Door.

It's this bit with The Mushrooms, isn't it?

"The Head came through 

The Table and said, 

`I'm from The Future.  I've come 

to Save Your Life.  

We  found A Stasis Leak 

on Floor-Sixteen.'" 

You see, I don't think it was 

An Hallucination --

When You saw Your Head 

coming through The Table, 

I Think You were seeing 

You, as You are now, 

arriving back in The Past.

Oh, A Magic Door!  

Well, why didn't you say?

9 Int. Level 16 corridor. Present.

He beckons to RIMMER and CAT.

LISTER: 

It's safe.  Come through.

Derry Girls | Erin's Prom Date

10 Int. Shower. Past.

He steps back through the leak.  RIMMER and CAT follow him. 

 They all emerge in the same shower cubicle.

CAT: (to RIMMER) 

What IS it?

RIMMER: 

It's A Rent in the Space-Time continuum.

CAT: (to LISTER) 

What IS it?

LISTER: 

The stasis room freezes Time, 

you know, makes Time stand still --

  So whenever you have A Leak, it must 

preserve whatever it's leaked into, 

and it's leaked into this room.

CAT: (to RIMMER) 

What IS it?

RIMMER: 

It's A Singularity, a point in The Universe 

where the normal Laws of 

Space and Time don't apply.

CAT: (to LISTER) 

What IS it?

LISTER: (wearily)

It's A Hole back 

into The Past.

CAT: 

Oh, A Magic Door!  

Well, why didn't you say?

Acathla, The Demon came forth to swallow 

The World. He was killed by a
virtuous knight who pierced

 the demon's heart, before 

he could draw a breath 

to perform The Act -- 

Acathla turned to stone, 

as demons sometimes do, and 

was buried, where neither Man 

nor Demon would 

ever want to look --

.......unless of course they're putting-up 

low-rent housing. Boys...

Fear of The Dark

Night is the time 

of The Evil Curse,

and No Man is 

safe alone;

The Waters, are 

most Dangerous….

"Manchester's Origins 

are all based on, like 

'I wanna pick someone who's kind of 

The Opposite of Superman, but 

also [just] as Powerful; so, 

his having telepathic powers and 

telekinetic powers, as opposed to

physical powers, 

unlike Superman, 

kind of represents (for me) —

'Okay, I was a guy who 

was picked-on -- so, 

in My Head, 

I'm Looking at People, 

that were picking-on Me, 

and going, : —

“I WISH YOU WOULD DIE! 

I WISH YOU WOULD DIE! 

I WISH YOU WOULD DIE !!”

and one day, They finally DID --

This, I Think, is 

a pretty relatable kind of 

Dark Fantasy that 

most people have, so -- 

Manchester IS That Guy.

Manchester's upbringing 

was very Dark -- he comes from 

an abusive Home where 

there's just Him and His Sister.

His Sister is a bit of 

a source Hope and 

some Light for him; 

she's put in a position where 

she has to work in a Sweat Shop 

and she loses her arms in 

an Industrial Accident and 

that snaps Manchester -- that's 

when His Powers unleash, 

that's when he starts 

executing Bloody Revenge 

on anybody who's near him, 

who ever Hurt Him, 

who ever did anything to him. 

He starts to explore 

What Those Powers Mean and 

what they allow him to Do.

I also wanted him 

to Be charismatic 

and funny, with just 

NO regard for Sensitivity, 

Political-Correctness --

In the comics, and in the film, too, 

there were jokes that we had to pull BACK on, 

because they were even pushing it TOO far...

Yeah, he was just a complete MESS, 

says absolutely whatever's on his mind and.... 

Kill Ya as soon as look at ya.. :)

After Superman and Manchester meet in 775, 

Superman sort of finds 

The Centre of The Power in His Brain 

and uses a little, er, 

X-Ray/Heat Vision Microsurgery 

to essentially sort of paralyse 

that bit that gives him 

His Power.

THEN, he decides to make 

another go at Superman -- 

He CAN'T get over this idea that 

Superman is as Wholesome and 

as Pure as he seems to be -- 

because if 

Superman's that Pure, 

that means that 

he's really that EVIL.

He starts throwing all of these 

Supervillains at Superman, 

and it's a ruse to get him 

far enough away from Lois, 

so that when he returns to Metropolis, 

she's DEAD.

But, he DID NOT kill Lois -- 

because, he had hoped that 

[Superman] would kill HIM, and, 

when The Illusion broke, 

he had killed a man 

under false pretences, and 

that REALLY was going to be his 

"SCREW YOU!!" to Superman -- 

but, er.... 

It didn't happen.

And so he just goes off into The World,  

and essentially commits suicide, 

as a result of that event -- 

when he decides it's time, 

he's going to end his own life, 

he basically turns His Own Power against himself, 

he sort of literally makes His Hand 

like A Gun and sort of 

telekinetically shoots himself 

in The Head...”

-- Joe Kelly

STORM

“Do you realise 

how offensive

 you’re being?”

