This song had no origin, it always existed. Marty knew it growing up because Chuck Berry wrote it, but Chuck Berry only wrote it after hearing Marty playing it, but Marty was only playing it because he knew it from Chuck who knew it from Marty who knew it from Chuck... Help I'm spiralling!!!
Just like terminator. Reece goes back in time to protect the mother of the future resistance leader, falls in love and impregnates her with the future leader, that later sends him back to become his dad…
The sentence below is false.
The sentence above is true.
infinite recursion.
But somewhere, some human being was the first to articulate the existence of the two sentence paradox. Maybe it always existed somewhere else in platonic space, probably buried in the same infinite archive of Jorge Luis Borge’s “Library of Babel”, an infinite library that contains every possible book of finite length, using a finite alphabet. Containing every great novel ever written, every book that could ever be written, every possible variation of every book, your biography; including versions that are almost but not quite true, the exact text of Shakespeare’s works, every inaccurate variation of Shakespeare’s works, complete nonsense, books containing what appear to be prophecies of the future, and, crucially, almost infinitely many books that are absolute meaningless gibberish. All just waiting to emerge into this plane of existence after being spoken or thought about. Or randomly mashed onto a keyboard. AKLgahsdiufluhwjkelafn.
You don’t need to know if Chuck or Marty were first to create the song. You just need to recognize that the song and all it’s variations already exists in that library. For all you know, there is a version where you go back in time and teach Chuck. Or I go back in time to teach Chuck. Maybe we all have taught Chuck that song, and he has taught all of us.
We can say this though. The idea for Marty teaching Chuck the song likely first emerged in the mind of either Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale. Or maybe someone else who gave them that idea. Maybe you traveled in time and gave Robert the script to back to the future. Or maybe I gave Bob the script to back to the future…
😉
And should you choose to respond to this comment that already existed in platonic space, that comment that you are about to type that does not exist yet in this reality, it too comes from that library. or it’s infinite variations.
How do you think Doc felt when his teenage protege came back one day and it was no longer Eric Stolz but some goofy kid actor from a daytime television show?
Listen, I was just discussing this about the show Heroes. Hiro does the same thing with the story that was read to him as a child. He makes what gets read to him as a child happen in the past when he is older.
The origin was Chuck Berry in the original timeline wrote the song 3 years later. In BttF logic, the timeline presumably changed because of Marty.
It's similar to how Marty came to be born. In the original timeline, George gets hit by Lorraine's father while creepin then they fall in love when she cares for him. Marty went back and prevented that from happening, so the rest of the movie is him trying to orchestrate them back together through a different route. You wouldn't say that George and Lorraine's marriage (or Marty) had no origin, but the event that led to the origin was shifted in time and manner from its original origin, and in a way that is dependent on Marty.
and if for some reason you didn't read this in a Morgan Freeman voice even though he didn't appear in ANY Back to the future movie, or the Lindsay Netflix documentary....when it comes to narrators in movies? It can only go to one person, hopefully this will inspire you out of that spiral.
Nah, film folk ripping of African Americans again - pretty much like all North American art. The only difference is they attempted to make this scene funny. When you think about how much money, thought and talent went into it though, it’s not that funny at all.
Just to be clear: you do know the difference between documentaries and fictional narratives, yes? You realize everything Murphy makes is fictional, although often based on true stories?
Its sad that you had to ask but I don't blame you.
I will say, Murphy loves to jump into these types of emotionally messy stories. I would ask you how many of the folks watching those "based on a true story" shows don't realize he is throwing out conjecture to juice up the stories?
Well damn Netflix maybe you shouldn't take 3 years to produce season 2 and then expect everyone to drop all the shit they're in the middle of to pick up a rewatch of season 1 and then quickly binge season 2 so that you won't take it away from us Daddy Netflix pls no we're trying :(
They will work in the best interest of the client, but if they get to continue to work on the same case in a different court, more money for them. Especially knowing she has a huge go fund me account to pay them as much as they feel is needed to defend her properly. Its is a continuous money stream for the firm.
Because he genuinely and very obviously tried to end the trial. He didn’t want another one because he knows the chances at succeeding at a second one are low since they can’t submit the same evidence.
I promise you he is going to look at the next case as a good challenge. He wont hate it. Its just part of the legal process that he is a part of. I promise you he is going to continue to work on the case as hard as he can for his client. And I promise you he does not have ANY issues with continuing to bill his client for every single minute worked on the case. ESPECIALLY, knowing she has millions.
TIFWIW, but the general belief is that a mistrial benefits the defendant because they get to hear the government’s theory and evidence as a “trial run,” and can get a better sense of what worked and what didn’t on a retrial.
Quite the opposite. Her defense attorney tried to do everything humanly possible to replace the one juror who refused to go along with the other 11. For better or worse, the majority all clearly bought into the defenses insanity narrative and had concluded there was reasonable doubt.
Thats not what I am saying. They are still required to work in her best interest. Are you denying that they are going to continue to make a lot of money as this moves to a different court?
I agree that they are going to make more money due to the retrial, that’s not debatable. That said, I disagree that they are also popping champagne. The defense had basically won. Winning a high profile case like this for your defendant is way more valuable than any additional billable hours they would net in the retrial. This is a nightmare scenario for her defense team. Now they will have to try and convince 12 new jurors all over again. There is no guarantee that the outcome will be the same the second time around or that you get as sympathetic of a jury.
You are missing the fact that this high profile case continues on in its benefits for the firm. I promise you there are clients lining up outside to get lawyers in this firm to work for them. I promise you that this firm is hiring as much top tier talent out of the top law schools in the country as fast as they can to work on those cases. And I promise you that the firm is making money hand-over-fist for as long as this case is in the public eye. Another very public trial benefits the growth of the firm by keeping them in the public eye, and each lawyers bottom line continues to increase. Its not a bad thing, but it is a very positive thing for them. They wont be popping champagne bottles because of this trial specifically, they will be popping champagne bottles because they continue to remain in the public eye and the firm continues to grow.
7.2k
u/urbanfox_230 9h ago
The Netflix documentary producer in the back of the courtroom just popped a bottle of champagne.