T/S: John Hughes vs. Judd Apatow

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

okay sure their careers don't entirely parallel each other but each seems to have captured a particular kind of teen/coming-of-age zeitgeist in their respective decades, among other things (a discussion of the racial politics in their work would be... interesting - Long Duck Dong vs. Foulmouthed Old Pakistani Guy)

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

Molly Ringwald vs. Seth Rogen.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

do the Apatow films blame everything on your parents?

Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

F&G definitely doesn't. Knocked Up = kinda...? I haven't seen Superbad yet... one of the problems with this comparison is the fact that Apatow's "breakout" success (40 Y.O. Virgin) doesn't have anything to do with teenagers.

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

morbius, eventually you're going to have to either familiarize yourself with apatow or stop asking these questions

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

Sub "confused stoners" or "stoner employees of superstores" for "teens."

Apatow by a million miles. Hughes films are worthless.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

Hughes films are worthless.

abso-freaking-lutely

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

I love the Hughes/Ringwald movie where she gets knocked up. Not so much the other ones.

milo z, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

???

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ringwald crowning scene was classic

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

Hughes' one good movie -- Ferris Bueller. Apatow wins without even trying but thankfully is clearly better on merit anyway etc.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

Whew! I was worried about nostalgia clouding judgment.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

Hughes/Ringwald movie where she gets knocked up

She gets knocked up in For Keeps but it's not Hughes.

ENBB, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

Also, I will happily let nostalgia cloud my judgment. I don't care how much I love Apatow and everything about his movies. ENBB + JH FE.

ENBB, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

the summer I was thirteen I watched Pretty in Pink every day. I have no idea what was going on there.

horseshoe, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

maybe the difference here is that ILE prefers Apatow's more naturalistic/believable characters to Hughes' stage-y teen fantasy caricatures...?

There is something about Hughes' stuff that feels remarkably clumsy and high school drama club-ish (especially Breakfast Club), even when it is broken up by funny supporting turns and pitch-perfect sdtk choices

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

16 candles is redeemable, actually

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

I liked Some Kind of Wonderful cuz Eric Stoltz was such a babe.

I'm scared to see any Apatow as his big fans here are so frequently wrong.

Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

guys, a lot of Hughes movies are "redeemable"!

horseshoe, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

x-post -- Wrong about...?

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

16 candles is redeemable, actually

No, that's the worst of the Ringwald trilogy.

jaymc, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

SKOW - Eric Stoltz is still a babe and Watts was the awesome in that movie. I wanted to be her when I was little.

ENBB, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

whoops - she wasn't "the" awesome but she was def awesome.

ENBB, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

I was confused for a second there because I didn't see river wolf post on this thread...

jaymc, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

Anyway, Apatow could make crap for the rest of his career and I'd still vote for him on the basis of Freaks & Geeks alone.

jaymc, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

for the record, the Hughes stuff I had in mind for this thread is:

Some Kind of Wonderful (1987)
Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986)
Pretty in Pink (1986)
Weird Science (1985)
The Breakfast Club (1985)
Sixteen Candles (1984)

I think Sixteen Candles is easily the best and even that has a bunch of cringeworthy moments - really its the supporting cast (Anthony Michael Hall, all the grandparents, etc.) that lend it any kind of energy.

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

and as for Apatow:

Freaks and Geeks
Undeclared
40 Year Old Virgin
Knocked Up
SuperBad

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 19:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

that's the worst of the Ringwald trilogy

weird. The Breakfast Club? Pretty In Pink?

aw, screw it. No need to argue. They're all pretty bad.

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

wait a sec, didn't Apatow just PRODUCE Superbad?

Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

(ie, it's only his movie when you count $$$)

Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

wait a sec, didn't Apatow just PRODUCE Superbad?

just like hughes only produced Some Kind of Wonderful

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

Producers have influence.

milo z, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm scared to see any Apatow as his big fans here are so frequently wrong

Trust the criticism, not the critic, etc.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

oh, he also wrote SKOW... I stand corrected

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

Apatow also produced ANCHORMAN.

Roz, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

hmmm yeah okay including production credits seems a little sketchy, kind of a grey area there

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

its like if Hughes had produced an Anthony Michael-Hall penned script right after Breakfast Club or something

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

But didn't he conceive of and write Superbad, but didn't have time for it? ...

humansuit, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

weird. The Breakfast Club? Pretty In Pink?

The Breakfast Club is good up until the final 15 minutes or whenever Ally Sheedy gets her makeover. Pretty in Pink is also enjoyable and doesn't have weird racist stuff in it. It's also more stylish and zeitgeisty. When I watched all of these movies for the first time, in the summer of 1999, Pretty in Pink was the one that felt like an 80s Movieā„¢ (Duckie listening to the Cure, Spader as linen-wearing proto-yuppie), whereas Sixteen Candles was just a bad teen movie that happened to be set in 1984. (Maybe 1984 wasn't the 80s yet?)

jaymc, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

But didn't he conceive of and write Superbad, but didn't have time for it? ...

No, Seth Rogen and Evan-what's-his-teeth conceived of and wrote Superbad when they were teenagers.

jaymc, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

I was totally appalled when, viewing TBC in eighth grade, I saw that Hughes had turned Ally Sheedy into Blair of "The Facts of Life."

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

Seth Rogan and another dude have been writing Superbad since they were teenagers, but Apatow shepherded it into production/casting/etc..

but Rogen has had a hand (and a role) in most of the Apatow movies and TV shows since F&G, so it's kind of hard to separate them. Maybe Apatow is getting too much credit.

milo z, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah it should be considered out of contention. But so what. Freaks and Geeks still wins it.

humansuit, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

the breakfast club has almost as many one-dimensional cultural stereotypes as titanic

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

i mean, really. it's just a bad movie, full stop.

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

but john hughes movies are not really about characterization beyond type. they're an arena for Issues to Be Worked Out. I guess that's why none of you like them, which is fair, but it doesn't make sense to be all, "the problem with the breakfast club is that the characters are shallow."

horseshoe, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

Apatow's got his brand now, and it seems like he's giving his regulars the chance to write and direct stuff now that he can:

Step Brothers (2008) (pre-production) (producer)
You Don't Mess with the Zohan (2008) (filming) (producer)
Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) (post-production) (producer)
Drillbit Taylor (2008) (post-production) (producer)
Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (2007) (post-production) (producer)
... aka Walk Hard (USA: short title)
The Pineapple Express (2008) (completed) (producer)

Jordan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

Hughes is a bro and he made some pretty good non-teen movies (especially Planes, Trains & Automobiles!) before he descended down the path of Home Alone-type shit.

Alex in Baltimore, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

But Ferris Bueller? That's kind of like the Muhammad Ali of teen comedies.

B.L.A.M., Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

but john hughes movies are not really about characterization beyond type. they're an arena for Issues to Be Worked Out.

^^^^^ YES

Issues often worked out in a rather conservative offensive way though (see: TBC Ally Sheedy makeover, Ringwald getting the rich slimeball at end of PIP, FB's smug "stop and smell the roses at other people's expense" moral etc.)

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

LET THE GOTH BE A GOTH you BASTARDS

mark s, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

"conservative"

gabbneb, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

But Ferris Bueller? That's kind of like the Muhammad Ali of teen comedies.

Bloated and brain-damaged?

Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

I mean it should be obvious that a lot of Hughes' films resolve in this deeply reactionary way that explicitly reinforces the status quo (which had supposedly been torturing his characters' throughout the course of his films)

x-post

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ringwald getting the rich slimeball at end of PIP

this is incorrect! the politics of PiP are really, really earnest, but they're good.

(nb: I have no ability to be objective about this movie.)

horseshoe, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

TBC shd have faded out to RAMMSTEIN

mark s, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

But Ferris Bueller? That's kind of like the Muhammad Ali of teen comedies.

Bloated and brain-damaged?

I was actually thinking the greatest of all time?

Seriously. Name me one better than FBDO in the Teen Comedy category. One.

B.L.A.M., Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

Dazed & Confused

milo z, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

its interesting to compare Hughes' spate of teen movies to its immediate predecessors like Little Darlings, Over the Edge, Foxes, etc. where the emphasis was always on TEENS GONE WRONG OH NOES WHAT HATH THE 60s WROUGHT. Hughes' vision is much more reassuring and polite.

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

there are a million teen movies better than FBDO!

Dazed and Confused for one, Over the Edge for another, shit I think I even enjoy Revenge of the Nerds more

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

ts: films starrin cherie currie vs films starrin joan jett!

JJ wins obv but i would say that

mark s, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

Seriously. Name me one better than FBDO in the Teen Comedy category. One.

The teens on "The Price is R ight" are less smug. God, Ferris Bueller would have made Reagan a happier, prouder dad.

There's an anecdote involving Jack Nicholson at a FBDO screening.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:26 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ferris Bueller is molten Reaganism in its purest form.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

no, that's Adventures in Babysitting.

horseshoe, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

Better than Abe Froeman, the Sausage King of Chicago?

