell that means. I don't know why I can't quote directly anymore, so I'll just post copy paste.

I said that the film had sexual undertones, that it was rejected by 40 studios and that Disney rejected it outright. The rest is some weird mythos that you built yourself in your head. You’d know what the creators have said about the film if you only read the damned interview that *I gave you a link for*. You’ve got problems, I’m not interested in arguing with you, this is the second time you spill marbles all over the place when you get nailed to a wall.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

, that it was rejected by 40 studios and that Disney rejected it outright.

Not because of the sexual undertones, you liar. Only Disney rejected it because of that. Everyone else didn't mind, so more deliberate nonsense on your part. Heck apparently they rejected it because it wasn't sexual enough!

You’d know what the creators have said about the film if you only read the damned interview that *I gave you a link for*.

Which actually agrees with what I said, rather than what YOU said. that the movie is in fact quite nice and family friendly, not that mess you people tried to make it appear.

You’ve got problems

More projection from the delusional libertarian without an ounce of honesty.

I’m not interested in arguing with you, this is the second time you spill marbles all over the place when you get nailed to a wall.

I'm not interested in your suggestive language and your delusions of grandeur, your whole characterisation of the movie as some sort of big incest flick, and sexual metaphor for abortion, was and is, incorrect.
Also, second time? you're delusional. The only thing you nailed to a wall is the secret you don't have enough sense to fill a teacup.

 

[Foxi4]

Not because of the sexual undertones, you liar. Only Disney rejected it because of that. Everyone else didn't mind, so more deliberate nonsense on your part.

Which actually agrees with what I said, rather than what YOU said. that the movie is in fact quite nice and family friendly, not that mess you people tried to make it appear.

More projection from the delusional libertarian without an ounce of honesty.

I'm not interested in your suggestive language and your delusions of grandeur, your whole characterisation of the movie as some sort of big incest flick, and sexual metaphor for abortion, was and is, incorrect.
Also, second time? you're delusional. The only thing you nailed to a wall is the secret you don't have enough sense to fill a teacup.

We argued about whether or not the film has sexual undertones. It does. I don’t care what else is rumbling in that dome of yours or what weird accusations you’ve imagined along the way. My statement is consistent with what the creators said about the film. Heck, Steven Spielberg himself is on record saying that, I quote, “the Oedipal aspect (of the story) was really gross”. I don’t know what else to tell you - it’s right in the article (that you obviously haven’t read).

 

[Dark_Ansem]

We argued about whether or not the film has sexual undertones. It does.

That's what YOU were arguing about, ignoring everyone else because when you pretend to be communicating with others what you're actually doing is monologuing.
As I said several times, I don't dispute that the film has sexual UNDERtones (interesting, so now they're UNDERtones, you omitted the UNDER before, in more than a couple message, don't bother rushing to edit). What I DID dispute was the overly gross emphasis you people put on it.

I don’t care what else is rumbling in that dome of yours or what weird accusations you’ve imagined along the way.

Accusations? Paranoid much?

My statement is consistent with what the creators said about the film.

Consistent and misleading, since even a naked monkey remembers that the focus of BTTF is time travel, not the "incest" (which actually never happens). But I appreciate you might value the opinion of Disney above all others, if you're a fan that's one of your (few) redeeming qualities.

Heck, Steven Spielberg himself is in record saying that, I quote, “the Oedipal aspect (of the story) was really gross”.

That's one. Another critic, Ellis, noticed the Oedipal aspect of the movie - but in a positive light, calling it a gentle movie and, more importantly, Zemeckis' movie as opposed to Spielberg (who only became a producer of it, and even so kept his influence to a minimum).

I don’t know what else to tell you - it’s just in the article (that you obviously haven’t read).

I've actually read beyond the articles, you're not the only BTTF fan around here.
What you could say is that you recognise the movie approaches the Oedipus complex in a rather comedic, and delicate, way. That YOUR overly sexual view of the movie is, in fact, a minority view and that the whole idea of the movie being a metaphor for abortion is YOUR personal interpretation and yours alone.

It is a testament to the quality, and influence, of the movie that somehow it was brought to modern discourse 30 years later.

I accept your concession and apology.

 

[Foxi4]

*Denial*

That’s fine, I don’t need your concession, you seem flustered enough as it is and it’s high time we returned to the subject of the thread. I told you repeatedly that I don’t care whether you accept reality or not.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

*Projection*

That's ok, as I said I appreciate your (im)maturity and the fact that you're flustered enough is hilarious, if a bit sad. You'd try some meditation, you clearly could use it. Then again, to meditate requires a minimum of brainpower and self-awareness you lack, so maybe I'm being a tad optimistic but hey, you can try!

So, back to the topic.

 

[Foxi4]

That's ok, as I said I appreciate your (im)maturity and the fact that you're flustered enough is hilarious, if a bit sad. You'd try some meditation, you clearly could use it. Then again, to meditate requires a minimum of brainpower and self-awareness you lack, so maybe I'm being a tad optimistic but hey, you can try!

Well, you keep babbling about things I’ve never said or ignoring things I’ve said explicitly, so I’m pressing abort on the exchange because it’s not productive. You’re welcome to live in a world of crayons, but I’m not obligated to join you there. I’d much rather get back to talking about abortion and Roe v. Wade than BTTF and your complete lack of a sense of humour, or literary insight.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

*Projection + denial = monologue*

Yes yes whatever you say dear.

or literary insight.

Pfft, unlike you I've actually read the book which likely inspired BTTF so yeah, more qualified than you to talk about it and its "sexual UNDERtones" (or lack thereof). as I said you need to return the money to that university of yours.

 

[Foxi4]

Yes yes whatever you say dear.

Pfft, unlike you I've actually read the book which likely inspired BTTF so yeah, more qualified than you to talk about it and its "sexual UNDERtones" (or lack thereof). as I said you need to return the money to that university of yours.

Gale is wrong. Zemeckis is wrong. Spielberg is wrong. Dark Ansem is right. Can we get back to Roe v. Wade now? I’m not going to take part in your mental breakdown.