PDA

View Full Version : Burger King Advocates Theft


Skeptical Greg
14th August 2011, 11:32 AM
Burger King ad talks about sharing, but the last time I checked, sharing involved voluntarily giving something to someone..
This ad looks like old fashioned stealing to me..

RPQIwGZj4-I


I wonder if they would have a problem with someone reaching over the counter and grabbing a few $20's ( Or at least a burger or two ) when the cashier isn't looking?

DallasDad
14th August 2011, 12:16 PM
I don't see the advert as advocating theft (or sharing) at all. It's a warning: These goober burgers are so good that everyone will steal from you! It becomes an advert by extension -- if they're that good, you should go buy some.

Alareth
14th August 2011, 12:21 PM
Other examples of advocated theft in commercials

McDonald's has Hamburglar and the Fry Guys
The Cookie Crisp Cookie Crook
Every child that ever appeared in a Lucky Charms commercial
Barney Rubble in Fruity/Cocoa Pebbles ads
Leggo my Eggo

Theft is a common theme in commercials

Sam.I.Am
14th August 2011, 12:22 PM
Other examples of advocated theft in commercials

McDonald's has Hamburglar and the Fry Guys
The Cookie Crisp Cookie Crook
Every child that ever appeared in a Lucky Charms commercial
Barney Rubble in Fruity/Cocoa Pebbles ads
Leggo my Eggo

Theft is a common theme in commercials

Silly Rabbit, Trix are for kids.

Skeptical Greg
14th August 2011, 12:25 PM
I don't see the advert as advocating theft (or sharing) at all. It's a warning: These goober burgers are so good that everyone will steal from you! It becomes an advert by extension -- if they're that good, you should go buy some.

So, what is the song about sharing supposed to imply?

Are they saying you should share, before you become a victim like we see in the ad ?

Cavemonster
14th August 2011, 12:25 PM
Burger King ad talks about sharing, but the last time I checked, sharing involved voluntarily giving something to someone..
This ad looks like old fashioned stealing to me..


That's the joke in the commercial.

Skeptical Greg
14th August 2011, 12:27 PM
Other examples of advocated theft in commercials

McDonald's has Hamburglar and the Fry Guys
The Cookie Crisp Cookie Crook
Every child that ever appeared in a Lucky Charms commercial
Barney Rubble in Fruity/Cocoa Pebbles ads
Leggo my Eggo

Theft is a common theme in commercials

You left out the Frito Bandito (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frito_Bandito) ..

Alareth
14th August 2011, 12:29 PM
Dammit ... Now I need Fritos

stilicho
14th August 2011, 12:32 PM
Other examples of advocated theft in commercials

McDonald's has Hamburglar and the Fry Guys
The Cookie Crisp Cookie Crook
Every child that ever appeared in a Lucky Charms commercial
Barney Rubble in Fruity/Cocoa Pebbles ads
Leggo my Eggo

Theft is a common theme in commercials

Especially food commercials. "Can't get enough of that Sugar Crisp." Food is at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy and they can't show what people really are capable of when trying to get it.

A little bit of animated theft is tame by comparison to what people will do in real life for yellow moons and orange stars.

Skeptical Greg
14th August 2011, 12:58 PM
The animated cereal commercials seem whimsical to me, though I suppose they could be morally questionable.. I personally think candy disguised as cereal is morally questionable..

I just happened to have seen the subject ad on TV the other day, and it struck me how blatant the thievery in realistic looking settings was; not to mention that it supposedly depicts sharing..

As I mentioned, why wouldn't reaching over the counter and grabbing a few BK Mini's in the restaurant, be any less appropriate than the situations shown in the ad?

TragicMonkey
14th August 2011, 01:12 PM
"Burger King" is inherenly un-American. It should be "Burger President". Also, "Dairy Queen" needs to be changed. The monarchy is over, let's cast off these vestiges of the Age of Tyranny!

Also, "Chick-fil-a" is sexist, it should be "Persons-fil-a".

