As I understand it now and not two decades ago when IMDb was young, the "improvisation" with Han Solo was just Harrison Ford shooting back with "How are you?" and wincing at the line.
Hypothesis: Someone once read "shooting back", didn't recognise the turn of phrase, and mutated the factoid from Ford adding the extra line to the concept that he actually shot back with the blaster. Sounds like the sort of thing a young teenager or child would do, reading the trivia literally then passing on the false result.
I think trivia can add some depth to a film...it's a personality thing really. Some people want to analyse and glean meaning or facts and others just want to view it as it is. I plonk a bit of trivia in my reviews as I think it can be relevant but some 'trivia' is total nonsense. Richard Dreyfuss getting stuck in the cage in Jaws is true and the bigger boat line was a catch phrase on the set. The MGM lion myth is probably the best bullshit story ever.
Agree with Duncan people jumped on the actress being cast as 007 and read it as she was cast as Bond! they just did it for the headlines right or wrong
Ahhhh! Trivia and especially fake trivia is fun! I don't expect you guys to include it in your shows, as you do whatever you want, but as a subject I think it's enthralling. Even when you think something sounds suspect, it's all storytelling, so why not? At it's best, I think it draws you further into a film you like. And yeah, it may not teach you film-making, but if you like a certain film, it gives you more to just think about it. Even ridiculous casting suggestions or whatever, can be fun to think about. The trivia I can't stand is when it's something like CM something something is written on Doc Brown's amplifier, which is a ref to that same code being used in several Kubrick films. Mainly because that's just meaningless. You can't go anywhere with it. However, on the whole trivia is a great thing to share, and can lead to interesting chats and speculations. Likewise, I don't think there's anything automatically wrong with saying that's not what I heard, I heard it to be...... As long as you don't do it in a nasty way, it just inspires people to chip in with their extra info. It's fun! What let's any of this down is just the feeling you're 100% right, everyone else is an idiot, and getting into a slanging match about it. But that's just internet discussion board superiority complex, which sadly is everywhere.
To prepare for the role of Rocky, Sylvester Stallone became a professional boxer and actually won the world heavyweight championship in 1976. Stallone eventually lost his title in 1980 to an unknown actor called Robert De Niro, who was preparing for a role in boxing movie called Furious Cow.
There's always going to be someone correcting everything because apart from smart-asses there are many on the Asperger spectrum. So you can either be a walking movie encyclopedia or simply not let it bother you.
The scene where Kyle MacLachlan gets a lapdance from Elizabeth Berkley and jizzes in his pants in Showgirls was completely improvised. You should discuss it on your channel...
There was a rumour years ago that Harvey Kietel got fired from Eyes Wide Shut because he was filming a sex scene with Nicole Kidman, and he got so excited he literally jizzed on her face. The truth is more mundane: A year after he filmed his scenes, Kubrick needed him to come back for re-shoots, but by then he was committed to another film, so he was recast with Sydney Pollack. Who incidentally has no sex scenes with anyone in the released film.
I always thought improv was something you see in Apatow or Mellisa McCarthy films, where you can tell because the “joke” goes on & on, then at the credits they show you more improv of that scene(s). I agree that certain lines has to be approved, for example when Solo says, ‘I know’ to Leia, Ford suggested it (I think) to the director, & the director was all for it. Same with Raiders when Ford shoots the swordsman, that was planned, even though it was last minute decision. Or something that wasn’t meant to have happened, or planned, but they still keep it in, for example Dicaprio accidentally smashing his hand with a hammer in Django Unchained, that’s not improv, that was just an accident. I take IMDB trivia pages with a pinch of salt.
The worst one has to be “The cast of Alien didn’t know about the chestburster!” As if they didn’t read the script or see the crew rigging up John Hurt through the prop table. I think what happened is that maybe Angela Cartwright didn’t know she was going to be squirted with fake blood and/or she slipped on the blood and then the story got blown out of proportion.
On a side note I’d be well up for a Captain Planet Movie. I heard that that Billy Idol was being mooted to play his Dad, an older version of him called Captain Earth.
