It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

is the movie "Tommy boy" proof of the mandela effect?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

You said that the people making the parodies knowingly changed it and the merchandise guys knowingly changed it also.

Where does the fallability of memory fit into this?




posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Greggers

You said that the people making the parodies knowingly changed it and the merchandise guys knowingly changed it also.

Where does the fallability of memory fit into this?


Where did I use the word knowingly?

The merchandise people DEFINITELY did it knowingly, as there were multiple different versions of that quote and each one was chosen to make the most sense of the scene on the merchandise.

The parody people? Not so much.Parody people are generally just trying to be funny.
edit on 26-10-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

Well they couldn't have unknowingly replaced things for reasons as you stated.

We're on the same side here and a clear answer is what's needed to stop this turning into a religion (probably too late).
I haven't seen anything regarding the merchandise, are you able to point me in the right direction there.

If the merchandise was purposefully changed then that's a possible dent in the bad memory (I prefer pointless consequence of our good memory) theory.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Greggers

Well they couldn't have unknowingly replaced things for reasons as you stated.


Yes, they could have.

I really didn't feel like rehashing the whole "bad memory" thing again, so I did not mention it explicity. But yes, "Luke, I am your father" is simpler and more straightforward than "No, I am your father," so it is not surprising that people's memories would replace one with the other.





If the merchandise was purposefully changed then that's a possible dent in the bad memory (I prefer pointless consequence of our good memory) theory.


And furthermore, my point is that the merchandise (although a calculated move in many cases) would then have contributed to a further muddying of the line in our collective, cultural memory.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

Cool, my bad then.

Are you able to show me evidence that the merchandise was purposefully changed?
I would consider that a pretty substantial flaw in my theory.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Previously I thought it was absurd to use movies to try to prove this... I can't even say it, sorry.

But now it makes perfect sense to me. Use something that is not real (movies) to prove something else that is not real (the subject of this thread).

It makes perfect sense. Keep watching those old movies! I bet you can come up with myriads of other inconsistencies in what you remember, and what is actually said.




posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Greggers

Cool, my bad then.

Are you able to show me evidence that the merchandise was purposefully changed?
I would consider that a pretty substantial flaw in my theory.


I think you're misunderstanding Greggers' meaning (and mine as well -- if we're on the same page, Greggers..)

By 'changing' we aren't meaning it was changed for nefarious reasons with some underlying, Illuminaughty plot.

By change we (or just me) mean the mass media, advertising and pop culture industries altered the quote because on its own from the film, lacked context. It needed the 'Luke' added to frame it in reference to the two main people relevant to the quote, Luke and Vader, to ground it in Star Wars.

And to be honest, who wouldn't change it to make it fit the narrative -- in some cases situational comedy, others merchandising or selling products using Star Wars as a reference, etc.

That's what I meant and I suspect Greggers as well - apologies if you didnt!



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

I understand. I just disagree and would like to be proven wrong.

I believe you can get someone who's never heard of star wars. Make them watch Empire and they will say "Luke, I am your father" if you question them afterwards.

My Mandolia theory assumes that at least.

If we can see that an error was put into pop culture on purpose it ruins that theory.
If the people who contribute to pop culture just made the same mistake as everyone else then my theory stands.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Greggers

Cool, my bad then.

Are you able to show me evidence that the merchandise was purposefully changed?
I would consider that a pretty substantial flaw in my theory.


I don't have proof per se. But, keep in mind, the original merchandising deals were revolutionary at the time as they had the writer/director retaining a huge portion of the merchandising rights, and we also know Lucas was heavily involved in the creation and approval of the early merchandise.

Especially early on, Lucas would have seen and approved every single piece of merchandise.

Having said that, I still think your theory is correct. It's just in this particular case, there may be instances where Lucas created (or approved) alternate verbiage for the same basic reasons that would eventually lead other people to misremember: the altered quote makes more sense, especially out of context.
edit on 26-10-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

Fair enough, I couldn't find any official merchandise online mention Luke.
I did just realise I've got an old (1980)marvel comics version of Empire, I found it and...

"No Luke, I am your father"

Doesn't prove anything and just adds another layer of confusion to it. Thought you may find it interesting tho.

I get what you are saying, I just don't think it's needed as the people who contribute to pop culture are prone to the same mistakes, occam's razor. Agree to disagree I guess.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Belcastro

Your'e trippin'.
I remeber specifically saying 'Luke' as is and always has been in the movie.
It became a class 'thing' when i was in 5th grade at the time when it came out.

Sorry, try again.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: frenchfries
Well I can't sorry! But what I do know is that I do remember some things different.

And there it is - The Mandela Effect precisely defined.

Case closed.


Look I'm not saying that I know what ME is if any I'm rather intrigued by the effect.

And so are neuroscientists and experts around the world - the human mind and how we create, recall and seemingly forget or mis-remember memories is a huge area of study and focus.

If we can understand more deeply how memories work and how they are recalled so precisely or, in your case, imprecisely, new techniques on learning and teaching and problem diagnosis can happen.

See? ME believers are not utterly useless after all

edit on 5-11-2016 by noonebutme because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 07:48 AM
link   
If the alleged 'Mandela Effect' is caused by switching from one reality to another, as so many claim, why is it that so many artifacts that contradict mass memory are left unchanged? Why aren't these also altered during the alleged transition between realities?

It seems to me that proponents of the Mandela Effect have postulated a huge unexplained force at work in the universe/multiverse that is simultaneously all-powerful (affects huge numbers of people) and completely incompetent (forgets to alter loads of things).

Isn't the simplest explanation that nothing has changed but people's memories are mistaken?
edit on 5-11-2016 by audubon because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join