Better than Sloan Peterson?

Better than the 1961 Ferrari 250 GT California?

Come on - D&C is GREAT...really great. Over the Edge, also very good. But in boxing terms, Foreman and Frazier to FBDO's Ali.

B.L.A.M., Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ferris Bueller is molten Reaganism in its purest form.

YES

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

(and by YES I mean that's why its kinda gross to have to live through)

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

guys, I take your point, but seriously, Adventures in Babysitting!

horseshoe, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

Isn't that the one where Elizabeth Shue sings blooze? Jeezum.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

Aren't Ferris Bueller and Adventures in Babysitting pretty much the same movie?

jaymc, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

one stars a girl the other stars a boy. MARKETING!

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

there should be a thread about "pretty much the same movie"

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

yes. most Reaganite moment in that movie: Shue's best friend Brenda, who the whole movie is devoted to "rescuing," and with whom we're meant to sympathize is stuck without money in a bus station in the terrifying city (as opposed to the suburbs, which the movie champions). she's on the phone in a phone booth which a homeless man knocks on, yelling, "that's my home!" she removes his personal effects from the booth and says, "you just moved!"

horseshoe, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

Am I totally imagining this, or isn't/wasn't there some bad blood btwn Apatow and some guy who was largely responsible for "That 70's Show"? I remember reading a series of emails btwn the two of them which was pubished in Harper's magazine's "Readings" section a few years back. I guess they had been really tight at some point, but then had a falling out of some sorts. Anyhow, as I recall, the "70's Show" guy came off as being something of a jerk.

Apatow definitely >>>> John Hughes, but I still like 16 Candles lots, annoying racist parts notwithstanding. Also, I don't want to like Ferris Bueller, but it's an undeniable classic that will outlive, say, The Breakfast Club.

At least we can feel confident that Judd Apatow will never sink down into Home Alone-territory...

dell, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

You forgot: Brenda makes a point of how smelly and disgusting these peopel are, and being afraid of them for that reason.

(xpost)

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

*people

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

How come noone is talking about Heavyweights????

mizzell, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

yeah, I didn't want to go into detail, but there are many many moments like that in the movie.

xposts

horseshoe, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ferris Bueller's Day Off, starring:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/graphics/photos/criminal_mind/sexual_assault/traci_lords/Ed-Meese150.jpg

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

Am I totally imagining this, or isn't/wasn't there some bad blood btwn Apatow and some guy who was largely responsible for "That 70's Show"?

hmmm never heard of this but F&G and That 70s Show did start around the same time ircc

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2002/03/0079095

jaymc, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

Thursday, December 6, 2001

Two TV titans engage in email battle

The creator of the light-hearted teen comedy "That '70s Show" revealed a nasty streak during a recent e-mail exchange.

The online argument took place between "'70s" creator Mark Brazill and "Undeclared" and "Freaks And Geeks" creator Judd Apatow, The New York Post reports.

Seems "'70s Show" star Topher Grace accidentally started the e-mail war when he expressed an interest in doing a guest spot on Apatow's "Undeclared". Topher and Apatow originally thought Topher's guest appearance wouldn't cause problems since both shows are on the Fox network.

It turned out to be a huge problem for Brazill.

The trouble started after Apatow, who met Brazill about 10 years ago, tried calling him about Topher's potential "Undeclared" spot, but his calls went unanswered.

The "Undeclared" mastermind then sent Brazill an e-mail asking why Brazill had a problem with him. He received this e-mail back:

"Yeah, we were friends in the early '90s," Brazill wrote. "And if you don't recall what happened, I'll remind you. I had a pilot at MTV called 'Yard Dogs' about a rock band living in Hollywood. I told you about it and you proceeded to completely rip it off, storyline and all, for 'The Ben Stiller Show.' When it turned up on your show, everything went away overnight . . . I had no job, no money, nothing."

Apatow replied and said he wasn't sure what Brazill was referring to, and that since "The Ben Stiller Show" was less than a success, it shouldn't have affected Brazill's program.

But the reply seemed to have further infuriated Brazill, who responded by calling Apatow a "showbiz weasel" and telling him to "get cancer".

Apatow apparently tried to remain level-headed through the heated exchange, writing back: " I wish you had called me about this years ago. I'm sure we could have worked it out. Try not to be so angry. Not everyone is as bad as you think."

But Apatow's friendly e-mail only fuelled Brazill's fire, and the "'70s Show" writer finished the argument by saying:

"We'll never be 'friends'... I respect you zero."

Brazill is reportedly ashamed about his behaviour. He told the Page Six staff that he regrets his e-mail comments and that he's "apologized to Judd".

milo z, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

"Not everyone is as bad as you think"

^^^
on what planet wd this line calm anyone down?

mark s, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

To name a Scottish contemporary of Hughes's, he can't touch Bill Forsyth's Gregory's Girl or That Sinking Feeling.

Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

er, HER:

http://www.harrywalker.com/photos/Kirkpatrick.jpg

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

i thought i saw some but now i don't

mark s, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

most molten reagan movie:

http://www.impawards.com/1987/posters/secret_of_my_success.jpg

CHAMPAGNE, BABY

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

sportcoat and jeans combo, as invented by hank scorpio!

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

best film abt the suburbs = the swimmer

mark s, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

I prefer Swimfan.

milo z, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

mmm Jesse Bradford

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

Apatow comes across way better in that e-mail war.

jaymc, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

Trivia

* The winning time in the 200 yard freestyle event depicted in the film would have set a world record.

mark s, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

"Not everyone is as bad as you think" <----------!?

mark s, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

it's like "Heavens! I goad you now ;-)"

mark s, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

the Home Alones are awesome

A B C, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

Uncle Buck is fucking awful

milo z, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

Dude. What would you say to someone who is pissed at you for something you can't remember and then tells you to get cancer? I don't think Judd had any responsibility to find some key phrase to make this guy act reasonably. xx

humansuit, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'll go back to my life of thievery and leeching. As for the cancer, I'll wait till you get it and then steal it from you. By the way, that joke was one of my writers', Rodney Rothman (see, I credited him). See, I have no original thoughts.

LOLZ

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

xxxx-posts, etc.

Thanks for digging up the Apatow-Brazill thing, y'all. "...We were friends in the early 90's" makes me laugh for some reason.

Well, yes, Ferris Bueller is smug, and I can understand how people would say that it's a sort of epitome of the grossness of the Reagan era/attitudes...but Matthew Broderick brings a genuine winningness to his role that Reagan in his abject phoniness and hypocrisy and overal dubious "morality", could never pull off in his role as the president. The Ferris/Cameron scenes alone make the movie. And it's, um, fun. It's still a fun movie to watch. It was not "fun" to live through the Reagan administration.

Hmm, I will never understand all the love for Dazed and Confused. So overrated, in my opinion. Over the Edge, though, yeah, that's bad-ass.

Good point upthread, Shakey, about Hughes' portrayal of teens vs Little Darlings, etc. I think that is what makes most of his films so watchable, even when they are kinda lame and riddled with lazy stereotypes (e.g., The Breafast Club!)

Shit, The Swimmer is such an amazing movie. That should really get more attention than it does. And Hank Scorpio=best Simpsons one-off character other than Frank Grimes!

dell, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

I like the idea of having a writing team to consult for zings.

Jordan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

I wd have said "Try not to be so angry while I try and make you angrier" OH WAIT

i mean, yr right, he has every right to say what he LIKES back to cancerwisher, but if he actually meant to calm him down a bit that seems a silly approach (at least it wd annoy me) (in fact it did)

mark s, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

i have less than zero invested in ferris bueller, but can someone explain exactly what's wrong with it? is it because it's about upper middle or upper class kids who get away with being lazy and irresponsible, or even worse happy and well-adjusted (they have no right, those fuckers)? or because they're punker than the mopey, less popular kids? because richard edson plays a dude of semi-indeterminate ethnicity?

gabbneb, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

IMPAWARDS HAS FOILED ME AGAIN

WILL I NEVER LEARN

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

it's less apathetic than dazed and confused, that's for sure

gabbneb, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RICHARD JOBSON

mark s, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

gabbneb its because Ferris takes advantage of everyone around him and then acts like their sacrifices and contributions to his happiness don't actually matter in any way (among other things)

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

or because they're punker than the mopey, less popular kids?

I have no idea what you mean by this

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

surprise

gabbneb, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

gabbneb its because Ferris takes advantage of everyone around him and then acts like their sacrifices and contributions to his happiness don't actually matter in any way (among other things)

pls

gabbneb, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

cap'n save a rich kid

milo z, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

yeah, that always struck me about ferris... his sister is totally right about him

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

megaphone mark upside down in the garbage can

gabbneb, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

I SEE THINGS THE RIGHT WAY UP FROM THERE

mark s, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

but can someone explain exactly what's wrong with it

It's pure, unadulterated fantastic super-fun.

humansuit, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

also, they go around all day doing the most obvious possible stuff. If ferris has cut class nine times, dontcha think he'd have been to the art institute already? What's the point of being a tourist in your own city?

