Talk:The Diving Bell Vs. The Butter-Glider

Hospital?
Is it really a Catholic hospital, or "just" a hospital? I don't remember any indication that it was Catholic. #21's reference to "hallowed ground" may indicate a hospital or a religious hospital (Catholic, Lutheran, Jehovah's Witness, etc.), and I don't feel it can be used to infer it was Catholic or religious. But if he said "Catholic," then I'm cool with the reference. - Tim1965 (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The hospital is St. Sebastian's Medical Center, and has a big cross on the roof; 21 tells the Pupa Twins that it is a Catholic hospital, and therefore hallowed ground, just before the opening title appears. Since the only other reference to hallowed ground was a church in a previous episode, and 21 has to specify that it's a religious hospital, it's probably the religious connection. Dr. Venture would probably not be safe in a secular hospital. Also, are there any hospitals run by Jehovah's Witnesses? I would not have thought so, but I admit I don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.43.131 (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The big cross could be simply the red cross all hospitals use. (Seventh-Day Adventist hospitals abound in the United States.) - Tim1965 (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it wasn't red, and it was a Latin cross, not a Greek cross. Also, not all hospitals use a red cross as a sign; in fact, the international treaties regarding the red cross and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement usually would prohibit that. Lastly, Seventh-Day Adventists are not the same thing as Jehovah's Witnesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.43.131 (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we're talking the United States, where the show is set. - Tim1965 (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Even in the United States. In fact, it is a federal crime for anyone other than the Red Cross organization, or the medical services of the military to use the red cross symbol (unless grandfathered in over a century ago). In recent years there has been a push by the Red Cross organization to discourage improper use of their symbol; as a result, a lot of instances where you used to see a red cross, you now often see things like an Aesculapion (or a caduceus, which people often make the mistake of using), or a green cross. I would imagine most non-military hospitals in the US are aware of this, and don't use the symbol anymore, if they ever did (except in conjunction with the Red Cross itself). Certainly I cannot think of any hospitals I've seen that actually used it prominently on their building. I've seen Christian crosses, and I've seen a stylized blue and white cross, but I don't recall any red ones.
 * So what? Dude, not to be rude or anything, but this is a cartoon!  They can do whatever they want. - Tim1965 (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. My favorite thing in The Simpsons is when Bart (who has just joined an ersatz Boy Scouts) and Lisa are watching TV, while Homer is sitting on the couch. Bart complains about the knot that Itchy uses to tie Scratchy to tent pegs, in order to use him as a living tent. Lisa replies that cartoons don't have to be 100% realistic. And just then, while Homer is sitting on the couch, we see another Homer walking by. - My point was that 21 specifically said that it was a Catholic hospital, and that besides this, there are several indicia of a religious hospital: it's named after a saint, it has what looks like a little religious statue on a lawn in the front, and it has a big Latin cross on the building. This is all perfectly clear from watching the episode. - I also do not want to be rude, but your replies started to diverge a lot from what was seen in the episode, and you made broad statements that were not really correct, e.g. all hospitals use a red cross, regulations on where a red cross may be used don't apply in the US. After that first reply confirming that it was a Catholic hospital, which is really the point, I've just been replying to whatever you had in your last post, correcting mistakes. Sure, they're trivial things, just tiny nits, really, but who likes to be wrong, or for someone who could help them to not do so? If I mess up, even if it's minor, I like to be corrected so that I won't make the same mistake again. I assume most people are the same. I apologize if you took it in a different spirit than it was intended.

Kimson Albert
Did Kimson Albert get a nickname in this episode? You know, like: Kimson "Brockness Monster" Albert. If so, can someone create a "Production Notes" section and add it? (Yank the text from one of the previous episodes for consistencies' sake.) - Tim1965 (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's 'Pistolé' with an accute e. Sadly, I'm too lazy to make the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.43.131 (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Powerpoint and U.S. Military?