Skeptic
14th August 2011, 01:17 PM
Looks like "Humor in advertisement wasted on the humorless" more than "Burger King advocating theft".

TragicMonkey
14th August 2011, 01:22 PM
Looks like "Humor in advertisement wasted on the humorless" more than "Burger King advocating theft".

"Burger Thief" would be a pretty good name for a restaurant, though.

Also "Burger Bandit", "Burger Chancellor", and "Burger Abbot". The latter could have an ecclesiastical theme.

WildCat
14th August 2011, 01:23 PM
And what about the cookie monster? That bastard steals every cookie he sees! It's turning us into a nation of cookie thieves.

Sir Robin Goodfellow
14th August 2011, 01:24 PM
Commercials definitely need to be more dour and humourless.

ConspiRaider
14th August 2011, 01:25 PM
The animated cereal commercials seem whimsical to me, though I suppose they could be morally questionable.. I personally think candy disguised as cereal is morally questionable..
Agree. They sock the "cereal" with sugar - and then position those boxes very strategically in the supermarket so they're at kid-eye-level. I really hope no one is ever surprised when teens in this country get adult-onset diabetes.


I just happened to have seen the subject ad on TV the other day, and it struck me how blatant the thievery in realistic looking settings was; not to mention that it supposedly depicts sharing..

Yeahp. My first impression as well. They could at least be "honest" about the thievery and call it exactly that - shape the wording of the ad to show that this fast food is so delicious, good people will forget themselves and resort to theft just to get their burger fix. What the living hell is this word "sharing" doing in there??? NO THEY'RE NOT!


As I mentioned, why wouldn't reaching over the counter and grabbing a few BK Mini's in the restaurant, be any less appropriate than the situations shown in the ad?

Ten-roger. Of course the word "moral" appears nowhere in the Sales Manual of Burger King, because all they want? Is for us to remember BK Mini's, by whatever means necessary. Even if it raises a controversy, which of course their marketing department anticipated. Well, Burger King? You can forget all about me ever buying one...

TragicMonkey
14th August 2011, 01:27 PM
And what about the cookie monster? That bastard steals every cookie he sees! It's turning us into a nation of cookie thieves.

Does Cookie Monster steal cookies? I thought he merely ate his own cookies, or cookies given freely to him as gifts, in an insane and inappropriate display of extreme gusto that clearly indicates at the very least an eating disorder and probably a deep-seated psychopathy that will inevitably break out one day in an orgy of bloodsoaked slaughter the likes of which the modern world has never seen?

TragicMonkey
14th August 2011, 01:30 PM
I think it would be funnier if they changed the message from "these burgers are so good you'll resort to theft to get them" to "these burgers are so good you'll find yourself turning tricks at the bus station to get them". The visuals would be much more arresting, and the resulting media clamor would draw a great deal more consumer attention to the product. Also this change in message would lend itself to the easy creation of memorable spokescharacters in the form of Burger Whores--the merchandizing potential is enormous.

jiggeryqua
14th August 2011, 01:38 PM
That's outrageous! They're essentially blackmailing us into buying food for other people under threat of having it stolen from us if we don't. It's amoral.

TragicMonkey
14th August 2011, 01:40 PM
That's outrageous! They're essentially blackmailing us into buying food for other people under threat of having it stolen from us if we don't. It's amoral.

You always have the option of poisoning your own food, so that any thief who took it would get what they deserved. "These burgers are so good you'll wind up murdering your friends and family." Now that's a good burger!

ConspiRaider
14th August 2011, 01:49 PM
I think it would be funnier if they changed the message from "these burgers are so good you'll resort to theft to get them" to "these burgers are so good you'll find yourself turning tricks at the bus station to get them". The visuals would be much more arresting, and the resulting media clamor would draw a great deal more consumer attention to the product. Also this change in message would lend itself to the easy creation of memorable spokescharacters in the form of Burger Whores--the merchandizing potential is enormous.
Even better! :)

Good thought, T-Minkey.