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

Is Chicago really 'his city'?

milo z, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

Oh, sure! Palm of his hand, baby.

Ok, Cubs games are fun.

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

...Ferris takes advantage of everyone around him and then acts like their sacrifices and contributions to his happiness don't actually matter in any way (among other things)

Yeah, but the script is not dumb to this fact; Ferris' sister and Cameron give him shit for his self-centeredness...and his parents, who blithely overlook his b.s. artistry are portrayed somewhat unflatteringly in the film as being blissfully ignorant/having the usual giant blindspots that parents have for their kids.

dell, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

genuine winningness to his role that Reagan in his abject phoniness

Um, Reagan was more "genuinely winning" than Ferris.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

He's the younger sibling who gets away with everything, and we're taken along for the ride one day. Sure, he treats Cameron like shit, and sure, he totally sees no fault in anything he does, but dude....SLOAN!!! FERRARI!!!! ABE FROEMAN!!!!

B.L.A.M., Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

Fuck the script: what's most annoying about Ferris Bueller is Matthew Broderick STARING INTO THE FUCKING CAMERA every five minutes to deliver an incoherent mish-mash of hippie self-determination and supply-side avarice with the most grotesque twinkle in his eye. FUCK OFF.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

lol, cap'n-save-a-ronnie

gabbneb, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

isn't there a quote from hughes where he says that ferris would be a lobbyist as an adult. or something where he would use his manipulation skills.

mizzell, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ferris turned into Matthew Broderick.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

Is Chicago really 'his city'?

This is a good point. He's from the North Shore.

jaymc, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

(And if I'd ever cut class in high school and decided to go to Chicago, I'd have been all about Navy Pier and Ed Debevic's and the Field Museum and shit, just because I wouldn't have known any better.)

jaymc, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

I am totally with Alfred on this, sorry

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

Weirdly, I was looking up Mia Sara on IMDB last night and discovered she's been married twice, the first time to Sean Connery's son and the second to Jim Henson's son.

jaymc, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

most boring weird thing ever!

mark s, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:26 (ten years ago) Permalink

I will say this - none of Apatow's regular characters are ever as baldly self-satisfied as Ferris. Even his asshole characters are given oddly humanizing details.

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

But, no, that's part of what makes it such an interesting film. Ferris is the likeable, charismatic, despite approaching-semi-sociopathic-status guy, of the like of whose charms we've all succumbed to at one point or another, despite our better instincts. He's almost like a Reagan-era version of Neal Cassady.

dell, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

Sheesh Ed Debevic's. There's this other place that's like that, Dick's Last Resort, where one of the contrivances is that the waitstaff is really rude.

I think it would be funny to open a restaurant where the waitstaff is REALLY rude, and not even in a funny way. Like, you order a burger and the waiter goes, "What are you, a faggot?! Go suck a cock, shitstain!" All the children in the restaurant are crying, and the waiters are always getting into fights... that would be an awesome theme restaurant.

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

Someone was trying to tell me that Buffalo Wild Wings is supposed to be a funny bad service place. I was like, uh, dude, I think it's just the normal kind.

Jordan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

Right? or Wiener's Circle. "Wait a minute... this isn't fun! You're just a bitch!"

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

Well, Mr. Sinkah, the weird (coincidental?) part was that I was looking her up the very night before Ferris Bueller was being discussed on ILX.

jaymc, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

I will say this - none of Apatow's regular characters are ever as baldly self-satisfied as Ferris. Even his asshole characters are given oddly humanizing details.

True that. But, as I see it, with Ferris, the viewer is left to fill in the humanizing details. I dunno, maybe I am too forgiving...

But in any case, one could simply watch it as I suggested just above; as a study of a charismatic person who edges dangerously over onto the sociopathic side of the social spectrum, with additional glimpses of friends and family members and others' reactions to him.

Do I think that Ferris is annoying and smug? Hell, yes. Does John Hughes think so? Definitely. But is the film entertaining? Definitely...and a big part of what makes it entertaining is the tension between his likeability and the more sinister aspect of his comportment.

dell, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ferris doesn't deserve to own the Bryan Ferry poster in his bedroom.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

Do I think that Ferris is annoying and smug? Hell, yes. Does John Hughes think so? Definitely. But is the film entertaining? Definitely...

for some reason I can't help but hear this in the voice of Donald Rumsfeld

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

http://www.roundbarn-inn.com/image_library/police%20light.gif GIVING THIS MOVIE WAY TOO MUCH CREDIT http://www.roundbarn-inn.com/image_library/police%20light.gif

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:4fXRqBQuQXhkCM:http://www.geocities.com/rummyfan/Throwsuphands.jpg

"Did Ferris get a little out of control? You bet. But is the movie bad? Absolutely not."

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

so much RONG in this thread

and what, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

uncle buck is one of the funniest movies of all time

and what, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

Do I think that Ferris is annoying and smug? Hell, yes. Does John Hughes think so? Definitely. But is the film entertaining? Definitely...

for some reason I can't help but hear this in the voice of Donald Rumsfeld

Oh my god, you're right! And I am appropriately horrified. Apparently I've been infected. Oh dear...

Kenan, I know, you're right. It's just the best from Hughes that I can think of other than 16 Candles... and, as I was always annoyed by Ferris' smugness, I wanted to attempt to work out, if only by thinking out loud here, just why he and the movie overall nonetheless still hold an appeal for me.

dell, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

so much RONG in this thread

otm

dan m, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

x-post

(maybe I am just a people-pleasing easy mark for aspiring sociopaths!)

dell, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

im sure 5 years ago the john hughes vs wes anderson thread wouldve gone about the same way and in 5 years when dude from the geico cavemen ad agency directs 3 stoner teen comedies itll go the same way and meanwhile planes trains & automobiles will still be funnier than all them combined

and what, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

I think its a legit defense - comedy does often work off of people who would otherwise be totally loathsome in reality

x-post

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

ethan you crazy

F&G (which I think most Apatow boosters here would agree is a high point) is already older than 5 years anyway (and WAAAAAY funnier that Uncle Buck or Planes Tranes n Automobiles - yr hard-on for John Candy notwithstanding)

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

glad ilx wasnt around when john candy died so you can still have all your teeth motherfucker

and what, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

yr hard-on for John Candy notwithstanding

this phrase will be in my head for the rest of the day. internal rhyme!

horseshoe, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yes, in five years John Hughes will be the new Jean-Pierre Melville.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

btw f&g is ok but not very funny sorry

and what, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

(I love John Candy, fwiw)

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

anybody who thinks wonder years for the dot com era is somehow WAAAAY FUNNIER than planes trains & automobiles can suck my fucking dick

and what, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

you're serious about this, obv

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

yeah its my posting to vagina threads about dildo repair

and what, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

everybody needs a hook

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

Here you were being all articulate n shit and I was wondering when you would start having a tantrum x

humansuit, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

The John Huges movies reflect their era: deliberately naive, awkward & unsophisticated. Lots of bright colors and simple characters - not much layering or irony. They're historical artifacts, in a time capsule, with all the distancing that goes along. Main thing is, we're not there anymore.

So it's unfair to stack 'em against Apatow's stuff, which is so contemporary. Maybe in 20 years I'll have enough perspective to see Apatow's movies as timebound relics, but right now, they seem perfectly in synch with the moment. Thus smart, knowing. And that's just how the JH movies seemed in the 80s.

Bob Standard, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

I didn't think this was a fight about which one was funnier. If anything, the fact that F&G is more than just a funny TV show is why it's great.

jaymc, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

That's because you know that Freaks and Geeks is THE BEST TV show about teens ever.

humansuit, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

The John Huges movies reflect their era: deliberately naive, awkward & unsophisticated. Lots of bright colors and simple characters - not much layering or irony.

Oh, there's lots of irony in great eighties pop. But Hughes films weren't great pop.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

I think they come from different vantages at adolescence. Apatow and crew come from an adult's perspective and asks us to remember high school, whereas Hughes comes from a middle-schooler's perspective and asks us to fantasize about high school.

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

there is definitely more of a fantasy element to Hughes' conception of high school - goes hand-in-hand with the simplified character archetypes ("the burnout, the geek, the jock, the princess, the weirdo" etc)

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

Keenan OTM. There's a fantasy element in Hughes, but it seems much more targeted at kids. Apatow's stuff seems targeted at adults.

Bob Standard, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

comparing F&G to the Wonder Years is woefully unfair - Wonder Years was completely hobbled by its shitty voice-over and perpetual "I knew things would never be the same again" conclusions

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

But that's completely fair. It's part of the show.

humansuit, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

just like the crappy half-hour sitcom formula writing and completely loathsome lead actor

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

I mean Freaks and Geeks NEVER did that "oh the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia" shit

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah me too.

humansuit, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

I think they come from different vantages at adolescence. Apatow and crew come from an adult's perspective and asks us to remember high school, whereas Hughes comes from a middle-schooler's perspective and asks us to fantasize about high school.

