The Princess Bride (film)/Headscratchers: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted
VisualWikitext
m (Mass update links)
m (Mass update links)
Line 47: Line 47:
** The framing device in The Princess Bride isn't just a riff on Cervantes; in many ways, it's the point of the entire book.
** The framing device in The Princess Bride isn't just a riff on Cervantes; in many ways, it's the point of the entire book.
** If I read your comment right, it seems that your friend thought that there was an older book, and that the film is the abridged version, and you were trying to convince this friend otherwise. Actually, it's true. The Princess Bride was originally a very long and tedious book, which William Goldman's father condensed into "The good parts" to read to him as a kid. When William grew up, he located the book, and was disappointed to find it so dull. He therefore wrote an abridged copy, which was then turned into the film we know and love today.
** If I read your comment right, it seems that your friend thought that there was an older book, and that the film is the abridged version, and you were trying to convince this friend otherwise. Actually, it's true. The Princess Bride was originally a very long and tedious book, which William Goldman's father condensed into "The good parts" to read to him as a kid. When William grew up, he located the book, and was disappointed to find it so dull. He therefore wrote an abridged copy, which was then turned into the film we know and love today.
*** [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Princess_Bride No, Goldman wrote it himself - the "abridgment" was a joke. S. Morgenstern was made up.] All the stuff about it being read to him as a child is as fictional as the rest of the story. (Actually, the adventures of Westley, Buttercup and co. arguably qualify as a [[Show Within a Show]].)
*** [[wikipedia:The Princess Bride|No, Goldman wrote it himself - the "abridgment" was a joke. S. Morgenstern was made up.]] All the stuff about it being read to him as a child is as fictional as the rest of the story. (Actually, the adventures of Westley, Buttercup and co. arguably qualify as a [[Show Within a Show]].)
*** GAH! so, I can believe there's than one person to whom my original comment applies - the law of probability dictates it - but for it to come up like this is just...argh! '''Please''' tell me that you're just a brilliant troll? -Haven
*** GAH! so, I can believe there's than one person to whom my original comment applies - the law of probability dictates it - but for it to come up like this is just...argh! '''Please''' tell me that you're just a brilliant troll? -Haven
**** Sadly this is a ''really'' common belief. I can only assume people zip through the book enjoying it on face value and don't bother to apply critical reasoning to it until they end up having this conversation. Once you start pointing out the anachronisms and things, they'll usually facepalm and wonder why they didn't notice on first reading. Some people just read differently to me, I guess.
**** Sadly this is a ''really'' common belief. I can only assume people zip through the book enjoying it on face value and don't bother to apply critical reasoning to it until they end up having this conversation. Once you start pointing out the anachronisms and things, they'll usually facepalm and wonder why they didn't notice on first reading. Some people just read differently to me, I guess.
Line 89: Line 89:
** See, the thing is that Vizzini keeps using a word that means "so impossible as to be beyond serious consideration" to describe things that are happening or have already happened. Despite the fact that he is often using it figuratively to show his amazement, his companion Inigo chose to make believe he thought his boss was confused as to the word's definition, to make said boss the subject of fun. This is called a "joke".
** See, the thing is that Vizzini keeps using a word that means "so impossible as to be beyond serious consideration" to describe things that are happening or have already happened. Despite the fact that he is often using it figuratively to show his amazement, his companion Inigo chose to make believe he thought his boss was confused as to the word's definition, to make said boss the subject of fun. This is called a "joke".
*** Thanks for the condescension and all, but I thought of that, and it doesn't work. Inigo has no sense of humor. But what Just Bugs Me isn't that bit itself, it's how people are always using the quote at face value, [[Misaimed Fandom|forgetting]] that Inigo is wrong (or joking, if you insist).
*** Thanks for the condescension and all, but I thought of that, and it doesn't work. Inigo has no sense of humor. But what Just Bugs Me isn't that bit itself, it's how people are always using the quote at face value, [[Misaimed Fandom|forgetting]] that Inigo is wrong (or joking, if you insist).
**** Inigo ''does'' have a sense of humor. He thinks it's funny to [[Rhymes On a Dime|speak in rhyme]] [[Heterosexual Life Partners|with Fezzik]], and to [[I Am Not Left Handed|pretend to be left-handed]]. It's not much, but he does have a sense of humor.
**** Inigo ''does'' have a sense of humor. He thinks it's funny to [[Rhymes On a Dime|speak in rhyme]] [[Heterosexual Life Partners|with Fezzik]], and to [[I Am Not Left-Handed|pretend to be left-handed]]. It's not much, but he does have a sense of humor.