Skeptical Greg
14th August 2011, 01:53 PM
Looks like "Humor in advertisement wasted on the humorless" more than "Burger King advocating theft".


Or maybe " Burger King Targets Jackass Demographic " ?

ConspiRaider
14th August 2011, 02:04 PM
"Burger King" is inherenly un-American. It should be "Burger President". Also, "Dairy Queen" needs to be changed. The monarchy is over, let's cast off these vestiges of the Age of Tyranny!

Also, "Chick-fil-a" is sexist, it should be "Persons-fil-a".
Yeahp.

War Is Peace.

Looting Is Sharing.

Ignorance Is Strength.

Stealing Is Sharing.

Freedom Is Slavery.

Robbing Is Sharing.

Hey wait. Dairy Queen, change her up? HAHA! NO! Because I AM a former Dairy Queen and betcha I can still do that trademark soft-serve curl on the cone like a Prom Queen Extraordinaire. Oh yes. Like having sex, hain't never fergit how...

Verde
14th August 2011, 03:06 PM
Commercials definitely need to be more dour and humourless.

Absolutely!
Ben Stein could have his career re-invigorated.


V.

ps. I stole that line.

7th sextile
14th August 2011, 03:58 PM
"Burger Thief" would be a pretty good name for a restaurant, though.

Also "Burger Bandit", "Burger Chancellor", and "Burger Abbot". The latter could have an ecclesiastical theme.

...no BurgerMeister ?

fuelair
14th August 2011, 04:07 PM
What about those parents who so often steal the Kraft mac and cheese from their kids - it apparently has gotten so bad they offer insurance premiums against the loss.

Sam.I.Am
14th August 2011, 04:11 PM
...no BurgerMeister ?

That's already taken...

http://www.burgermeistersf.com/

KingMerv00
14th August 2011, 05:05 PM
Or maybe " Burger King Targets Jackass Demographic " ?

It's a joke.

I don't think it was particularly funny either but yeesh chill out a bit.

Edit: Anyone have a link to that "snow = nuclear fallout" thread?

Skeptical Greg
14th August 2011, 05:39 PM
Is this a tag team match ?

ConspiRaider
14th August 2011, 05:54 PM
It's a joke.

I don't think it was particularly funny either but yeesh chill out a bit.

Edit: Anyone have a link to that "snow = nuclear fallout" thread?
King, you're one of the good guys and so it's probable that when you look out there at the teeming masses - you assume nearly all of them are good guy material as well. Not necessarily the case.

You're also into law, and therefore you understand the concept that nearly everything is a matter of degree. That fits this situation to a tee.

There are some of us (and yes - probably we older types) who can look at that commercial and determine: Burger King - you just crossed a line there. You want to push your fast food to everybody possible - including kiddies? Fine. You go ahead and do that. But show some restraint. Maybe some of us adults merely might be offended or pay it no mind or even chuckle. Yet, you also could be confusing kiddies with your 30-second spot showing half a dozen little thefts while some "friendly" guy croons "sharing" over the top of it. Could be when they're watching? Maybe no adults are around to reassure them that Burger King is simply being irresponsible and NO - stealing is never something to be condoned so carelessly and NO that is not sharing.

KingMerv00
14th August 2011, 05:54 PM
Is this a tag team match ?

It's a forum. That's how a public discussion works. When you start a thread, expect multiple responses. Happens to everyone, you aren't special in that regard.

DC
14th August 2011, 05:58 PM
i start worry when they band together with the NRA and promote defending your mini burger. :D

Skeptical Greg
14th August 2011, 06:06 PM
It's a forum. That's how a public discussion works. When you start a thread, expect multiple responses. Happens to everyone, you aren't special in that regard.

Were you informing me that the commercial is a joke, or that Skeptic's suggestion that I don't recognize humor was a joke?