I really like this.

jaymc, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

Maybe in 20 years I'll have enough perspective to see Apatow's movies as timebound relics, but right now, they seem perfectly in synch with the moment. Thus smart, knowing. And that's just how the JH movies seemed in the 80s.

No Ferris Bueller, no It's Garry Shandling's Show.

Eazy, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

well having just seen a bit of a Wonder Years episode last night let me give you an example - Kevin's gazing wistfully at his old playground. He sees three kids that look just like Paul and Winnie and him playing happily. Voiceover muses to himself how "things had changed, and they would never be the same again" - cut to him getting picked up by his hot teacher in her VW bug.

F&G never did any of this "oh my youth, where has it gone, I was so innocent then" kind of framing - it is much more conflicted about adolescence and none of the characters are ever given over to, or put in the service of, such nauseating faux-nostalgia. I defy anyone to name me a single episode where the main characters are wistfully depicted as innocent and happy.

x-post

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

ah, now I see what you mean by 'unfair' - Wonder is totally outclassed. You'd be right.

humansuit, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

being unfunny & depressing = greatness

and what, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

Kevin never had to run naked through the school. He never really learned what life is all about.

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

and_what I'm beginning to see that you simply don't like life.

humansuit, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

TS: "The Wonder Years" vs "Doogie Howser, MD"

HI DERE, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:26 (ten years ago) Permalink

does that include the pain of me having to watch ben stiller mug through his annoying self-help character on freaks & geeks?

and what, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:26 (ten years ago) Permalink

Apatow and crew come from an adult's perspective and asks us to remember high school, whereas Hughes comes from a middle-schooler's perspective and asks us to fantasize about high school.

pls

gabbneb, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:26 (ten years ago) Permalink

Doogie. re Wonder: Shit was meaningful in the 60s. I get it. Get Cancer.

humansuit, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

who wouldve thought a bunch of dudes who were young in the 80s would like a show about being young in the 80s more than being young in the 60s

and what, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

"cancer" is the new "pwned"

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

Kenan - don't steal that from me. I'm living in a cardboard box and I need my own internet meme to feed my kids. Get Cancer.

humansuit, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

who wouldve thought a bunch of dudes who were young in the 80s would like a show about being young in the 80s more than being young in the 60s

I was like 1 year old when Freaks and Geeks was supposed to have taken place.

jaymc, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

Seth Rogen, well-informed adult, recommends 10 bourbon and oj's to a sick David Letterman - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG6nMfWkvI4&NR=1

gabbneb, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

I never actually saw "Freaks and Geeks" because the ad campaigns made it seem like the new standard bearer of the self-satisfied Joss Whedon template of storytelling without any of the fantasy elements that make the Whedon stories bearable/enjoyable.

HI DERE, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

who wouldve thought a bunch of dudes who were young in the 80s would like a show about being young in the 80s more than being young in the 60s

F&G takes place in 1980 (I was all of 7 years old). High school was '87-'91 for me, and trust me no one was driving around listening to Alice Cooper and Cheap Trick.

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

I think Harold And Kumar should have ended with Doogie coming home, going upstairs, and typing a nice little journal entry on what he did that day and what he learned.

kenan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

Actually I haven't seen any Apatow movies either, now that I think about it. "Superbad" is the first one that I've really, REALLY wanted to see.

HI DERE, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

does that include the pain of me having to watch ben stiller mug through his annoying self-help character on freaks & geeks?

Ben Stiller played a Secret Service agent. Did you actually see this show?

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

lol, xxp

gabbneb, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

I was one in 1980 but shit was meaningful then.

humansuit, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

uncle buck is great!

ferris is a smarmy asshole--that's why the movie is so fun. we get to identify with a smarmy asshole...it's cathartic. no one is supposed to go out and BE LIKE ferris.

ryan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

Thank you ryan. See the rest of you? You know what I'm going to say.

humansuit, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

i mean, film morality != real world morality.

ryan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

High school was '87-'91 for me, and trust me no one was driving around listening to Alice Cooper and Cheap Trick.

1988: Cheap Trick, Lap of Luxury
1989: Alice Cooper, Trash

Both on endless repeat in my high school ("The Flame", "Poison")

ryan otm re: Ferris Bueller

HI DERE, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

well okay nobody I knew

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

you never watched mtv, apparently

gabbneb, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

that's true, I didn't have MTV. When I did see it we watched Yo! MTV Raps and 120 Minutes.

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

ferris bueller's the one i like/relate to most because i pretended to be sick for like 40% of my entire school career

latebloomer, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

I didn't have MTV, either; I had the entire hesher nation infesting my high school like roaches.

HI DERE, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

See, now that high school nostalgia movie I would watch.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

(In that the Dan-equivalent character at the end kills them all or something equally satisfying.)

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

Hahaha I was starting to worry about you!

(Also you've kind of described "Massacre at Central High".)

HI DERE, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

Massacre at Central High is a GREAT very strange and creepy movie

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

wish I could find a decent copy of it, the one I saw was a really badly deteriorating VHS copy

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

I saw that movie around age 8 and it fucked me up for WEEKS.

HI DERE, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

so are we done here? sounds like the winner is Apatow by a wide margin... maybe I shoulda made this a poll...

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 16:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

I didn't have MTV, either; I had the entire hesher nation infesting my high school like roaches.

-- HI DERE, Tuesday, August 21, 2007 10:44 PM (Yesterday)

TRU DAT.

John Justen, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 16:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

I think Harold And Kumar should have ended with Doogie coming home, going upstairs, and typing a nice little journal entry on what he did that day and what he learned.

-- kenan, Tuesday, August 21, 2007 6:32 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

this would've been v v v awesome actually for real

the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 22 August 2007 16:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

The funniest part about the Apatow/Brazill e-mails is that, if you've actually seen the Ben Stiller Show sketch the dude is all fired up about, it was just a grunge parody of The Monkees (called "The Grungees," natch) that this guy maintains ruined the chances of success for some horrible-sounding scripted show about a band living together that he did a pilot for. That said, Brazill does have a point that Apatow seems to get way too much credit for F&G considering that Paul Feig was the one who actually created the show and wrote most of it.

This whole thread's bullshit about how John Hughes should've made all his characters good liberal role models is ridic.

Alex in Baltimore, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 16:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

But this is a good, liberal place Alex.

humansuit, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 16:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

I never actually saw "Freaks and Geeks" because the ad campaigns made it seem like the new standard bearer of the self-satisfied Joss Whedon template of storytelling without any of the fantasy elements that make the Whedon stories bearable/enjoyable.

-- HI DERE, Tuesday, August 21, 2007 10:31 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

I don't know what this means exactly, but I don't see much, if any, similarity between F&G and Whedon stuff.

Jordan, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 16:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

When I first heard about Superbad earlier this year, I thought it was an adaptation of a memoir by Paul Feig, but now I'm realizing that the memoir is called Superstud. Still, it didn't seem outlandish for Seth Rogen to be starring in a movie written by Feig.

jaymc, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 16:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

"Do you wanna be a stud? Or a SUPERstud?"

"Go for SuperStud Sam!"

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 17:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

lookin good

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 17:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

"I guess we should all be proud to be homos."

kenan, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 17:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

no one is supposed to go out and BE LIKE ferris.

Oh, so now you tell the children of the 1990s this important information.

Cunga, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 17:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

This whole thread's bullshit about how John Hughes should've made all his characters good liberal role models is ridic.

this is kinda missing the point, film characters are not role models and criticism isn't centered around some silly paternalistic "oh think of the children, save them from this evil they may imitate" kind of bullshit.

But why is criticizing a film's politics not legitimate? Do you just watch films without thinking at all about what kind of viewpoint they're espousing? Are you cool with a film being completely fascist (300), or racist (Birth of a Nation), or mysognistic, or whatever...? Not saying "this film should have been made THIS way", just that I don't agree with the positions some films take, and it impedes my enjoyment of them.

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 17:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

I mean on a basic level, for example, I disagree vehemently with Mel Gibson's politics and I'm not going to give him any money to see his movies because I don't want to financially support an asshole I disagree with.

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 17:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

"Teen comedies" have never done much for me. The teen age is a wretched and somber time of life.

As for the Hughes movies, their POV is the same as the main characters', which is never very stimulating.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 17:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm skeptical about calling Bueller on being a manipulative trickster, since the wish-fulfilling all-powerful trickster kid was such a mid-80s archetype -- Bueller is surely a heavy influence, since he predates a lot of them (say, early Mike Seaver), but is he really the first of this type? I'm guessing it descends from the college-aged pranksters in early-80s slobs vs. snobs movies -- and then it trickles down the age bracket until every show about kids or teenagers from like 1983 to 1992 is all about the smug wily omnipotent kid.