Pretty sure Richard doesn’t wear trousers because he can’t fit his legs in. I’m not even gay but I’ve never been engrossed by another mans legs before. And I train boxers for a job!
Here's a feeble attempt to add a little more insight: Children have a habit of reacting very negatively when their parents get a random fact wrong. Especially when it's related to a book, movie, etc - something popular. "NO DAD! OMG! Optimus Prime turns into the truck, not a car! Jeeze dad!" Children do this because they're in the process of building their self-esteem, and two key techniques we've refined for doing this over millenia of evolution are (a) idolise and emulate your parents, and (b) idolise and emulate the tribe's celebrities - either the Chief, Elders, young 'Champions' or mysterious 'witch doctor' equivalents. So - when Dad gets a fact wrong about Optimus Prime, Dad has committed a two-fold sin. First he's shown his own ignorance, which reflects badly on the family and therefore the child's self esteem. Second, he's embarrassed himself and his child in the eyes of Optimus Prime himself, which is even worse for the child's confidence. There's also a minor third aspect whereby a child who thinks in very concrete terms can't even fully comprehend HOW Dad could get a solid fact about the world wrong in the first place. The child is very disappointed - Dad is supposed to be someone they can rely on to keep them safe - if he's making trivial errors like this then clearly he's increasing the chances that the family and/or tribe could be wiped out by outsiders. The undiciplined 'snap' of anger itself comes from frustration as well as disappointment - the child cannot take care of itself yet, so the sentiment essentially is "wow, the people I'm counting on to keep me safe are all idiots - I'm doomed!" The child is therefore trying to shame Dad in front of his peers, whilst also alerting said peers that a weakness has emerged and needs to be dealt with. In modern society, particularly western cities - everyone is a child to varying extents. Rather than growing to become self-sufficient adults who are fully responsible for ourselves and accountable to loved ones in all aspects of life, most of us can enjoy playing the child in a lot of different ways. The problem is that the degree of this 'arrested development' varies hugely depending on personal circumstances, and these days there exist a LOT of people who - in the absence of any significant responsibility or self-determination whatsoever - fall back on the role of the dependent and petulant child. They're like the young tribal warrior that never needs to pick up a spear in battle, and so instead morphs into the hopeless braggard who emulates the idealised stories of their warrior heroes, obsessing about all the tiny little details of how those people lived and fought because accumulating all that trivia makes them feel a closer connection to said real warriors. The first time that sneering, self-important and detail-obsessed neophyte is actually called to battle, they immediately realise that almost all the trivia they've memorised is completely useless. Dad forgot that Optimus Prime transforms into a truck (and not a car, duh!) because Dad was busy dealing with all the things that ACTUALLY MATTER. So anyhow - when commentors criticise you guys for missing something out or getting a detail wrong, it's actually a form of compliment :) Someone out there in internet-land has adopted you both as their "movie critic Dads", imagining themselves as being just like you and therefore incurring a deep sense of disappointment and frustration evey time you commit a random misstep. Of course, you already know the correct response to this sort of criticism. It is, quite literally, "grow up". The value of trivia (on any subject) is not found in collecting the most facts and apocryphal stories, it's found in harnessing a few of them to hone your own skills and judgement when you happen upon similar situations. If anything, knowing a lot of trivia actively stifles performance, especially in creative fields. The vast majority of successful creatives are people who followed their own unique and laser-focused path, almost entirely ignorant of what other people were doing or had done before. The next person to design a uniqely terrifying movie monster on par with the 'xenomorph' will be someone who has never even heard of Alien and simply followed the whims of their own personal muse, whereas the guy who knows literally everything there is to know about how Giger and Ridley Scott came up with xenomorph will never be able to see past that design and create something to surpass it.