In either case, I didn't need your help, but if Skeptic did, all is not lost..

wardenclyffe
14th August 2011, 06:10 PM
Don't forget the Zinger Zapper:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5u7moppmAs

Ward

KingMerv00
14th August 2011, 06:21 PM
King, you're one of the good guys...

I should probably just stop reading here.

...and so it's probable that when you look out there at the teeming masses - you assume nearly all of them are good guy material as well. Not necessarily the case.

You're also into law, and therefore you understand the concept that nearly everything is a matter of degree. That's fits this situation to a tee.

Being into law, I've spent a fair amount of time reading about how often people suck and get away with it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States). Trust me, rose-colored glasses is not my problem.

There are some of us (and yes - probably we older types) who can look at that commercial and determine: Burger King - you just crossed a line there. You want to push your fast food to everybody possible - including kiddies? Fine. You go ahead and do that. But show some restraint. Maybe some of us adults merely might be offended or pay it no mind or even chuckle. Yet, you also could be confusing kiddies with your 30-second spot showing half a dozen little thefts while some "friendly" guy croons "sharing" over the top of it. Could be when they're watching? Maybe no adults are around to reassure them that Burger King is simply being irresponsible and NO - stealing is never something to be condoned so carelessly and NO that is not sharing.

The music was for juxtaposition humor. They weren't sharing, they were stealing. The song is happy and is about sharing. Get it? Har har. Any person over the age of 10 should pick that up without a problem. My objection to the thread really stems from the title. BK is not "advocating theft" (or more specifically, larceny :p). To suggest otherwise is obviously a moral overreaction. The REAL crime is that they are using bland comedy to sell awful food.

What about the kiddies? This might be contraversial but...

*looks around*

...I don't care. Can we demostrate actual harm here or do we just assume that children are so weak minded that commercials overwhelm all clear social boundries? If this was proven to harm kids, what should we do? Do we have to bleep "bang, zoom, to the moon"? Burn toy ray guns? Boycott heist films?

I don't hate kids but I don't really like them either. The world lives in constant dread for the children but doesn't want kids to be "safe" either. Remember the Hays Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code)? Blech.

DC
14th August 2011, 06:24 PM
The REAL crime is that they are using bland comedy to sell awfulesome food.
ftfy

KingMerv00
14th August 2011, 06:27 PM
Were you informing me that the commercial is a joke, or that Skeptic's suggestion that I don't recognize humor was a joke?

In either case, I didn't need your help, but if Skeptic did, all is not lost..

I didn't even read Skeptic's post. I wasn't trying to help him, I'm just one more person responding to your thread.

KingMerv00
14th August 2011, 06:29 PM
ftfy

I hope kids aren't reading this thread.

TragicMonkey
14th August 2011, 06:40 PM
I hope kids aren't reading this thread.

Me, too, because then they might pick up on the idea that smoking is cool and sexy and makes you look cool and sexy by doing it.

Silly Green Monkey
14th August 2011, 06:40 PM
hey, doublestackers are awesome.

Babbylonian
14th August 2011, 06:47 PM
Me, too, because then they might pick up on the idealearn the absolute truth that smoking is cool and sexy and makes you look cool and sexy by doing it.
You're welcome.

KingMerv00
14th August 2011, 06:54 PM
Me, too, because then they might pick up on the idea that smoking is cool and sexy and makes you look cool and sexy by doing it.

"Have you ever tried just turning off the TV...sitting down with your children...and hitting them?"

---Bender

ConspiRaider
14th August 2011, 07:44 PM
...I don't hate kids but I don't really like them either. The world lives in constant dread for the children but doesn't want kids to be "safe" either. Remember the Hays Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code)? Blech.
Fair enough, King. Hey! On disliking kiddies? You and Burger King have something in common!! Plus?? "King" Merv and Burger "King"? See?

