I clearly need to establish a department of suckology somewhere, so that filmmakers can consult with me, and I could prevent another Day After Tomorrow.

I'm surprised you think they were able to suck that much without the assistance of a Suckology expert on set.

I clearly need to establish a department of suckology somewhere, so that filmmakers can consult with me, and I could prevent another Day After Tomorrow.

Fine, be that way. Next time you get trapped in the NYC library by killler frost, see if I walk all the way from DC to rescue you.

I think if your story hinges on it, put it into your budget.

Well, see...in Double Jeopardy, the whole plot hinges on the fact that Ashley Judd can't be prosecuted for her husband's murder after she was unjustly convicted of it, right? (I haven't seen it.) The problem with the film, as I understand it, is that the first murder and the second are in different states...and there is no double jeopardy protection against being prosecuted for the same crime in different states.

Now, if you learned about this fairly late, it would be a huge pain to change the locales just because of some technicality like that that about 1000 people can appreciate. (I didn't learn this in law school; it was in a footnote of an article I edited.)

But the number of people who know what various metropolitan areas look like is much bigger than the number of people who know the details of actual law.

Oh, and the Rent trailer is up for real now: [link]

Well, we'll just have to concede that movies take place in Magic Yorkago under the Fictionstution.

I'm guessing that Rumble In The Bronx doesn't slip by on any technicalities, huh?

Ha ha ha! That was so cute! What with mountains right near the Bronx, which has its own ocean bay.

There is faking it, location-wise, and then there is faking it. Like, I can understand having no budget and having to pretend with $7, a flugelhorn, five paperclips, and a yard of fabric; but taking one of the most visually salient features of Chicago, putting it in New York, and acting like you haven't, is ridiculous. Like, if they'd filmed the elevated trains of St. Louis, or someplace less, you know, hugely famous for its elevated trains, I would have cut a scintilla more slack.

Just as I forgave the X-Files for not knowing a lot of subtleties of the geography and culture of Washington, DC. But, there is "I was not aware Crystal City is a neighborhood nickname rather than a formally-defined city" and then there is "What do you mean it's physically impossible to traverse 500 miles in two hours by car?"

I vote for more fake-named places! When I write my movie, it will take place in Isola New Morton.

Cereal:

The problem with the film, as I understand it, is that the first murder and the second are in different states...and there is no double jeopardy protection against being prosecuted for the same crime in different states.

I think the problem is that you may not be prosecuted for the same crime twice, but if the husband isn't really dead, then she didn't kill him and has committed no crime. (In fact, she was framed, because her husband is a prick.) So if she goes ahead and kills him later, then she can be prosecuted for that crime. It's not that the crimes are in different states; it's that wrongful conviction for the first one does not give carte blanche for the second one.

So no, it still makes no sense, and anybody who sat down and thought about it would be able to puzzle out that premeditated murder is never legally-consequence-free, no matter how much you've been screwed over.

I saw the first part of the Little House on the Prairie miniseries that was on ABC.

They lost me when Ma kept appearing with her hair down. ma! Who insisted that Laura wear a corset to thresh hay! And was practically scadalized when she didn't wear one to bed.

Plus, it kept getting in her way and seemed just like it would annoy her while on the Prairie.