Perhaps the nadir of this then, is these channels that seem to thrive on crapping out quick, cheap videos, with tiles like "Top 16 and a half things you never knew about Harry and the Hendersons"
Honestly, ignore trivia in discussing actual films. Very little of it has value except as a way to fill up commentaries - empty calories. If you focus on the film and its meaning, trivia has no role at all. Focus on the photography, editing, performances, etc., and how they fulfill (or don't fulfill) the movie's purpose. That's enough - that's all that's needed. Written film criticism has always recognized this - no need for videos on film to do different.
Everything you said is right, but it doesn't mean trivia can't be included or used as a jumping off point to illustrate processes or thinking. Anything should be up for discussion.
Yo touched upon a subject that really grinds my gears. The clickbait and misleading to outright lying headlines. Just saw one a second ago "The real reason why Emma Watson won't do a nude scene." WTF?! I refuse to click on this shite.
Richard's calves are insane
My favorite two pairs of legs discussing things 😍
As I understand it now and not two decades ago when IMDb was young, the "improvisation" with Han Solo was just Harrison Ford shooting back with "How are you?" and wincing at the line.
Hypothesis: Someone once read "shooting back", didn't recognise the turn of phrase, and mutated the factoid from Ford adding the extra line to the concept that he actually shot back with the blaster. Sounds like the sort of thing a young teenager or child would do, reading the trivia literally then passing on the false result.
I think trivia can add some depth to a film...it's a personality thing really. Some people want to analyse and glean meaning or facts and others just want to view it as it is. I plonk a bit of trivia in my reviews as I think it can be relevant but some 'trivia' is total nonsense. Richard Dreyfuss getting stuck in the cage in Jaws is true and the bigger boat line was a catch phrase on the set. The MGM lion myth is probably the best bullshit story ever.
Agree with Duncan people jumped on the actress being cast as 007 and read it as she was cast as Bond! they just did it for the headlines right or wrong
Ahhhh! Trivia and especially fake trivia is fun! I don't expect you guys to include it in your shows, as you do whatever you want, but as a subject I think it's enthralling. Even when you think something sounds suspect, it's all storytelling, so why not? At it's best, I think it draws you further into a film you like. And yeah, it may not teach you film-making, but if you like a certain film, it gives you more to just think about it. Even ridiculous casting suggestions or whatever, can be fun to think about.
The trivia I can't stand is when it's something like CM something something is written on Doc Brown's amplifier, which is a ref to that same code being used in several Kubrick films. Mainly because that's just meaningless. You can't go anywhere with it.
However, on the whole trivia is a great thing to share, and can lead to interesting chats and speculations. Likewise, I don't think there's anything automatically wrong with saying that's not what I heard, I heard it to be...... As long as you don't do it in a nasty way, it just inspires people to chip in with their extra info. It's fun!
What let's any of this down is just the feeling you're 100% right, everyone else is an idiot, and getting into a slanging match about it. But that's just internet discussion board superiority complex, which sadly is everywhere.
Richards body is relatively normal but then his legs look super jacked 80s action movie style 🤣
Every day is leg day
To prepare for the role of Rocky, Sylvester Stallone became a professional boxer and actually won the world heavyweight championship in 1976. Stallone eventually lost his title in 1980 to an unknown actor called Robert De Niro, who was preparing for a role in boxing movie called Furious Cow.
There's always going to be someone correcting everything because apart from smart-asses there are many on the Asperger spectrum. So you can either be a walking movie encyclopedia or simply not let it bother you.
Congratulations you just won the most random and unexpected video title award.
Interesting bit of trivia about this video, at 16:54 Richard inadvertently says "Me Myself and Ivan"
The worst ones are "Top 10 things you didn't know/see/didn't care about..." I hate it, you think you know what I know/don't know? You don't know me!
5. 'First' comment
4. Me
3. Top 10 things you...videos
2. 'Explained' videos
1. Trademarking reaction videos
@@Sam_Montgomery Rich Evans does the best reaction videos, because he does what a normal person does; reacts internally.
...Darth Vaders suit
This discussion gave me tears in the rain. Yerp.
The scene where Kyle MacLachlan gets a lapdance from Elizabeth Berkley and jizzes in his pants in Showgirls was completely improvised. You should discuss it on your channel...
