Burger King Advocates Theft

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

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]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

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]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

...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? 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 On the other hand it also allowed the pushing of points that were outdated or unrealistic or prejudicial.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]

I just watched Breaking Bad and I'm not going into the meth business.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider

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!

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by BStrong

I just watched Breaking Bad and I'm not going into the meth business.

Me neither. Nudge nudge wink wink.

[KingMerv00]

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]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

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]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Or maybe " Burger King Targets Jackass Demographic " ?

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

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider

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]

Who watches commercials these days anyway? Any good parent worth their salt has taught their children how to use a PVR.

[ConspiRaider]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

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]

To continue off topic , two of my favorite legal adventures are Presumed Innocent and Disclosure ..

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

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

hey, doublestackers are awesome.

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

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by WildCat

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]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

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]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

To continue off topic , two of my favorite legal adventures are Presumed Innocent and Disclosure ..

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]

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

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.

Quote:

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 on how inaccurate it is:

Quote:

Vinny Gambini: 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: Mr. Gambini?
Vinny Gambini: Yes, sir?
Judge Chamberlain Haller: That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.
Vinny Gambini: Thank you, sir.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Overruled.

I will say that objection is well phrased.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

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]

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

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.