Sure, this does seem fairly tied to and representative of the Reagan era. But more than that, it seems to about the idea that kids are stuck working within a defined, bureaucratic system -- parental authority, educational authority, social authority, etc. -- and they like the idea of being the ultimate insider, basically another popular 80s genre: the spy, a secret agent who can manipulate the entire system. It's basically the only way they can claim authority themselves: subterfuge. Half of Bueller is built on his doing comical cloak-and-dagger stuff -- he's got voice processors and odometer rollback plans, he hacks into the school computer system, and he comes to pick up sloan in a trenchoat and fedora.

I'd be wary of reading the kid-as-spy thing as particularly Reaganite -- it may have had big currency around then, but it'd seem to still be hanging around as a basic staple of kid fantasy.

nabisco, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 17:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ha, what's also weird is that the whole movie has Bueller tricking his way into shit that characters in teen movies today would just DO: the kids in 00s teen movies would just go eat at the fancy-ass restaurant with no static, they'd have the awesome cars for themselves from the beginning, and instead of sneaking onto floats in parades, they'd just have some giant expensive party of their own to go to (token black male character will be DJing).

nabisco, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 17:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah, there's a lot of distinctly 80's movie/TV tropes that reflect the era's politics in sketchy ways, no doubt, but I feel like we can talk about that without using it as a stick to beat John Hughes movies with. Am I "cool with a film being completely fascist (300), or racist (Birth of a Nation), or mysognistic, or whatever"? Uh, sure! I'm cool with people making them, I'm cool with people criticizing them on those grounds, and I'm cool with watching them if they're entertaining in ways completely seperate from their politics, as 300 is. Why shouldn't I be?

Alex in Baltimore, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 17:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

That said, Brazill does have a point that Apatow seems to get way too much credit for F&G considering that Paul Feig was the one who actually created the show and wrote most of it.

That is a fair point, but since F&G, Apatow's been making great movies, while Feig has been making crappy movies. (Although I didn't see Unaccompanied Minors, maybe it was great.)

The Yellow Kid, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

i wonder if feig was the one who knew how to write interesting chix

A B C, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

I am sort of beginning to suspect that, A B C.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

S'true, 'cuz the 40 Year Old Virgin was fucking god-awful from that standpoint.

Bob Standard, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

Well, obviously Apatow's pre- and post-F&G career's been more distinguished, which again, is probably why his name gets mentioned in relation to it more often than Feig's. But that doesn't change who created the show, based on his personal experiences, and did the lion's share of the writing. (xpost good points also)

Alex in Baltimore, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

i know unaccompanied minors wasnt very well recieved but i am gonna check it out from the grocery store rental box, i bet it's worth a dollar if it's good enough for fez and little chris rock to appear in it

A B C, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

Apatow's view of women seems to actually still be that of his youngest characters -- i.e., "I have no idea what they're thinking or why they want to be around us at all, but god bless them for it." It really would be a giant improvement if he could keep his characters thinking this way (which is perfectly true-to-life and interesting) while actually, you know, answering those questions from the other side.

Pitch to Apatow: comedy about serial dater who breaks up with woman after woman because he can't figure out why they like him and is therefore suspicious of intimacy; is forced to eventually figure out how women work as humans in order to maintain relationship; starring Paul Rudd's ass

nabisco, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

I really like Apatow, but I think he might only be capable of bromance. Rudd + Rogan = nu-Hepburn + Tracy.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

I would really enjoy seeing a full-on bromantic comedy about how two adult men become friends!

nabisco, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:26 (ten years ago) Permalink

that's pretty much the central romance of Knocked Up, I think!

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

"I have no idea what they're thinking or why they want to be around us at all, but god bless them for it." It really would be a giant improvement if he could keep his characters thinking this way (which is perfectly true-to-life and interesting) while actually, you know, answering those questions from the other side.

Denby beat Apatow about this in his hysterical why contemporary romcoms suck.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

yeah, but Denby's article was riddled with problematic, "if we could only go back to when women were really 2nd class citizens, then we'd get spunky female characters back"-nostalgia. he was right about the problems with female characterization in Apatow's work, though.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

I really like Apatow, but I think he might only be capable of bromance. Rudd + Rogan = nu-Hepburn + Tracy.

And these days since art is more comfortable with homoerotics or suppressed same-sex feelings, he may be able to make something interesting out of them. What he delineates is strong enough to incorporate the disapproval of his female characters; that's why Denby's remarks were true only in the most glib way.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

oh, I see what you're saying. I thought you were a fan of Denby's article. I hate that fucking guy.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

I don't always mind Denby, and this particular article was somewhat enjoyable to read (even if I didn't agree with him), but I'm getting pretty tired of the "oh, will nothing ever match the golden age of cinema?" crap.

Mark Clemente, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

3/4 of the article was pushing that line.

Mark Clemente, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

I accept the purported shallowness of his female characters because (so far) his casting instincts have been tip-top. As a critic it was difficult for me to say that he ignores women whe he's got two terrific actresses opposite Rogan and Rudd.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

they're so boringggg

i liked catherine keener and her sassy kid in 40yov even if i'm not entirely sure why she fell for him

A B C, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

"purported"?

he doesn't ignore women, he just doesn't write his female characters well. or at least, I don't think the Heigl character was written well. nor the Keener character in 40 Year Old Virgin.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

its more baffling that he writes such flat women when his wife is a really good and funny actress

A B C, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

yeah, I feel like he should have just talked to a pregnant lady in order to write a more plausible Katherine Heigl in Knocked Up?

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

Basically, Knocked Up needed more scenes of Rogan and Rudd making out, sober.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

xpost

I had some slight complaint with it, actually: he seemed too quick to criticize that quality -- the "I am not sure why they bother with us" mentality -- whereas I think it taps into something people experience, something significant, something that could go someplace. (It's not an arrangement that's in any way limited to Apatow, either.) I don't know what would happen if you actually countered that mentality with substantive stuff from the other side, about the female characters' thoughts and failings and insecurities -- just having them in there might complicate things to the point where the comedy becomes not so funny at all, but it'd certainly be interesting.

(xpost - it's not that his female characters are "shallow" so much as that ... well at least in Knocked Up she's largely seen from the perspective of the male lead, as kinda perfect, glowing, more knowing, more poised, and of a better world than him, all of which requires him to become more of an adult in order to keep up with her. Her own qualities are fairly stock and boring. I don't think Keener's character in 40YOV was particularly bad, not in any way I can name, but you do end the thing with her left way less vivid and coherent than any of the guys working in the store.)

nabisco, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ha, basically the woman in all of these is a Maguffin!

nabisco, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

most otm line in Knocked Up was when Rogen said, of Rudd, "look at him! don't you just want to grab that face and kiss it?" or something like that.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ha, basically the woman in all of these is a Maguffin!

yeah.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

"Teen comedies" have never done much for me. The teen age is a wretched and somber time of life.

a-ha. see, i think most people who have a problem with bueller are upset by the notion that for some/many people it is neither wretched nor somber, and they pretend that the refusal to deny this is right-wing.

gabbneb, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

no, it's just libertine.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

nabisco OTM. While other directors ridicule the women they can't help but turn into goddesses, Apatow genuinely believes in them; his male characters might actually consider sacrificing buddydom for it, albeit reluctantly.

most otm line in Knocked Up was when Rogen said, of Rudd, "look at him! don't you just want to grab that face and kiss it?" or something like that

half the guys in the audience chuckled uncomfortably at this; they all seemed to recognize that they've fantasized about making out with their best friends at least once.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

I thought the character played by Apatow's wife in Knocked Up was pretty good, actually, it might've come off a little shrill/unflattering at points but in the 2nd half I feel like it really gave a real, honest viewpoint about what a wife has to put up with in even a fairly stable marriage and made Rudd's character look more like an asshole than her.

Alex in Baltimore, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

Well if yr best friend were PAUL RUDD, hell yes --

I almost feel bad criticizing Apatow about the airy symbolic female leads, though, since it's only the relative depth of his male characters that makes you notice this! Your average comedy woman is surely worse than Apatow's on this front, but nobody is all like "hey, Mary Jane in Half Baked is just a two-dimensional symbol used to make Dave Chapelle decide to stop smoking weed!"

nabisco, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

using the woman as the Maguffin is potentially extra-annoying in a movie that involves pregnancy, I think. I saw this movie with a friend who was really annoyed by that, which made me realize that I had preemptively adjusted my expectations fairly low for the Heigl character beforehand. (I still think she did a good job.)

the Leslie Mann character was a sharper characterization than Heigl's, yeah. I love the scene where she freaks out on Rudd after discovering his fantasy baseball meeting.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

it's only the relative depth of his male characters that makes you notice this!

not really. it's more, hmm, 90 minutes have gone by and this pregnant lady hasn't touched her belly, all weirded out by their being a thing in it yet that makes you notice it.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

Granted that pregnancy ups the ante on that one significantly, but how do you think this would compare with, like, Nine Months, or something? (I had to look that up on IMDB to even be reminded that Julianne Moore was the woman in it.)

nabisco, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

I feel like Apatow's nods to pregnancy as an actual experience rather than a plot device were pretty perfunctory and about a pregnant body as experienced from the outside rather than the inside, cf. Heigl freaking out about being "huge."

