On the IMDb "I Need To Know" message board appeared this Original Post:
Mayhem ensued. I have become interested in the thread (hereinafter termed "the thread"), but have difficulty accessing it efficiently due to its length and typically scattershot layout. This chart helps me think about it. Feel free to contact me DIRECTLY to correct, add to, or critique it. I hope to finish and maintain it. I have no connection to the original poster, thread, the boards or the IMDb other than as a registered user.
First off, anyone who maintains this is an unanswerable question, for whatever reason, is a spoilsport, and has never worked in an office. When there is no answer, rewrite the question.
It has been pointed out that the question has been asked before in other venues and the same venue, to no resolution. Okay. It has been pointed out that it might have never existed in this precise form, probably originated in another medium, and could become the basis of a new religion. The search has exposed the vagarities of human memory, the inefficiency of nonlogical methods, and the strength of good PROCESS.
The quote, or a near facsimile, can or does exist. A pure, simple question ("What does it do?"); a two-part response with a pure, simple answer ("It doesn't DO anything.") and a poetic qualifier ("That's the beauty of it!").
There is a McGuffin (object/machine OR concept/plan).
We prefer, in this order, a match in movies, TV or other lively art, or prose.
We want, in this order, and exact match, a close match, a qualified match. We want, ideally, the first instance chronologically; failing that, the earliest instance.
In this grey, not-black-and-white world a balance of the above factors is acceptable, and allows multiple answers.
Posits peculiar to this chart (ie, ME):
Remembering what we've learned about human memory, the "It can't be in X, because I've never seen X" reasoning will not be accepted.
"No"s based on viewing or having checked scripts are accepted at face value when my subjective judgment is satisfied. They can be overturned by the same process (ie, prove me wrong).
I favor a Brit comedic source (maybe Goon-ish, but uncertain origin) resurfacing in US films of the 60s, and homage in TV and films of the last 25-30 years. This might cause me to make mistakes.
I favor evidense which, in this order: I can view & corroborate, includes healthy-sized citations (actual dialogue, time into movie, etc.), is lucidly presented. These apply whether it's a Yes or a No or a correction of my data.
No Duck Tales.
Each entry has the date of its earliest suggestion. I have retained a record of the identity of the poster, but decided not to display it here. Some have brief notes composed by me, often with the date of a refutation.
SUGGESTIONS are possible sources offered in replies on the thread, up to August ____. They were suggested merely, seem unlikely, or were strongly refuted. Some listed in the thread have been omitted by me. I do not want any new suggestions.
STRONG BUT REFUTED are suggestions which were offered with vigor, from multiple sources, or seemed likely but have been shot down.
STRONG NOT REFUTED seem quite likely. What is needed now is not testimonials, but testimony (evidense).
THIS CHART IS INCOMPLETE, THE REMARKS COLUMNS OF THE REFUTEDs WILL BE FILLED IN AS TIME PERMITS.
WHAT TO ADD TO THIS CHART:
Additions should take the form of a NEW SECTION: EARLIEST CLOSEST, initially comprising important items from STRONG BUT REFUTED which I will prepare asap. Entries will need identity of movie (or whatever, include date) and full dialogue of the quote, with attribution (actor name or character name or description, explanation of McGuffin, whatever).
Addition of the one true answer would immediately destroy the purpose of the chart, and so it will destroy it in actuality. This page lives for its own destruction, and hopes for it soon.
And please note that the STRONG BUT REFUTED category contains the current "winner," earliest with the closest probably should go to Live a Little, Love a Little. Hudsucker Proxy is not close enough, nor early enough to qualify.
Feel free to mine the REFUTED entries, but use the benchmark before you submit your evidense. I think you should stick to the NOT REFUTEDs for now.
Use your own judgment about replying to the thread directly. I have no authority over it, and no right to subvert its primacy.
All Hail ssywak, the mother of us all.
Posted by kcor1953
at 7:14 PM CDT