That Tone and that Question 

were provoked courteous 

Disagreement with a Consensus 

which Kael was Trying 

to Create and Enforce. 

After Pauline Kael gave a bad review of The Enforcer, Clint Eastwood asked A Psychiatrist to do an analysis of her 

from her reviews of his past work, 

which he had memorised verbatim. 

It concluded that Kael was actually physically attracted to Clint 

and because she couldn't have him, 

she hated him. 

Therefore, it was some sort 

of Vengeance.

 PREFACE  

In the Nineteen Sixties and Seventies, Pauline Kael was not only the most powerful movie critic in America. She had become the most powerful reviewer in any medium. And her influence extended, not just to criticism of all kinds, but to journalism, to academic writing, to the appointment of faculty members at university film departments throughout the country. 

Writing every week for six months of the year in The New Yorker, and publishing regular collections of her pieces, she generated admiration (for some years deserved), and then – gradually, surprisingly – fear. She had colleagues and filmmakers she liked, and others she didn’t. Her likes and dislikes became dogmatic, remorseless. She had her cliques and imitators, including a more or less servile cult, known as the Paulettes. They chattered, laughed, sneered, whispered, loudly gossiped during previews and screenings. Then they went back to their various publications and tried to outdo one another in agreeing with Kael. 

Meanwhile, almost without anyone taking notice, Pauline Kael’s interest in movies was declining, even as her writing style became more and more excessive. She began less to write than to rule. 

The titles of her books, in their redundant, unfunny naughtiness, should have given it away. I Lost It at the Movies, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Deeper Into Movies. The joyless, fake ordinariness of it all, the aging, essentially humourless woman reveling in unimaginative talking dirty --- we didn’t notice, prize committees of various kinds did not notice, the underlying quality of what we were endorsing, year after year. But her influence was great, her exercises of power remarkably effective. What we might characterize as unconscious Pauline Kaelism was contagious, and now, still, pervades the culture, wherever second-rate prose can be found.  A Life in the Dark, a biography of Pauline Kael by Brian Kellow has just been published. Library of America has published an anthology of her writing. Both books are worthy and have been widely and seriously reviewed.

In 1980, Renata Adler, at the time a New Yorker writer --- author of two novels, and five books of essays and reporting, including, as it happens, A Year in The Dark, an anthology of her own pieces as former chief film critic of The New York Times --- reviewed Kael’s When the Lights Go Down for The New York Review of Books. 

That review stirred an enormous fuss, consternation, taking sides. The review itself was reviewed and discussed, as though it were News, in newspapers and magazines. It has somehow remained an occasional subject of controversy to this day. 

There were rumors: a committee had collaborated to write it; Mr. Shawn, editor of The New Yorker had secretly commissioned it; Adler was pursuing a vendetta generated by some incident or series of incidents years before. 

None of this, as it happened, was True. 

Kellow, in his biography, writes that Adler, at a meeting of the New York Film Critics, “stormed out,” saying she “had to see her analyst immediately.” 

Adler had no analyst; she had not “stormed out.” When she did, in fact, quietly walk out, several other critics, including Stefan Kanfer of Time (later, author of distinguished books), walked out with her. As they left, Kael said, “Do you realise how offensive you’re being?” 

That tone and that question were provoked by the departing critics’ (including Vincent Canby’s) courteous disagreement with a consensus which Kael was trying to create and enforce. 

Adler was relatively young, chief film critic of The New York Times - a position widely thought to be so self-evidently desirable that advertisements for a department store began “Some people think Renata Adler’s job is like being paid to eat bonbons.”) 

Adler had no reason to be hostile to Kael, and was not. In fact, until she was asked to review Kael’s collection, Adler had thought fairly highly of Kael’s work. 

Renata Adler’s “Pauline Kael piece” has been mentioned so often through the years, in articles about Kael, including interviews and virtually all obituaries, that people who had never read the piece had the strongest possible views of what they thought it said. Reviews of the two recent books refer to it. 

What follows is the piece itself —

When Clint Eastwood approached 

Don Siegel to offer him the directing job for Dirty Harry (1971), 

Eastwood gave Siegel 

four drafts of the script, 

one of which was written 

by Terrence Malick. 

Malick's script changed The Killer 

from being a mindless psychopath 

who killed because he likes it 

to being a vigilante who 

killed wealthy criminals 

who'd escaped Justice. 

Siegel didn't like Malick's script, but 

Eastwood did. Malick's ideas 

formed the basis for 

Magnum Force.

The plot of this movie was inspired by The Death Squads of Brazil that were in the news at the time. John Milius pitched Clint Eastwood 

a scenario of Harry Callahan similarly encountering a corrupt Police Force of Vigilantes assassinating those they 

could not convict. 

Eastwood liked the idea, 

particularly since he wanted to address the controversy caused 

by the original movie, 

Dirty Harry. 

Some Viewers and 

Critics believed 

that it supposedly 

endorsed Fascism 

and Vigilantism. 

Eastwood wanted to make it clear 

that Harry was not A Vigilante.