I really do like this movie, but I get why people I know had major problems with it.

xpost okay, fair enough. I'm holding Apatow to a higher standard because I think he's better than who the fuck ever directed Nine Months.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

if Julianne Moore was my wife, you can bet I'd be playing fantasy football every night.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

I don't know what would happen if you actually countered that mentality with substantive stuff from the other side, about the female characters' thoughts and failings and insecurities -- just having them in there might complicate things to the point where the comedy becomes not so funny at all, but it'd certainly be interesting.

this might very well be true.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

It was Christopher Columbus, so ... yeah. That "higher standard" was all I really meant -- all the stuff Apatow can do really well leaves a big obvious stink around the things he's just par at.

xpost - It's weird to wonder whether substantive character stuff on BOTH ends can be fitted into rom-coms! The answer should totally be yes, and yet it seems difficult enough that people mostly tend to succeed from one point of view or the other. We need some sort of thread to find and list romantic comedies that do the best job of splitting the viewpoint.

nabisco, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

we had a version of this conversation in the Chicago thread and Eazy suggested Before Sunset, but that's not a comedy. I think the comedy part is what makes it hard, because so much of comedy trades on traditional gender stuff.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

(P.S. Julianne Moore film I must now see: sLaughterhouse II (1988) ... aka Abbatoir d'amusement: La vengeance du Pigsby)

nabisco, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's weird to wonder whether substantive character stuff on BOTH ends can be fitted into rom-coms!

Sturges came closest, no? Within the context of farce, of course.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

well, Sturges is great, but his comedies depend on a gendered social framework that doesn't obtain anymore. I'm interested in movies trying to do this now.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

(I mean, I'm totally willing to accept David Denby's thesis that female characters in classic Hollywood movies were often "better" than characters like Heigl's. The content of the examples he cited, though, was inevitably a strong-willed woman running up against the constraints of a sexist society. And then he seemed to be critiquing characters like Heigl's because she had her shit together, basically. The problem he wasn't quite articulating was, "I don't know what a strong female character looks like when she's not being directly belittled by a sexist dude.")

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

or "I don't know what a strong female character looks like who doesn't have Joan Crawford linebacker pads."

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

haha i may get shouted down for this but woody allen has, in the past, written a couple v complex and interesting lady characters in films that could be considered rom-coms

ghost rider, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

no, that's fair! before he became really mean, Allen was good at this stuff, partially because he just put his issues with women on the table. the movies of his that are good at it tend to be kind of melancholy along with the funny, though?

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

I mean, Knocked Up is kind of melancholy along with the funny, too.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

yeah there might be an inverse relationship between the complexity/realism of *both* characters and the sort of 'sweetness' of the romance?

ghost rider, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

surely there are examples of romantic comedies with flawed/realistic female protagonists and shallow/glorified males but i can't really think of too many off the top of my head.

ghost rider, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

maybe this is not a good example, but I really love the moment in Manhattan where Allen's character scolds Keaton's for working on a novelization of a movie. he says something like, "you're much too brilliant for this." I've never articulated why that moment seems moving, but it's a funny mix of condescension and respect that seems real.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

"Teen comedies" have never done much for me. The teen age is a wretched and somber time of life.

a-ha. see, i think most people who have a problem with bueller are upset by the notion that for some/many people it is neither wretched nor somber, and they pretend that the refusal to deny this is right-wing.

I think I agree with this. I will certainly allow that, for a large number of people, teenage years suck in so many ways. I was fortunate - past 13, things were pretty cool. Some downs, lots more ups, and then I was in college, which flew by in a blur of far too much of everything. At 30, I can look back and say "Well, if I had to do it over again, I probably wouldn't if I had the perspective that I have now then. It just wouldn't be that much fun compared to my life at 30." But if forced to choose b/t death and repeating high school? I'd repeat high school. Sure. It wasn't THAT bad.

Does this mean that my perspective on teenageness is right-wing? Hmmm.

B.L.A.M., Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

The thing that most weirded me out about the Denby is that he talked specifically about the organization of some of those classics, where it's often the buttoned-down man coming across the feisty / flighty / free-spirited woman, and the typical movie result is that he's drawn into her "fun" -- and then he really scooted around the way the new movies he's talking about gender-reverse that, with the immature slacker comedy-fun guy meeting the respectable, adult, put-together woman. The thing is that it's not a straight reversal, because (a) the result is that the man becomes buttoned-down and adult, and (b) it's still entirely from the male point of view, which is the part that really marginalizes the women: when both your wacky comedy qualities and your central POV are situated with the man, that's when the woman becomes really vestigial.

nabisco, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

I mean, I think Denby's so comfortable with woman-as-vestigial he doesn't even notice it. /ad hominem attack

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

Or maybe it IS a straight reversal:

man ==> meets feisty, interesting woman ==> becomes more fun
man ==> meets together, responsible woman ==> becomes more adult

Otherwise the straight reversal would be more, like, Failure to Launch.

nabisco, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

In any case, modern examples of the first description are known as "her kookiness will save me" movies and include in their number Eternal Sunshine, that Braff/Paquin horor -- oh, Garden State, and a whole load of other movies that come out every year.

xxp

Laurel, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

ugh, Braff is obsessed with female kookiness. that's my least favorite trope ever. to be fair, Denby was also talking about movies like His Girl Friday, which aren't organized that way.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

Barefoot in the Park vs. Dharma and Greg

nabisco, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

it's been a while since i saw it but i think whaserface in eternal sunshine's kookiness was a little more examined than natalie portman wearing a helmet and making a sound nobody's ever made before

A B C, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

yeah, I meant to say. kookiness like in Eternal Sunshine and Annie Hall is qualitatively different than mfing Garden State. so much so that it deserves a more dignified classification than "kookiness."

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

Well, I think whatserface in Eternal was actually MENTALLY ILL, so that's a bit more...everything than Portman, yes. But still the same trope.

Laurel, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

Mentally ill? No way. Alcoholic, probably, but she's no more mentally ill than the Joel character with his jealous fits.

kenan, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

Okay, I will put some cards on the table and just ask if this is maybe just very male of me: I think I at least prefer the mentality of these male-POV films -- where there is some sense of wonder over the woman's kookiness/adultness that winds up changing the character -- to a lot of female-aimed romcoms, where the male lead seems to just fit a type, and doesn't change the character except by more or less being a high-quality romantic consumer good that she attains. (This surely has to do with most rom-coms aimed at women still being made by men who are maybe guessing/condescending about what women like/want.)

P.S. OMG if you want to talk about kooky-savior sub-Garden State trainwrecks, did anyone see ELIZABETHTOWN??? I could watch this movie forever, it's so mixed-up and bizarre, like 15 minutes of a fairly good Crowe movie scattered amid 100 minutes of cringing awfulness.

nabisco, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

a-ha. see, i think most people who have a problem with bueller are upset by the notion that for some/many people it is neither wretched nor somber, and they pretend that the refusal to deny this is right-wing.

gabbneb, my teenage years were neither wretched nor somber. Ferris is a cute asshole. While I know many teenagers (lots of my friends at the time) loved FB because its protagonist was a cute asshole who jerked everyone around, including the best friend he only half-heartedly cares about (I always found it weird that it's Sloan who cradles his head and actually tries to talk to him while Ferris munches thoughtfully on Oreos), it's a state of mind that's enfeebling and increasingly self-centered. That's one version of Reaganism.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

I would argue that "her kookiness will save me," while an element of the Joel-Clementine relationship in Eternal Sunshine, is not ultimately what the movie is about.

jaymc, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

what female-aimed romcoms are we talking about? the ones I like probably do a less-good characterization of the dude than the woman, but I don't think he becomes a consumer good.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

"her kookiness will crash my car"

kenan, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

The 'it's Reaganism' stuff has officially been pushed to the limit.

humansuit, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

Okay full disclosure: I hate movies (and books, for that matter) about people's mental states, so I don't see a lot of these or pay very much attention. So yeah sorry, I'm sort of just throwing out ideas w/o much follow-up.

Uh Nabs, I might be more inclined to agree w/ you if "my kookiness will save him" wasn't one of the most useless Real Life directives ever.

Laurel, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

Male writer-directors assume kookiness denotes depth.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

do you guys know the theory that ferris and camron are two sides of the same person? the one thing i remember from first year physics

A B C, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

P.P.S. The award for Most Vestigial Significant Other in Recent Light Entertainment totally goes to the boyfriend in The Devil Wears Prada.

(one sec while I think of examples, horseshoe -- I might be misled here by seeing less adult female-aimed rom-coms than teenage ones, where it makes slightly more sense for the guy to just be a distant hunk-figure)

nabisco, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

do you guys know the theory that ferris and camron are two sides of the same person?

