Difference between revisions of "Talk:The Manchurian Candidate"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→"Far fetched": NOT far fetched in 1962) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:::Conflict of interest statement: I am a member of [[Unification Church|a church]] whose members were said to be under mind control, and hundreds of them were kidnapped - which I find distressing, not to mention personally distasteful. So please watch me closely and revert me if I make any biased edits here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:06, 14 March 2009 (EDT) | :::Conflict of interest statement: I am a member of [[Unification Church|a church]] whose members were said to be under mind control, and hundreds of them were kidnapped - which I find distressing, not to mention personally distasteful. So please watch me closely and revert me if I make any biased edits here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:06, 14 March 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::::The premise was certainly NOT far fetched in 1962. We don't usually ask that works of fiction be aware of what science will turn up 40 years later. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:03, 15 March 2009 (EDT) | :::::The premise was certainly NOT far fetched in 1962. We don't usually ask that works of fiction be aware of what science will turn up 40 years later. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:03, 15 March 2009 (EDT) | ||
| + | *Well, I think I fixed it up somewhat, on the fly, Doctor. And Ed, I know what you mean, and meant! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 02:03, 15 March 2009 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 06:03, March 15, 2009
"Far fetched"
I removed that comment because the plot isn't at all far-fetched: one only has to view the results that Derren Brown can produce in a few hours to see that although unlikely (as are many movie plots) it certainly isnt "far fetched". 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 13:41, 12 January 2008 (EST)
- Ah! But has anyone read the book? Do any of the editors of this article evenknow it was a best-selling book? And if any of them did, why is Condon given no credit in the opening section? Hollywood rules!!AlanE 17:48, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
- IIRC I had a reference for "far-fetched". Anyway, it's based on a false premise: the theory of mind control which was discredited 20 years ago. There is no such thing as brainwashing that can make a person do something he ordinarily would not do willingly. And there's no proof that hypnosis has that power, either.
- Conflict of interest statement: I am a member of a church whose members were said to be under mind control, and hundreds of them were kidnapped - which I find distressing, not to mention personally distasteful. So please watch me closely and revert me if I make any biased edits here. --Ed Poor Talk 21:06, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
- The premise was certainly NOT far fetched in 1962. We don't usually ask that works of fiction be aware of what science will turn up 40 years later. RJJensen 01:03, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
- Conflict of interest statement: I am a member of a church whose members were said to be under mind control, and hundreds of them were kidnapped - which I find distressing, not to mention personally distasteful. So please watch me closely and revert me if I make any biased edits here. --Ed Poor Talk 21:06, 14 March 2009 (EDT)