*** Inigo isn't the one making the joke, per se. The author is. Inigo is genuinely puzzled that a man as smart as Vizzini would continue to so radically misjudge the improbability of things that are already happening or have already happened. He thinks Vizzini can't possibly be that stupid as to think all these bad events that keep happening to him are * literally* inconceivable when they just keep happening again and again, so he thinks Vizzini must have just misused the word, which Inigo understands because Inigo himself misuses words quite often. It's from the * author's* -- and the audience's -- perspective that Inigo's innocent attempt at a correction becomes a giant upraised middle finger to Vizzini's arrogance, overconfidence, and blind, denial-ridden tendency toward self-destruction. In that context -- the * original* context -- the line is, indeed, very funny. I will wholeheartedly agree with it being overquoted, though.
*** Inigo isn't the one making the joke, per se. The author is. Inigo is genuinely puzzled that a man as smart as Vizzini would continue to so radically misjudge the improbability of things that are already happening or have already happened. He thinks Vizzini can't possibly be that stupid as to think all these bad events that keep happening to him are * literally* inconceivable when they just keep happening again and again, so he thinks Vizzini must have just misused the word, which Inigo understands because Inigo himself misuses words quite often. It's from the * author's* -- and the audience's -- perspective that Inigo's innocent attempt at a correction becomes a giant upraised middle finger to Vizzini's arrogance, overconfidence, and blind, denial-ridden tendency toward self-destruction. In that context -- the * original* context -- the line is, indeed, very funny. I will wholeheartedly agree with it being overquoted, though.
**** Wow -- that is a really, really good answer. It all makes sense now.
**** Wow -- that is a really, really good answer. It all makes sense now.
Line 140: Line 140:
*** It's not established for certain that the Man in Black * didn't* fall for the "look over there" ruse. It just doesn't make any difference one way or another.
*** It's not established for certain that the Man in Black * didn't* fall for the "look over there" ruse. It just doesn't make any difference one way or another.
** Watch the scene again. Vizzini waits for the MIB to sip first, then drinks happily. Vizzini thinks the MIB thinks he's drinking from the unpoisoned chalice, so Vizzini thinks he's drinking from the unpoisoned chalice. I supposed Vizzini would have refused to drink if the MIB had hesitated
** Watch the scene again. Vizzini waits for the MIB to sip first, then drinks happily. Vizzini thinks the MIB thinks he's drinking from the unpoisoned chalice, so Vizzini thinks he's drinking from the unpoisoned chalice. I supposed Vizzini would have refused to drink if the MIB had hesitated
* On that subject: "We shall have a battle of wits. Let us say... To the death? [[Schmuck Bait|Here,]] [[Too Dumb to Live|sniff this.]]" Does anyone else think Westley should possibly have won right then, and then revealed the poison-both-goblets gambit as his main plan since it's unlikely (but possible) that anyone really would be that stupid or arrogant? It wouldn't have been very honorable at face value, but nor was the very specific wording he gave to allow the poison-both-goblets gambit (though the correct answer for Vizzini would be to drink from his own wine pouch if he had one, or the bottle if he could be sure it hadn't been tampered with, or even failing that a nearby stream- that way, there would be zero risk of choosing the poisoned goblet rather than 50/50, and would be perfectly within the rules set), and Vizzini ''had'' ordered Fezzik to ambush Westley and kill him with a rock. Anyway, it would have been using Vizzini's hubris against him slightly more directly, and provide for an interesting twist, though I don't know if it would have been better for the story (Vizzini being punished by the narrative for the stupidity of smelling something handed you by a person trying to kill you), worse (because it would have altered Westley's character even ''slightly'' in a way readers might like him less), or simply different (and not really comparable beyond personal preference, [[They Changed It, Now It Sucks]] not being available to anyone without [[Ripple Effect Proof Memory]]).
* On that subject: "We shall have a battle of wits. Let us say... To the death? [[Schmuck Bait|Here,]] [[Too Dumb to Live|sniff this.]]" Does anyone else think Westley should possibly have won right then, and then revealed the poison-both-goblets gambit as his main plan since it's unlikely (but possible) that anyone really would be that stupid or arrogant? It wouldn't have been very honorable at face value, but nor was the very specific wording he gave to allow the poison-both-goblets gambit (though the correct answer for Vizzini would be to drink from his own wine pouch if he had one, or the bottle if he could be sure it hadn't been tampered with, or even failing that a nearby stream- that way, there would be zero risk of choosing the poisoned goblet rather than 50/50, and would be perfectly within the rules set), and Vizzini ''had'' ordered Fezzik to ambush Westley and kill him with a rock. Anyway, it would have been using Vizzini's hubris against him slightly more directly, and provide for an interesting twist, though I don't know if it would have been better for the story (Vizzini being punished by the narrative for the stupidity of smelling something handed you by a person trying to kill you), worse (because it would have altered Westley's character even ''slightly'' in a way readers might like him less), or simply different (and not really comparable beyond personal preference, [[They Changed It, Now It Sucks]] not being available to anyone without [[Ripple-Effect-Proof Memory]]).
