My favorite is the woman in the striped shirt who is up there causing shit goes to get her baby carriage at timestamp 4:00.

So she left her baby in the carriage to go pick a fight.

I'm surprised nobody was shouting World Star at this trashfest.

In the movies they always miss the baby carriage.

Be more like the movies life.

>> ^Tusker:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
There appears to be 2 potential deaths here:
~7:07 a baby carriage rolls onto the track and is promptly demolished by the train pulling into station.

That incident was here in Australia - the baby survived with only minor injuries, fortunately. The mother had been distracted by a phone call and forgot to set the brake on the stroller. Unfortunately, the same thing happened in the same city seven months later, but again, the boy survived.



Oh thank science. I couldn't get on with my evening before I knew the bebbee was okay.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

There appears to be 2 potential deaths here:
~7:07 a baby carriage rolls onto the track and is promptly demolished by the train pulling into station.

*tut* A lovely gold star and you still don't remember top-15 vids?

>> ^xxovercastxx:

There appears to be 2 potential deaths here:
~7:07 a baby carriage rolls onto the track and is promptly demolished by the train pulling into station.

That incident was here in Australia - the baby survived with only minor injuries, fortunately. The mother had been distracted by a phone call and forgot to set the brake on the stroller. Unfortunately, the same thing happened in the same city seven months later, but again, the boy survived.

There appears to be 2 potential deaths here:

~7:07 a baby carriage rolls onto the track and is promptly demolished by the train pulling into station.

~7:50 it appears two men are fighting and one is shoved onto the tracks leaving the other hanging over the edge of the platform. A bystander pulls the second man to safety but the first man is still presumably on the tracks as the train leaves the station.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

Man... Lady with a baby was freaking me out.


Me too, but I was reassured by the fact that the title wasn't "Russian Woman narrowly escapes colliding cars but her baby carriage got smoked."

Issy and DFT sittin' in a tree
K-I-S-S-I-N-G
first comes love
then comes marriage
then comes Frankenbutt
in a baby carriage!

Congratulations, you two. So much for living in sin. But what, no Elvis?

Is there a point where a baby carriage bounces down a staircase in this film?

I love it when people try to save lives by creating more horrific weapons.

Gatling and Nobel sitting in a tree,
K-I-L-L-I-N-G
First comes love,
Then comes marriage,
Then comes Oppenheimer in a baby carriage.

Dead video replaced. Baby carriage starts to roll at 3:11 on video.

Yaroslawb, you bring up utilitarianism, but you do not deliver an analysis based on it; you give us a straw-man argument about child nutrition, which I assume is not serious. I am not sure that a utilitarian analysis would support prohibition, but I would be interested to hear one that did. I am predisposed to legalization, so I am biased, but I would put it as follows.

First, a review. A good example of utilitarian thinking comes from Mr. Spock when he tells us, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs the few, or the one." This speech illustrates both the goal of utilitarianism, and its costs. Put another way, the classic scenario is: "You are standing at a train switch and a train is rushing down the tracks. A car is stalled on the tracks. If you do nothing, a family of five will be killed. However, if you pull the switch, the train will miss the car but hit an unattended baby carriage, killing the baby inside. What do you do?" Utilitarians kill the baby every time.

So let's apply this ethic to the drug problem. Heroin exists. Cocaine exists. Marijuana exists. Alcohol exists. These are the train coming down the tracks. We cannot wish the train away by making it "illegal", but we can affect society by doing so or not. So, which way should we send it to make sure the fewest people are hurt? Either way, we are going to have ugly elements in our society, including underachievers, child prostitutes, drug addicts, violent criminals and innocent victims. But how can we minimize this?

With criminalization, we attempt to force all individuals to never ingest, posses or essentially be in the presence of any number of "bad chemicals". If somebody does it anyway, we apply punishment on the grounds that our rules have been broken. I think this approach is totalitarian, and that that is almost always a bad thing. I could explain why, but we are talking about utilitarianism, which might conceivably accept totalitarian solutions (as the bearded Spock does).

With legalization, you argue that we will let the tigers loose among a population of innocents that are unable to defend themselves. And you are right, this will certainly be true in some cases--possibly in even more cases than we have right now. I happen to think not, but let's assume so--I suppose prohibitionists would argue that lower prices and legal availability would cause more people to experiment with addictive drugs--people who otherwise would not have. The question, from a utilitarian point of view, would be how much drug use would increase under legalization compared to the level of drug use we see now, plus the commonly cited side-effects of the drug war, such as incarcerated parents, incarcerated children, wealthy criminals, gang violence, polluted drugs, lost taxes, etc.

The facts as I understand them (many of which are cited in this video and in the posts above) when slotted into this type argument come down on the side of legalization, but that does not necessarily mean a totally laissez-faire approach. Regulation, education and treatment would keep the vast majority of people off drugs most of the time--at least when it matters. It is true that this approach will never result in zero drugs, while prohibition always _seems_ like it at least could someday result in zero drug use--in principle. However, I think that is an illusion, and a dangerous one because it makes legalization feel like surrender, which causes people to think irrationally on this topic.

And all this is still assuming that all recreational drug use is all bad all the time no matter what. This is essentially a moral position and might not be true either--especially from a utilitarian viewpoint (see also Bill Hicks)--but I do not think it is necessary to establish this either way when discussing the basic issue of legalization.

Dead video replaced. I believe this one is shorter, but it does show the baby carriage going down the steps.

Louis D. Giannetti’s Understanding Movies:

. . . A famous sequence from Potemkin shows three shots of stone lions, one asleep, a second aroused and on the verge of rising, and a third on its feet and ready to spring. Eisentein considered the sequence an embodiment of a metaphor: “The very stones roar.” . . .

4-14a-hhh, A portion of the Odessa Steps sequence from Potemkin. Directed by Sergei Eisenstein. Perhaps the most famous instance of editing virtuosity of the silent cinema, the celebrated Odessa Steps sequence is a brilliant illustration of Eiesentein’s theory of collision montage in practice. The director contrasted lights and darks, vertical lines, with horizontals, lengthy shots with brief ones, close-ups with long shots, static set-ups with traveling shots, and so on.



Netflix’s description of the whole movie:

Propaganda notwithstanding, director Sergei M. Eisenstein's masterwork remains a cinematic landmark, charting events that ultimately led to the Bolshevik Revolution. Fed up with the ship's officers' brutalities and with maggot-infested rations, the crew of the battleship Prince Potemkin revolts. The rebellion ignites an uprising by the citizens of Odessa, resulting in czarist troops' infamous, systematic slaughter of insurgents and bystanders.


Compare the baby carriage scene (beginning around 5:00) to what Brian De Palma did with a baby carriage in this clip:

...The Untouchables: Train Station Shoot-out (9:04)

http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=15817

Brian De Palma took the baby carriage idea from the Odessa steps sequence in Sergei Eisenstein's silent movie "Potemkin."