Folks, there's nothing to support the comment in the "references" section that 21's video presentation has something to do with the U.S. military's overuse of powerpoint. First of all, 21's presentation isn't *in* powerpoint at all--it's clearly a video. Second, and more importantly, there is no visual similarity between 21's presentation and the military's ridiculous ppt (see http://nicoletomlinson.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/27powerpoint_ca0-articlelarge.jpg). All we're left with is two over-eager groups of people discussing policy positions via multimedia presentations. That's far too tenuous to impute such a specific level of political commentary to the show. Rakyeta (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's your interpretation. My interpretation is vastily different. There are two elements to the bullet point in question. First is whether 21 focuses too heavily on weapons rather than strategy and planning. 21 has been criticized before for this by Dr. Killinger. The Monarch agreed with Killinger. 21 seemingly falls prey to the problem again here. (Whether 21 is right or wrong is beside the point. The show increasingly is heading toward depicting a breakdown in the gentleman's agreement that keeps heroes and villains in line, and 21 is unwittingly contributing to that.) The second element is whether 21's presentation references tendencies among military types in the real world to over-rely in extensive, complex presentations rather than the real problem.  The claim is not that 21 used PowerPoint or not; nor is the claim that 21 presented an image much like the Pentagon's Afghanistan slide.  The claim is that 21 spent whopping amounts of time on a presentation and is ignoring the real problem, just as the U.S. military did with its PowerPoint presentation. - Tim1965 (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you have a valid point in noting that 21 has fallen victim here to his old tendency of being obsessed with comic book-style weapons, but it's simply far too tenuous to describe 21's presentation as a direct commentary on US Military policy. When Hammer and Publick lampoon something, especially something as overtly political as the war in Afghanistan, they don't hide it behind that much ambiguity.Rakyeta (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like your point about the breakdown in the gentleman's agreement you described, although I see it in slightly different terms.  This is probably going far beyond the obvious intent of the show's creators, but like all good art, the Venture Bros. often subconsciously captures aspects of life--in this case, as I see it, the show mimics the behavior of closed legal regimes, such as those established by international organizations like ICAO or the WTO.  The Guild rules, which appear to govern both sides of the Hero-Villain (Protagonist-Antagonist, please!) coin, actually look somewhat like the law of armed conflict, which is based both on questions of humanity (e.g. the mental-health no-arching clause from Self-Medication (Venture Bros. episode) and reciprocity (e.g. 21's concern for the use of lethal vs. non-lethal force during arching, although I'm not entirely sure this contravene's Guild Law).  By resorting to lethal force on multiple occasions, Sgt. Hatred is pushing the Monarch's henchmen in the same direction, much like a real-life arms race.  Just like a real arms race, this creates tension with the established law, leading either to its amendment or violation.  Again, I think I'm reading way too much into the show here, but I think it's interesting to note.Rakyeta (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The bullet point does not say that 21's presentation is a direct commentary on the U.S. military's over-reliance on PowerPoint. The bullet merely points out the similarities, and how 21's behavior is seen in a humorous light (rather than the sober, deadly, and deeply worrisome outcomes that the U.S. military's similar behavior has). I agree that the show often uses real-world metaphor to make social commentary on those real-world parallels. But just as often, the show mimics real-world behavior merely for comic relief. This, I conclude, is what happened in this situation, and the bullet is designed to point out the real-world parallel. This particular episode did the same thing when Sgt. Hatred mentions that the hospital won't take his Diner's Club card (a humorous parallel to a serious real-world occurrence). I don't perceive that as a dig at the U.S. health care system, per se, but rather a means of making funny a real-world serious incident. - Tim1965 (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, the breakdown in the gentleman's agreement has been explicitly mentioned any number of times on the show. Brock talks about it in "The Trial of The Monarch," and respects it when The Strangers do their job. Yet, The Monarch has killed one of the Wonderboys and Dr. Seacow, violating the agreement -- but has suffered no consequences for his actions. Jonas Venture, Jr.'s discussion with OSI indicates just why The Monarch should have been penalized (and why Jonas never kills The Monarch when he has the chance). Clearly something's breaking down.  It's breaking down in another way, too: 21 complains because Hatred is using real bullets in a real machine-gun against the Monarch henchmen, and yet fails to realize that death-rays (Scaramantula), killer electro-arms (Phantom Limb), and poison arrows (The Monarch) are just as deadly. (He also fails to remember that Hatred used bullets, tank rounds, and small-scale explosives in his villain-days, and no one said anything about "deadly force".)  Phantom Limb's actions are being dealt with by the Guild, but it remains unclear whether OSI or SPHINX or someone else will take action if the Guild fails. I don't think this has been brought out in any "Connections to Previous Episodes" sections yet, but perhaps it should. - Tim1965 (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I see where you're going. I guess what I objected to was the placement of that comment in the "cultural references" section, since typically a cultural ref is what I've been arguing for: a more specific allusion to a concrete issue.  Maybe there should be a broader "cultural commentary" section?  Oddly enough, by the way, I felt that the health insurance thing was a direct dig at the U.S. health care system (even though the latter isn't exactly a "concrete" thing to reference).  Oh well, reasonable minds will differ... Rakyeta (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Commentary
I would just like to congratulate whoever went overboard with the Bibliography. Perhaps that will finally keep people from deleting the Cultural References section, complaining that there aren't enough references for something that is glaringly obvious. Kalmbach (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "No more 'The Lepidopterists'!" That's my motto.  I'm determined not to see an article or section of an article deleted simply because the posters got lazy and didn't cite. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)