** There is an interesting piece of [[Fridge Brilliance]] in the iocane powder scene. In the book you have Vizzini ranting along the lines of "Because of X I can't take the goblet in front of me. Because of Y I can't take the goblet in front of you. But because of Z I can't take the goblet in front of me. But, because of N I can't take the goblet in front of you..." and so on. And at first you think it's all just for the joke, showing Vizzini talking out of his ass and actually not knowing what he was doing at all. But, in the book it also describes the MIB as getting more and more nervous and impatient and demanding Vizzini stop delaying and choose already. So why is the MIB nervous? Because if you follow Vizzini's circular logic to its ultimate conclusion, it leads to the conclusion that Vizzini should not drink from either cup! The MIB was getting nervous because he was worried that Vizzini was appearing to be gradually seeing through his trick! (And there would be risk of harm to Buttercup if Vizzini picked up on the trick).
** There is an interesting piece of [[Fridge Brilliance]] in the iocane powder scene. In the book you have Vizzini ranting along the lines of "Because of X I can't take the goblet in front of me. Because of Y I can't take the goblet in front of you. But because of Z I can't take the goblet in front of me. But, because of N I can't take the goblet in front of you..." and so on. And at first you think it's all just for the joke, showing Vizzini talking out of his ass and actually not knowing what he was doing at all. But, in the book it also describes the MIB as getting more and more nervous and impatient and demanding Vizzini stop delaying and choose already. So why is the MIB nervous? Because if you follow Vizzini's circular logic to its ultimate conclusion, it leads to the conclusion that Vizzini should not drink from either cup! The MIB was getting nervous because he was worried that Vizzini was appearing to be gradually seeing through his trick! (And there would be risk of harm to Buttercup if Vizzini picked up on the trick).
*** Well, obviously the way to win Russian Roulette is to never pick up the gun... This troper always read that scene as Westley playacting to toy with Vizzini, not exhibiting genuine nervousness.
*** Well, obviously the way to win Russian Roulette is to never pick up the gun... This troper always read that scene as Westley playacting to toy with Vizzini, not exhibiting genuine nervousness.
Line 163: Line 163:
** [[Fridge Brilliance|If Death can't stop True Love, what makes you think Inigo can?]]
** [[Fridge Brilliance|If Death can't stop True Love, what makes you think Inigo can?]]
* If no one's ever survived the fire swamp, how do they know there are exactly three dangers? At ''least'' the three I could understand, from myths and legends if nothing else, but what about the hypothetical clan of invisible dragons that lives in the middle, or the razorvine trees?
* If no one's ever survived the fire swamp, how do they know there are exactly three dangers? At ''least'' the three I could understand, from myths and legends if nothing else, but what about the hypothetical clan of invisible dragons that lives in the middle, or the razorvine trees?
** It's possible that people have left the fire swamp [[Almost Dead Guy|alive but with mortal wounds]]. Thus, technically speaking, the fire swamp DID kill them, just not immediately. They just happened to have lived long enough to tell the tale. Or perhaps they documented their travels through the swamp and [[Apocalyptic Log|someone found their documents]].
** It's possible that people have left the fire swamp [[Almost-Dead Guy|alive but with mortal wounds]]. Thus, technically speaking, the fire swamp DID kill them, just not immediately. They just happened to have lived long enough to tell the tale. Or perhaps they documented their travels through the swamp and [[Apocalyptic Log|someone found their documents]].
** Was it that no one had ever survived ''entering'' the Fire Swamp, or that no one had ever survived ''crossing'' the Fire Swamp? If it's the latter, people could've tried to cross it, then been forced to turn back by the three perils.
** Was it that no one had ever survived ''entering'' the Fire Swamp, or that no one had ever survived ''crossing'' the Fire Swamp? If it's the latter, people could've tried to cross it, then been forced to turn back by the three perils.
*** That ignores the point of the original question. If someone was undone by the three (known) perils of the Fire Swamp, but managed to make it out alive but mortally wounded, that's slightly more evidence that there's something in the swamp better at killing people than lightning sand, fire bursts, or ROUSs. On your other point, I only recall that Buttercup says "we'll never survive!" and the man in black replies "you're only saying that because no one ever has," and not ''[[Exact Words|exactly]]'' what the man in black says prior to it (whether living in the fire swamp, crossing it, or merely travelling through part of it).
*** That ignores the point of the original question. If someone was undone by the three (known) perils of the Fire Swamp, but managed to make it out alive but mortally wounded, that's slightly more evidence that there's something in the swamp better at killing people than lightning sand, fire bursts, or ROUSs. On your other point, I only recall that Buttercup says "we'll never survive!" and the man in black replies "you're only saying that because no one ever has," and not ''[[Exact Words|exactly]]'' what the man in black says prior to it (whether living in the fire swamp, crossing it, or merely travelling through part of it).
Retrieved from "https://allthetropes.org/wiki/The_Princess_Bride_(film)/Headscratchers"