Yeah I'm in the Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Radio and Television Artists and am a film buff besides so I know of the Hays Code. Don't know who they were trying to "protect" but not sure it was the kiddies. Weird thing about the Hays Code - in the long view it was probably a wash both ways. One of the effects of the Hays Code is that it forced writers and directors to get more creative in pushing their points in film - if they were clever enough. On the other hand it also allowed the pushing of points that were outdated or unrealistic or prejudicial. Who can say. Hollywood's best year was 1939 - well into Hays Code territory (began 1934). Yet we've had outstanding films since it faded.

If Burger King was trying to be humorous? The entire board of directors should be forced to attend Funny School. They know zip of The Funny. Probably all of 'em ate too much junk food / fast food as kiddies and...

BStrong
14th August 2011, 07:49 PM
I just watched Breaking Bad and I'm not going into the meth business.

KingMerv00
14th August 2011, 07:59 PM
Fair enough, King. Hey! On disliking kiddies? You and Burger King have something in common!! Plus?? "King" Merv and Burger "King"? See?

They're on to me!

Yeah I'm in the Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Radio and Television Artists and am a film buff besides so I know of the Hays Code. Don't know who they were trying to "protect" but not sure it was the kiddies. Weird thing about the Hays Code - in the long view it was probably a wash both ways. One of the effects of the Hays Code is that it forced writers and directors to get more creative in pushing their points in film - if they were clever enough.

One of the effects of WWII was the invention of the Jerrycan. Totally worth it. :p

On the other hand it also allowed the pushing of points that were outdated or unrealistic or prejudicial. Who can say. Hollywood's best year was 1939 - well into Hays Code territory (began 1934).

Glad that's settled. :D

If Burger King was trying to be humorous? The entire board of directors should be forced to attend Funny School. They know zip of The Funny. Probably all of 'em ate too much junk food / fast food as kiddies and...

With you there. It would be better if they just showed a randomly selected 5 second clip of Henny Youngman and ended it with "Eat Burger King".

That's not a "you're old" joke. I'm serious.

KingMerv00
14th August 2011, 08:00 PM
I just watched Breaking Bad and I'm not going into the meth business.

Me neither. Nudge nudge wink wink.

KingMerv00
14th August 2011, 08:06 PM
One more thing, CR. I just saw Anatomy of A Murder yesterday. Quite good (in spite of a few glaring legal inaccuracies). Pretty much ignored the Hays Code didn't it?

ConspiRaider
14th August 2011, 08:48 PM
One more thing, CR. I just saw Anatomy of A Murder yesterday. Quite good (in spite of a few glaring legal inaccuracies). Pretty much ignored the Hays Code didn't it?
Oh that's a good one. I have the book too - but the movie is better. It had to be. Look who's in it. Stewart didn't do all that many big ones following Anatomy - Liberty Valance was big but he, like Cary Grant - were hitting the twilights of their stellar careers.

PANTIES! I liked that segment, about could it be used :)

What a smoldering, sexy potrayal by Lee Remick. Wow.

Yeahp, we were 25 years into the Hays Code and it was gasping its lasties. The 60s finally did it in for good...

King, what was an example of a glaring legal inaccuracy?

Skeptic
14th August 2011, 09:18 PM
Or maybe " Burger King Targets Jackass Demographic " ?

Wouldn't be much change from the current situation, now would it?

KingMerv00
14th August 2011, 09:39 PM
King, what was an example of a glaring legal inaccuracy?

To cover my butt, I will say that some of the "inaccuracies" may have been the result of changes in the law. The "inaccuracies" that hit me the hardest were:





The lawyers' behavior in court. No judge would put up with counsel pounding on the opposing sides desk, threatening to punch the DA "into Lake Superior", etc. In real life, both sides could easily have multiple counts of contempt. (I forgive this one because it makes for good drama.)
The judge was constantly letting Jimmy plant ideas into the jury's head and telling them to "disregard the question". That's fine every once in awhile for an honest mistake, but it was pretty clear that Jimmy was repeatedly doing it on purpose. That kind of behvior could lead to contempt and a mistrial.
The DA tried to claim the rape accusation was "irrelevant". That's nonsense. It was the cornerstone of the defendant's insanity defense. What's worse is the judge initially agreed!
Three surprise witnesses. Doesn't happen.
The ripped panties were brought into court DURING THE TRIAL IN FRONT OF THE JURY and the DA didn't even examine them.
No pre-trial depositions? What the hell?
Not guilty by reason of insanity doesn't mean you go free. It usually means they throw you in the nuthouse. I recall a study that showed insane criminals were locked up twice as long as non-insane criminals. The insanity plea is a loser's bet.
I will say that it was far better than most law movies in showing the process as a whole. The legal arguments were pretty good and I frequently found myself objecting in tandem with the lawyers. Sadly, I think the way the DA suggested Mrs. Manion "had it coming" is pretty accurate for that era. (Modern rape shield laws and a more enlightened court have largely cut back on that crap.)

My favorite legal movie is still My Cousin Vinny. It is reasonably accurate (for a comedy) and resists the urge make the DA the villain.

ProBonoShill
14th August 2011, 10:14 PM
Who watches commercials these days anyway? Any good parent worth their salt has taught their children how to use a PVR.

ConspiRaider
15th August 2011, 08:05 AM
To cover my butt, I will say that some of the "inaccuracies" may have been the result of changes in the law. The "inaccuracies" that hit me the hardest were:






The lawyers' behavior in court. No judge would put up with counsel pounding on the opposing sides desk, threatening to punch the DA "into Lake Superior", etc. In real life, both sides could easily have multiple counts of contempt. (I forgive this one because it makes for good drama.)
The judge was constantly letting Jimmy plant ideas into the jury's head and telling them to "disregard the question". That's fine every once in awhile for an honest mistake, but it was pretty clear that Jimmy was repeatedly doing it on purpose. That kind of behvior could lead to contempt and a mistrial.
The DA tried to claim the rape accusation was "irrelevant". That's nonsense. It was the cornerstone of the defendant's insanity defense. What's worse is the judge initially agreed!
Three surprise witnesses. Doesn't happen.
The ripped panties were brought into court DURING THE TRIAL IN FRONT OF THE JURY and the DA didn't even examine them.
No pre-trial depositions? What the hell?
Not guilty by reason of insanity doesn't mean you go free. It usually means they throw you in the nuthouse. I recall a study that showed insane criminals were locked up twice as long as non-insane criminals. The insanity plea is a loser's bet.
I will say that it was far better than most law movies in showing the process as a whole. The legal arguments were pretty good and I frequently found myself objecting in tandem with the lawyers. Sadly, I think the way the DA suggested Mrs. Manion "had it coming" is pretty accurate for that era. (Modern rape shield laws and a more enlightened court have largely cut back on that crap.)

My favorite legal movie is still My Cousin Vinny. It is reasonably accurate (for a comedy) and resists the urge make the DA the villain.
Enlightening responses, King, on the inaccuracies, thanks much.

You're right on the "process as whole", most law movies focus in on a segment of the process and dramatize that to the hilt. Although the flick "The Verdict" with Paul Newman kind of ran the gamut, that's another of my faves...

Skeptical Greg
15th August 2011, 02:56 PM
To continue off topic , two of my favorite legal adventures are Presumed Innocent (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109635/) and Disclosure (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100404/) ..

I don't know how legally accurate they are, but if I did, I probably woudn't find them as enjoyable...

NoZed Avenger
16th August 2011, 07:52 AM
hey, doublestackers are awesome.

Sex thread is thataway -------->

BenBurch
16th August 2011, 07:57 AM
And what about the cookie monster? That bastard steals every cookie he sees! It's turning us into a nation of cookie thieves.

