Why then, one wonders, do the nine days being examined include days from the Albert Brooks character's childhood? And I don't wanna hear that his character is a grown man when he's being judged. You don't judge a child when he dies, you don't judge a man's childhood when he dies, as he is just as non-developed at that stage as a child who passes. End of story. Any thoughts?
shareI agree.
shareGotta disagree with you. There are things I was afraid to do as a child that I am no longer afraid of. Most children don't understand that some of those scary things are in fact not scary once you try them. Daniel never let himself try to do those things. You said "I don't wanna hear that his character is a grown man when he's being judged". Well that means you figured out the answer yourself and you just didn't want that to be the answer.
He's taking the knife out of the Cheese!
Do you think he wants some cheese?
No, it means that I pre-empted someone like you who I knew was gonna give me that lame answer. I don't mind being disagreed with...I like a good debate. But at least come up with something a bit more interesting. All I know is, if Mr. Diamond tells me before the examination that children don't need to defend themselves, and then I see something used against me from my childhood during the examination (I believe they refrained from calling it a "trial") I would've torn that courtroom a new as s hole.
share
The answer doesn't have to be interesting to be true. It's as simple as that.
Okay, here is the reason. Kids are too naive and don't have fully developed minds that can grasp the situation. They are not at fault. Daniel was a mature adult that knew exactly what his fears were. As an adult he realized these fears were weaknesses.
Daniel was at the very least a normal person but had a lot of fears.
If he could've pushed a magic button that would rid him of these fears he probably would've.
If a 6 year old stabs another kid they don't try him as an adult.
When an otherwise normal 40 year old man stabs someone they do try him as an adult. Thats how it works.
He's taking the knife out of the Cheese!
Do you think he wants some cheese?
****** Kids are too naive and don't have fully developed minds that can grasp the situation ****
What you just said here proves my point that footage used from that time in Daniels life was used unfairly against him during the judgement. If the prosecution wanted to present a valid case, they should've either found another day from AFTER Daniel's childhood or maybe reduced the examination to the other 7 days (two were from his childhood I believe).
What they were doing was wrong, and thank G-d it's only a movie, or I would be very apprehensive about these so-called "big brained" beings who think they know what's best for the universe by getting away with this crap.
They showed the footage from his life to show how he established a pattern. When hardcore criminals go on trial they often site the behaviors they showed as children in order show what might have led to thier behavior as adults. They don't actually say that its because of what he did as a kid that he is being punished, In fact theya re saying that had he died as a child he would've been better off and moved on to the next level.
He's taking the knife out of the Cheese!
Do you think he wants some cheese?
Are you implying he should have died as a child? Maybe we shouldn't be making comparisons between the fear examination in the movie and being put on trial as a hardcore criminal! I still feel that a certain 'fairness' factor was overlooked, being that the judgement system in the movie was contradictory like this. At least give me that examining something from his infancy was way too early for the purposes of this fear study!
shareThe infancy part was brought up by his defender to show his having helped his parents stop fighting. Your pretty good at twisting words around. I can see that no matter what valid points I make here it will not change your mind so I won't bother anymore.
He's taking the knife out of the Cheese!
Do you think he wants some cheese?
The defender shouldn't have done that (just to show you I'm not one sided), and thankfully you have decided to concede,...I was about to tell you that you were in need of a CRASH HELMET!!!! AND WATER WINGS!! (joking). Seriously, I don't get angry at debates like this.
Does anyone else have any input on this? How about the guy who simply replied "I agree."?
I'd say I'd agree with JR's about showing it as establishing a pattern.
Or it just could be that Brooks missed the contradiction when he wrote Torn's line and the courtroom scene (ie, mistake).
You just have to be resigned-
You're crashing by design
Maybe the lawyer was just trying to be nice...maybe in actuality, kids get sent right back to do it over again.
shareMaybe the lawyer was just trying to be nice...maybe in actuality, kids get sent right back to do it over again