And in that scene, Elizabeth Berkley was actually Danny DeVito in an elaborate costume made by the Jim Henson Creature Workshop.
I second this lol
There was a rumour years ago that Harvey Kietel got fired from Eyes Wide Shut because he was filming a sex scene with Nicole Kidman, and he got so excited he literally jizzed on her face. The truth is more mundane: A year after he filmed his scenes, Kubrick needed him to come back for re-shoots, but by then he was committed to another film, so he was recast with Sydney Pollack. Who incidentally has no sex scenes with anyone in the released film.
@@henryglennon3864 You win the internet for that!
Two minutes in, and we have the word bullshit.
I'm glad I bought those shares in the Richard Jackson Swear Jar back when they were cheap.
Not naming names but there is a certain bald guy wearing sunglasses who is shamelessly guilty of that.
I always thought improv was something you see in Apatow or Mellisa McCarthy films, where you can tell because the “joke” goes on & on, then at the credits they show you more improv of that scene(s).
I agree that certain lines has to be approved, for example when Solo says, ‘I know’ to Leia, Ford suggested it (I think) to the director, & the director was all for it.
Same with Raiders when Ford shoots the swordsman, that was planned, even though it was last minute decision.
Or something that wasn’t meant to have happened, or planned, but they still keep it in, for example Dicaprio accidentally smashing his hand with a hammer in Django Unchained, that’s not improv, that was just an accident.
I take IMDB trivia pages with a pinch of salt.
The worst one has to be “The cast of Alien didn’t know about the chestburster!” As if they didn’t read the script or see the crew rigging up John Hurt through the prop table.
I think what happened is that maybe Angela Cartwright didn’t know she was going to be squirted with fake blood and/or she slipped on the blood and then the story got blown out of proportion.
Dean Strickson
I think they wasn’t expecting the full force of the blood on the first take from what I remember reading, so they had to do it again.
On a side note I’d be well up for a Captain Planet Movie. I heard that that Billy Idol was being mooted to play his Dad, an older version of him called Captain Earth.
'Dredd' is in my top 10.
Along similar lines, it's a mistake to say Harrison Ford "improvised" shooting the swordsman in Raiders.
Indeed. Bloody good swordsman actor if he fell down the second Ford pulled the gun, when he was expecting a whip vs sword fight.
Ernest Borgnine would have been a great Felix in the Bond films.
Hilary Celery Apparently the secret to living longer according to Ernest in a Fox News interview was masterbating every day.
It’s on UA-cam 😂
@@floyd75dylan Well who would argue with the big fella. He used to drive around America in a big bus didn't he?
I'd like to comment before watching; I hope one of them says " Is trivia really important?". In like a nerdy, 'I know it all' Brit way.
Pretty sure Richard doesn’t wear trousers because he can’t fit his legs in. I’m not even gay but I’ve never been engrossed by another mans legs before. And I train boxers for a job!
Here's a feeble attempt to add a little more insight: Children have a habit of reacting very negatively when their parents get a random fact wrong. Especially when it's related to a book, movie, etc - something popular. "NO DAD! OMG! Optimus Prime turns into the truck, not a car! Jeeze dad!"
Children do this because they're in the process of building their self-esteem, and two key techniques we've refined for doing this over millenia of evolution are (a) idolise and emulate your parents, and (b) idolise and emulate the tribe's celebrities - either the Chief, Elders, young 'Champions' or mysterious 'witch doctor' equivalents.
So - when Dad gets a fact wrong about Optimus Prime, Dad has committed a two-fold sin. First he's shown his own ignorance, which reflects badly on the family and therefore the child's self esteem. Second, he's embarrassed himself and his child in the eyes of Optimus Prime himself, which is even worse for the child's confidence. There's also a minor third aspect whereby a child who thinks in very concrete terms can't even fully comprehend HOW Dad could get a solid fact about the world wrong in the first place.
