Hair of the Dog
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I have not seen the scene so take that as you may. Bob you seem to be equating accepting a transsexual as a person with finding out you have been raped by one. Yes if someone has sex with you and you are chemically impaired it is rape. I can be friends with transsexual I can be nice to them in the street, that said if I wake up with rectal bleeding and someone told me the hot lady I got drunk with last night wrecked my anus I'm going to freak out.
I can't respect any film that dehumanizes a person just because their different. I have gay friends, lesbien friends and transexual friends and I see them persecuted enough on a day to day basis.
Is there some specific limit to the amount of time Moviebob ia allowed to spend talking on his show? I mean, some Extra Credits episodes have gone for nearly ten minutes before. I highly doubt anyone would mind listening to Moviebob elaborate on his opinions a bit longer (and if you do mind, why are you even watching it in the first place?), as long as he's allowed.
But this wasn't some sort of social thing that just happened, it was something the character had actually paid for if I remember correctly. I'd say that makes the situation a bit different, more like someone paying for a service while intoxicated and the person going along with it for the money. Of course, there's also no way of knowing if the group actually behaved like they were all that out of it either. From what it seemed like in the movie, and...mcnally86 said:
were under the effects of one, maybe two beers, some ADHD medication, and muscle relaxants.
That said, I'll be honest in saying that if I found myself in the same spot as the character, I would freak out as well. I think the movie handled itself badly in the fact that, instead of playing the transsexual to be a person, it never gave any more perspective then the group freaking out. It just seemed to be aimed as an insult towards transsexuals not in the joke itself per say, but the way it was handled in the film. Did it ruin the movie for me? No, but it didn't help it either.
One of the things that bothered me in the movie is just how much Alan seemed to change. He went from lovable man-child who doesn't seem to know any better to a complete ass who really didn't seem to care about anyone else's feelings other then his own. That really bothered me to be honest. It was much funnier when he made mistakes rather then purposefully screwing with people and messing everything up.
The first movie challenges our notions of Vegas. The second revels in our notions of Bangkok. The first movie lets us watch the "Three Stooges" getting beat up for being the three stooges. The second movie asks us to sympathize with them.MovieBob said:
It's a clear case of the writers not realizing what they had done right, and thus failing to repeat it.
Ah see I was under the impression the movie was exactly the same. That seems to be Bob's mantra. That puts it in a slightly different context. Still the "joke" is in the surprise isn't it? I mean I have nothing against them if they are upfront but they are existentially hiding something major about themselves. A popular theme on Law & Order is that some people are gay but can't have sex unless on meth so they can blame it on the drugs. Maybe this is a similar thing? It was the drugs dude totally the drugs you know I'm not like that right?Kapol said:
I'm going to have to agree with others here. Stu had every right to freak out given the situation. And I don't think the movie de-humanized the hooker as much as it simply didn't give her any character development. She was a side character, that's it.
Crimson_Dragoon said:
Bob did not say the reaction in the film was unrealitic, or that Stu shouldn't have reacted that way. He said it wasn't funny. I don't want to see a realistic depiction of events giving someone a nervous breakdown in a comedy film, and if Bob is right then there isn't anything funny about this scene other than 'gross, transexual!'. If thats the caliber of the jokes in the film, it isn't a good comedy film.mcnally86 said:
The joke was in the surprise, but I think the main thing against it was the surprise became the focus of the movie for too long, to the point where it became too much. I mean, under normal circumstances I think that freaking out like that would have been normal, but without giving both sides instead of just the perspective of those who were freaking out, it seemed more like a one-sided attack against transsexuals.mcnally86 said:
The transsexual in question was very upfront about what had happened, and even about being a transsexual. Of course, she seemed to think that he would have remembered, which is one of the reasons I thought that she didn't realize he had been in an altered state of mind. As for Stu, it's never really explained in full WHY he did it when he was drugged up. But after a while it's not really mentioned much other then in passing as a small joke near the end. Hope that clearings things up a bit more.
I do know where you're coming from. Being replaced did make him act even worse, but you could see the behavior even before the new character was shown. The first scene where he came into the movie dealt with him betraying the trust of his 'friends' then acting like there was nothing wrong with it, and then treating his mother like his personal servant. Yes, that also caters to the man-child aspect of the character, but it also makes him seem much more unlikeable in my opinion.cursedseishi said:
As well, I didn't see any of the group really gravitate towards... I can't remember his name, the bride's brother. They actually seemed to use him more often then not at first. I do agree that having the 'new friend' around would make him jealous. Another factor that likely made it even worse was the fact that the kid was supposed to be a genius. Alan, who always thought of himself as "special" (also shown by the sign on his door) likely didn't take too kindly to that. But it wasn't just his actions towards the bride's brother that gave me the impression that he'd turned into more of a spoiled brat character. That's not even getting into the rest of the movie either.
The first movie had him seem more like an innocent dufus that messed up, while the second movie made him seem more like a malicious child who hates not getting his way. That's the way I see it at least.
Yes, I get it, Bob. You don't like that scene about the transexual hooker.
Could you please move on to something else that's wrong with the film? Like how Ken Jeong can go crawl in a hole and never come out?
Could you please move on to something else that's wrong with the film? Like how Ken Jeong can go crawl in a hole and never come out?
This.Harmondale2 said:
And this.Sylocat said:
Well said. ^^
And Bob, if you're reading this - great review and great article. I'm really glad you decided to talk about this - it needed to be said, and you said it well. Thank you.
Am I the only one remembering "ey dude where is my car"?
Because that is the same movie as the Hangover.
These movies have to be formulaic. It is always thee same thing and that's what people want to see.
Of course Hangover was the better one but that's it. The setting does not leave much more approaches open.
Because that is the same movie as the Hangover.
These movies have to be formulaic. It is always thee same thing and that's what people want to see.
Of course Hangover was the better one but that's it. The setting does not leave much more approaches open.
Straight white male outraged at the insensitivity of society toward minority groups expresses his outrage to show how he is different and compassionate; Film at 11