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/b/j/kerry_edwards_dumb_dumber.jpg

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

the one that's popping into my head is that one from years ago with Hope Davis, Next Stop Wonderland? which is way more about her than dude, yeah. why can't I think of more? in theory it's a female-aimed genre, right?

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

Some of you dingalings are possibly missing there was such a thing as CULTURAL Reaganism -- ie, how '80s American movies all seemed to end with Eddie Murphy or John Candy smiling in freeze-frame.

And now, folks seem only to get excited about American movies that are (to one degree or another) big-screen TV shows.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

I hate movies (and books, for that matter) about people's mental states

I'm not sure what this means...? I mean, you could make an argument that anything character-driven is "about people's mental states."

jaymc, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

see, i think most people who have a problem with bueller are upset by the notion that for some/many people it is neither wretched nor somber, and they pretend that the refusal to deny this is right-wing.

this is some seriously lame standard "you're just jealous!" anti-critic malarkey

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

Next Stop Wonderland was fairly indie, though -- the more I think about it, the more it might just be that lots of female-aimed romantic comedies are big-studio mass-market movies, where a lot of the ones we're thinking of as male-POV ones are a shade more independent, or coming from a known-entity director, or whatever.

nabisco, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

Some of you dingalings are possibly missing there was such a thing as CULTURAL Reaganism

OK, it's 80s, I get that. But Reaganist? In what sense? Freeze frames in particular have some characteristic about them that makes them Reaganesque? If everything in the 80s is defined by the sitting president at the time, then the terrorists have already won.

humansuit, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

romantic comedies with flawed/realistic female protagonists and shallow/glorified males

crazy/beautiful kind of does this but it's not a comedy.

milo z, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

Sex and the City is a good example of a romantic comedy - albeit televised - where the female characters are relatively complex, and the male characters are desireable goods. Basic formula is that girl encounters guy, girl likes guy, guy turns out to have deal-breaking flaw, girl moves on. As the show progressed, the longer running male characters became better developed, but remained secondary.

Lots of romantic comedies work this way: Bridget Jones flicks, Pretty In Pink, Pretty Woman, etc. The more non-generic characteristics a guy has, the less desireable he is.

Bob Standard, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

okay, I don't have time to get into it right now, but Pretty in Pink has many fine qualities!

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

Awwww I do love Next Stop, Wonderland but it's sort of a dark, small movie that doesn't promise so much to its characters, I think. XP yes, Nabisco, that too.

JMC, I think I meant stories in which how people FEEL about things is more important than what actually HAPPENS. Not b/c I think feelings are invalid in real life but because I think examining fictional emotions is such a bottomless pit/black hole for me mentally.

Laurel, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's not quite a comedy, either, but Taye Diggs in How Stella Got Her Groove Back is basically a one-dimensional hunk, IIRC.

jaymc, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

I love how in irl that character turned out to be gay and ditched her

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 19:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

u love it

jeff, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

Add to list: that new Catherine Zeta-Jones movie, various more teenagey ones where someone meets the prince of an imaginary European nation and he is endlessly, blandly, inhumanly nice, etc. ...

I didn't meant to prejudice the description too much by calling them "consumer goods," just that in a lot of the really pop-aimed ones the guy is generically dreamy and supportive and flawless, and instead of having personality characteristics he is interested in helping the female lead with hers. (Something like the stock cardboard "hot chick," except with dialogue.) It's not any more wish-fulfillment than the other way around -- I guess the thing I was trying to get at is that wondrousness over the kooky savior or whatever at least constitutes some kind of emotional reaction to another specific person, as opposed to someone blandly filling in a role it's assumed women must need to be filled.

nabisco, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

and instead of having personality characteristics he is interested in helping the female lead with hers.

I know what you're talking about now. I've seen a lot of movies where a guy comes over to fix the cable, you know, and he's like, interested in helping the female character.

humansuit, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

Taye Diggs in How Stella Got Her Groove Back is basically a one-dimensional hunk

kenan, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

Re: Nabisco

Maybe it's the same though. In the male POV version, they guy is either trapped in adolescence (40 Year Old Virgin) or trapped in boring adult routine (Stranger Than Fiction). Needs girl-object to become fully human.

Bob Standard, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

What do I look like, the Blue fucking Fairy?

Laurel, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

Uh and by "I", I of course meant "we". Or even "women" in a completely general sense. Of course.

Laurel, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

Under the Tuscan Sun is in the same category as How Stella Got Her Groove Back, I suspect. Middle-aged woman has all sorts of emotional and sexual revelations jump-started by fling with romance-novel cut-out.

jaymc, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's weird to wonder whether substantive character stuff on BOTH ends can be fitted into rom-coms!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8e/He_said_she_said.jpg/200px-He_said_she_said.jpg

so ahead of its time

dmr, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

it's not like female-driven romcoms are hard to find, it's like 50% of the respective filmographies of Julia Roberts, Reese Witherspoon, Debra Messing, Ashley Judd, etc. it would be pretty interesting to count up how many of those movies have female writers or directors vs. male.

the elephant in the room is that most all movies about couples are going to tell the story at least slightly from one half's perspective more than the other, and that's always going to shade how you measure these things.

Alex in Baltimore, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

Don't say that about Witherspoon, dude, ILX will hand you your tongue.

nabisco, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

Also, to be fair to Ashley Judd, she's more often caught up in some sort of conspiracy that involves masked men chasing her through a forest.

nabisco, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

I really hate the way that they stereotype masked men.

humansuit, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

I don't think that Al was making any sort of value judgment!

jaymc, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

Serious question: does Laurel look like the Blue fucking Fairy?

Bob Standard, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

I used to really love Reese - she had quite a streak of quality material - but what has she done for me lately

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

reese wins forever just for cruel intentions

max, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

But Reaganist? In what sense? Freeze frames in particular have some characteristic about them that makes them Reaganesque?

If they come at the end of a dumb and shallow 'feelgood' narrative, yes.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

You know, I think I could use you in a movie role Morbius. How are you at 'kookie'?

humansuit, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

I think Alfred goes over the Reagan-stuff pretty well upthread (idealization of suburbs and corresponding fear of urban-dwelling minorities/homeless, loads of mindless conspicuous consumption, etc etc)

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yes of course, but we're talking about freeze frames? I mean, we're not talking about the suburbs. We're talking about freeze frames. Not, not what actually goes on in the movie. We're talking about freeze frames.

humansuit, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

I prefer movies that end with Rodney Dangerfield and a Journey song and a big party

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

xpost

Yes. If you don't understand how a smiley freezeframe that's sposed to send you out happy and stupid (while the presold soundtrack hit plays)is a characteristic of post-Star Wars shit, well...

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

Throw in a few lines of coke, a chastised liberal, an Air Force pilot (secretly gay), and I will conced Reaganesque.

humansuit, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

a cute asshole who jerked everyone around, including the best friend he only half-heartedly cares about

THE WHOLE POINT OF THE MOVIE IS TO HELP THE BEST FRIEND BECOME HIMSELF AND THEREFORE TRULY HAPPY BY GETTING OUT FROM UNDER HIS PARENTS (AND EN PASSANT DESTROY A BIG YUPPIE DOUCHEBAG LUXURY ITEM) - THE EXTREMELY HOT GIRLFRIEND IS VESTIGIAL (YES, MORBS, IT'S VERY MISOGYNISTIC), THE LOVE STORY IS BETWEEN THE FRIENDS - DO YOU PEOPLE NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND THE PLOT?

happy and stupid

guys, everyone who is happy is stupid

gabbneb, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

gabbneb the car is destroyed by accident, not by design or because of some anti-materialistic "free yourself of your posessions" logic

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

At the same time I agree that you Reaganista types are severely projecting onto this film.

humansuit, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

no, shakey. the car was destroyed by god.

gabbneb, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

also the kind of "help" Ferris actually gives his purported "best friend" is of a highly dubious nature

x-post

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

Cameron = buttoned-down straightman
Ferris = kooky girlfriend

nabisco, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

sure that sounds legitimate

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

guys, everyone who is happy is stupid

This is very close to a line from Gregory's Girl.

Anyway, it's kinda funny that this thread is a faceoff between '80s teens and '00s man-boys.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

THE WHOLE POINT OF THE MOVIE IS TO HELP THE BEST FRIEND BECOME HIMSELF AND THEREFORE TRULY HAPPY BY GETTING OUT FROM UNDER HIS PARENTS (AND EN PASSANT DESTROY A BIG YUPPIE DOUCHEBAG LUXURY ITEM) -

Noted, but I mentioned Ferris' astounding indifference to his plight. This may be the performance's problem too. I mean, Broderick is just not convincing offering to take the blame for car going out the window.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah it's pretty clear that Cameron is going to be severely beaten by his father, or perhaps killed. Ferris is all like Bluto in Animal House: "Hey, you fucked up, you trusted me."