The child is very disappointed - Dad is supposed to be someone they can rely on to keep them safe - if he's making trivial errors like this then clearly he's increasing the chances that the family and/or tribe could be wiped out by outsiders. The undiciplined 'snap' of anger itself comes from frustration as well as disappointment - the child cannot take care of itself yet, so the sentiment essentially is "wow, the people I'm counting on to keep me safe are all idiots - I'm doomed!"
The child is therefore trying to shame Dad in front of his peers, whilst also alerting said peers that a weakness has emerged and needs to be dealt with.
In modern society, particularly western cities - everyone is a child to varying extents. Rather than growing to become self-sufficient adults who are fully responsible for ourselves and accountable to loved ones in all aspects of life, most of us can enjoy playing the child in a lot of different ways.
The problem is that the degree of this 'arrested development' varies hugely depending on personal circumstances, and these days there exist a LOT of people who - in the absence of any significant responsibility or self-determination whatsoever - fall back on the role of the dependent and petulant child. They're like the young tribal warrior that never needs to pick up a spear in battle, and so instead morphs into the hopeless braggard who emulates the idealised stories of their warrior heroes, obsessing about all the tiny little details of how those people lived and fought because accumulating all that trivia makes them feel a closer connection to said real warriors.
The first time that sneering, self-important and detail-obsessed neophyte is actually called to battle, they immediately realise that almost all the trivia they've memorised is completely useless. Dad forgot that Optimus Prime transforms into a truck (and not a car, duh!) because Dad was busy dealing with all the things that ACTUALLY MATTER.
So anyhow - when commentors criticise you guys for missing something out or getting a detail wrong, it's actually a form of compliment :) Someone out there in internet-land has adopted you both as their "movie critic Dads", imagining themselves as being just like you and therefore incurring a deep sense of disappointment and frustration evey time you commit a random misstep.
Of course, you already know the correct response to this sort of criticism. It is, quite literally, "grow up".
The value of trivia (on any subject) is not found in collecting the most facts and apocryphal stories, it's found in harnessing a few of them to hone your own skills and judgement when you happen upon similar situations. If anything, knowing a lot of trivia actively stifles performance, especially in creative fields. The vast majority of successful creatives are people who followed their own unique and laser-focused path, almost entirely ignorant of what other people were doing or had done before.
The next person to design a uniqely terrifying movie monster on par with the 'xenomorph' will be someone who has never even heard of Alien and simply followed the whims of their own personal muse, whereas the guy who knows literally everything there is to know about how Giger and Ridley Scott came up with xenomorph will never be able to see past that design and create something to surpass it.
Do you guys only do movies? a Blakes 7 chat might be good if you guy's remember much about it.
Perhaps the nadir of this then, is these channels that seem to thrive on crapping out quick, cheap videos, with tiles like "Top 16 and a half things you never knew about Harry and the Hendersons"
Hang on you know the cousin of the dog who worked on.....
14:50, OH really?
Trivia can be fun but those who reciting wiki and IMDb pages are the worst people
You can’t spell trivial without trivia...
Honestly, ignore trivia in discussing actual films. Very little of it has value except as a way to fill up commentaries - empty calories. If you focus on the film and its meaning, trivia has no role at all. Focus on the photography, editing, performances, etc., and how they fulfill (or don't fulfill) the movie's purpose. That's enough - that's all that's needed. Written film criticism has always recognized this - no need for videos on film to do different.
Everything you said is right, but it doesn't mean trivia can't be included or used as a jumping off point to illustrate processes or thinking. Anything should be up for discussion.
Can you stop wearing shorts during these videos/ or frame them waist height!?
It's the middle of Summer. The hottest Summer ever.
So that's a 'no'.
-R
@@ValVerdeBroadcasting Richard, you should have said yes, and done your next vid with your knackers out. That'll learn them.
Yo touched upon a subject that really grinds my gears. The clickbait and misleading to outright lying headlines.
Just saw one a second ago "The real reason why Emma Watson won't do a nude scene." WTF?!
I refuse to click on this shite.
I wonder what the reason was.