We would all be better off if Oscar The Grouch were our role model. ;)

NoZed Avenger
16th August 2011, 07:58 AM
I will say that it was far better than most law movies in showing the process as a whole. The legal arguments were pretty good and I frequently found myself objecting in tandem with the lawyers. Sadly, I think the way the DA suggested Mrs. Manion "had it coming" is pretty accurate for that era. (Modern rape shield laws and a more enlightened court have largely cut back on that crap.)

My favorite legal movie is still My Cousin Vinny. It is reasonably accurate (for a comedy) and resists the urge make the DA the villain.

I think a few of your points are because discovery was extremely limited back when the story was written. Many things were brought out incourt with little or no warning to the other side, except through a preliminary hearing or as part of the other parties' own efforts (depositions, etc.).

And actually, My Cousin Vinny drives me more crazy -- the state has an expert witness that was not disclosed prior to trial, and the defense doesn't even get a continuance to examine the support? In a criminal case? In a potential death penalty/life imprisonment case?

That is more egregious than the entire list for Anatomy, by itself.

KingMerv00
16th August 2011, 10:02 AM
To continue off topic , two of my favorite legal adventures are Presumed Innocent (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109635/) and Disclosure (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100404/) ..

I don't know how legally accurate they are, but if I did, I probably woudn't find them as enjoyable...

Never saw them. Judging from the movie posters, I'm guessing it was because I didn't have Cinemax back then.

KingMerv00
16th August 2011, 10:17 AM
I think a few of your points are because discovery was extremely limited back when the story was written. Many things were brought out incourt with little or no warning to the other side, except through a preliminary hearing or as part of the other parties' own efforts (depositions, etc.).

If true, I'm glad I covered my butt.

And actually, My Cousin Vinny drives me more crazy -- the state has an expert witness that was not disclosed prior to trial, and the defense doesn't even get a continuance to examine the support? In a criminal case? In a potential death penalty/life imprisonment case?

That is more egregious than the entire list for Anatomy, by itself.

Oh I agree. Anatomy is far more accurate. I only said Vinny was more accurate than is normal for a comedy. That's not saying much. It's my favorite court movie because it is funny and because it ignores convention by portraying the DA as a good guy (the movie literally has no antagonist). Screw accuracy. Show me Fred Munster yelling at Leo Getz.

The expert witness issue this is absolute nonsense, or course. It doesn't bother me too much because the movie hangs a lampshade (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging) on how inaccurate it is:

Vinny Gambini (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000582/): I object to this witness being called at this time. We've been given no prior notice he would testify. No discovery of any tests he's conducted or reports he's prepared. And as the court is aware, the defense is entitled to advance notice of all witness who will testify, particularly those who will give scientific evidence, so that we can properly prepare for cross-examination, as well as give the defense an opportunity to have his reports reviewed by a defense expert, who might then be in a position to contradict the veracity of his conclusions.
Judge Chamberlain Haller (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001304/): Mr. Gambini?
Vinny Gambini (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000582/): Yes, sir?
Judge Chamberlain Haller (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001304/): That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.
Vinny Gambini (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000582/): Thank you, sir.
Judge Chamberlain Haller (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001304/): Overruled.


I will say that objection is well phrased. :D

NoZed Avenger
16th August 2011, 01:37 PM
If true, I'm glad I covered my butt.

My uncle had been an attorney in "the good old days" before discovery was as easy or as universal, and he had a number of stories about new photos or other exhibits from the other side being unveiled for the first time at trial. You had to think on your feet a lot more than at present.

I am not sure how far along the discovery rules had gone by the time of Anatomy, though. I do give it a pass on a lot of that because it was far more common for the prosecutor and police to play 'hide the ball' back before the end of the 50s.

KingMerv00
16th August 2011, 02:00 PM
My uncle had been an attorney in "the good old days" before discovery was as easy or as universal, and he had a number of stories about new photos or other exhibits from the other side being unveiled for the first time at trial. You had to think on your feet a lot more than at present.

I am not sure how far along the discovery rules had gone by the time of Anatomy, though.

By your description, I'd say they've gone to the other side of the galaxy, for the better.