Also, thanks to everyone on this thread who reminded me why I stopped participating in film threads!

Dimension 5ive, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

P.S. I can't believe I can't remember this clearly, and do not really want to get involved in this Reagan-era debate, but is the car's going out the window really an "accident?" Isn't it a half-accident that occurs as Cameron is, like, going off on the car? Doesn't he kick it off the jack it's balanced on?

nabisco, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

the car's going out the window was entirely out of the filmmakers' hands

gabbneb, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

it was Reagan's fault.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

never woulda happened if Deaver had still been around

gabbneb, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

little-known fact - "Sloane" was originally named "Fawn"

gabbneb, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

xxxpost gabbneb the car is destroyed by accident, not by design or because of some anti-materialistic "free yourself of your posessions" logic

Err, wasn't Cameron kicking the shit out of the car for about 5 minutes before it crashed off its jacks.

Billy Dods, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah it's pretty clear that Cameron is going to be severely beaten by his father, or perhaps killed.

I smell sequel!

kenan, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

harmlessly punching car /= destruction of car

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

its pretty clear they didn't intend to destroy the car, I can't believe this is even debatable

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

CAN WE RETURN TO DISCUSSING HOT PAUL RUDD K THNKX

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

yes, cameron dies, but at least ferris loves him

gabbneb, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

I smell sequel! You're not the only one.

Billy Dods, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

(No seriously, I'm not sure I get how anyone's arguing Gabbneb on this one -- the car's destruction is pretty clearly presented as some kind of grand rebellion that will ultimately free Cameron from parental authority, like now he's done his worst and can breathe easy and live free of fear.)

(I remember being like 9 years old and the big sleepover commentary on this movie was that when Cameron is staring into the painting at the Art Institute it's because he's seeing the car in those red lips -- look, do you see, how it's the car? -- because evidently 9 is not old enough to understand why Cameron would just be staring longingly at lips alone.)

nabisco, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

http://www.howdesign.com/blog/content/binary/Paul_Rudd.jpg

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

huh I was unaware that Hughes was "reclusive" and hadn't made a movie since '92...?

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

what a tortured genius.

kenan, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

an Arizona-based screenwriter named Rick Rapier

G00blar, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

i just realized: no one has said two words about weird science on this thread

kenan, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

Talk about vestigial women!

nabisco, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

comment from that link: John Hughes also wrote the story that is the basis of the upcoming Apatow production Drillbit Taylor.

gabbneb, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

we're through the looking glass here people

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

Weird Science is a horrible mess of a movie

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

"Vestigial" is not the word I'd choose to describe Kelly LeBrock.

Bob Standard, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ferris Bueller 2: Local Hero

gabbneb, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ferris Bueller 2: Longtime Companion

gabbneb, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

Brokeback Bueller

milo z, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

lol

gabbneb, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

guys guys guys Bueller has already totally gay-ed it up as Harvey Feierstein

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

that movie is so gay.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

gayer than making out with Paul Rudd

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 21:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

xposts okay, so maybe I've just fallen into a Denby trap of thinking there's a real contemporary problem with female characterization.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 22:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

Where does Mean Girls go in this arrangement?

m bison, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 23:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

not a romcom

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 23:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

I mean in the Apatow/Hughes debate abt teen movies.

m bison, Thursday, 23 August 2007 01:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

(idealization of suburbs and corresponding fear of urban-dwelling minorities/homeless, loads of mindless conspicuous consumption, etc etc)

Where were middle-class white teenagers supposed to escape other than to the city? It's a practical place for adventure and danger (and thus easy fodder for a film plot). Do you think fear of inner-city crime was something Reagan created? As crime grew worse since the 1960s people moved out and became afraid of going there. Surprise!

And how was the mindless consumption of the 1980s any worse than what occurred int he 1960s and 1970s? I'll tell you why it was worse, because Reagan was president when it happened. (He should've used his satanic powers for good and stopped it, right?)

Cunga, Thursday, 23 August 2007 03:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

what the fuck are any of you talking about?

remy bean, Thursday, 23 August 2007 04:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

who knows, more rudd pix plz

impudent harlot, Thursday, 23 August 2007 04:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

stupid 80s pop culture being "reaganite" = god can we please retire this uber-boring critical trope PLEASE

J.D., Thursday, 23 August 2007 05:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

someone should write an article on how harold lloyd movies are reflective of the intellectual shallowness and corrupt pursuit of self-interest of the warren g. harding years.

J.D., Thursday, 23 August 2007 06:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

I wonder if twenty years from now we'll be talking about how "Superbad" was all about the Iraq war and the reason the two boy's friendship was straining in the movie was because they were worried about Iran getting the bomb or the possibility of a draft. Don't look at the superficialities of the plot! It's about Bush pulling their innocent world apart!

Cunga, Thursday, 23 August 2007 06:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

Plz to reread thread for the specific context in which I wrote "Reaganism."

someone should write an article on how harold lloyd movies are reflective of the intellectual shallowness and corrupt pursuit of self-interest of the warren g. harding years

Hasn't this been done already?

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 23 August 2007 11:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

"Relax....You folks have nothing to worry about....I'm a professional"

http://img015.photo.wangyou.com/2004/12/11/35990/200511268706274.jpg

=

http://images.umvd.com/Toenails/aca1b72e511d4a5e8c91730619993ec4.jpg

Mark Clemente, Thursday, 23 August 2007 13:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

http://www.80s.com/saveferris/images/cast/barberi.jpg

G00blar, Thursday, 23 August 2007 13:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

And how was the mindless consumption of the 1980s any worse than what occurred int he 1960s and 1970s?

Let me try this, briefly... The difference is the '80s is when conglomerates and bizmen who had not MADE THEIR CAREERS IN THE FILM BIZ began controlling the studios and what did or didn't get made. Which is why you get fewer Altmans, Rafelsons etc being greenlighted for anything at the margins of the studio system.

Reagan and mindlessness as the paramount value in mainstream entertainment are both SYMPTOMS of (de facto) unregulated capitalism; one didn't cause the other.

Again, as Jack Nicholson said at a Bueller premiere he attended: "These people are trying to kill me."

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 23 August 2007 13:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

I would really enjoy seeing a full-on bromantic comedy about how two adult men become friends!

Only tangentially to the point, nabisco: One of the gay NYC weekies is comparing the 'bromance' in Superbad to Midnight Cowboy.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 23 August 2007 13:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

^weeklies

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 23 August 2007 13:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

oh i see, it was conglomerates and bizmen driving everything in the 80s, and not the mass cultural backlash against the 70s, something that the kids of the 80s were raised into and then sought to get out from under (LIKE OH SAY IN THE CINEMA OF JOHN HUGHES).

I'm sure infantile 70s cowboy/lone ranger Jack's a much nicer guy than buttoned-up 80s family man (oh no, "family"!) Matthew Broderick

gabbneb, Thursday, 23 August 2007 14:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

those Altmans and Rafelsons, they respect the women, I tells ya

gabbneb, Thursday, 23 August 2007 14:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

Biden-fan gabbneb characteristically obtuse about '80s capitalist ethos and backlash vs counterculture being related.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 23 August 2007 14:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

Reagan and mindlessness as the paramount value in mainstream entertainment are both SYMPTOMS of (de facto) unregulated capitalism; one didn't cause the other.

how do you explain Forrest Gump?

kenan, Thursday, 23 August 2007 14:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

no, see i get which way they're related - backlash ridden by deregulators rather than deregulators somehow having diktat-like impact on mass culture

gabbneb, Thursday, 23 August 2007 14:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

he doesn't understand forrest gump any better than he understands ferris bueller

gabbneb, Thursday, 23 August 2007 14:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

In what context, kenan? I've never seen Gump and have no desire to.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 23 August 2007 14:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

(but I also find Clinton to be the most Reaganesque of RWR's successors)

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 23 August 2007 14:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

xpost It's psychological horror.

kenan, Thursday, 23 August 2007 14:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yesterday morning it was a perfectly decent thread. Now look at it.

Bob Standard, Thursday, 23 August 2007 15:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

it all comes down to "liberal" gabbneb's cognitive dissonance about his love for an ostensibly conservative film

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 23 August 2007 15:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

<A href=http://www.cinematical.com/2007/08/22/could-a-ferris-bueller-sequel-be-on-the-way/>;Bueller SEQUEL?!?</a>

Oilyrags, Thursday, 23 August 2007 18:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

that was discussed upthread (highly unlikely, to say the least)

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 23 August 2007 18:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

i have less than zero invested in ferris bueller

i just like to point out mormonism

gabbneb, Thursday, 23 August 2007 18:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

i spose i shouldn't waste my time on the easy stuff tho

gabbneb, Thursday, 23 August 2007 18:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

hey there's no mormons in Less Than Zero!

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 23 August 2007 18:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

five years pass...

this thread was insane, just insane

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 10 September 2012 06:05 (five years ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.