Hair of the Dog

[Moeez]

Goes to show, only few people can write good dark comedy movies.

http://files.sharenator.com/bob_goldthwait_Who_would_you_want_to_Narrate_your_life-s181x188-62685-580.jpg
Bobcat Goldthwait (World's Greatest Dad, Shakes the Clown, Sleeping Dogs Lie)

http://www.moviemaker.com/magazine/issues/58/images/Solondz1.jpg
Todd Solonz (all of his films)

 

[Mister Linton]

A person's tolerance has nothing to do with their sexual orientation. Having a sexual preference does not make someone a bigot.

Quite right, but I was only making a point in relation to that movie. Getting especially disgusted by someone's difference is being a bigot, same for enjoying a stupid movie on that topic a bit too much.

Except that the joke was never meant to be at the expense of the transsexual prostitute, that interperetation is simply a bleeding-heart phenomenon caused by straight-white-male guilt. The joke has always been "Those guys got wasted and did a bunch of stuff they really regret, hahaha, losers!". So whether you find that kind of humor funny or not, it is only at the expense of the three main characters, and no one else.

I think some people(Bob)are confusing their own personal biases with the intent of the filmmakers. This whole article is simply Bob trying to justify his gut reaction (which was wrong)after he got called out for it in the comments on the original review. He even went so far as to try and frame the joke using a joke from the first movie in order to perform his moral word contortions.

 

[incal11]

Except that the joke was never meant to be at the expense of the transsexual prostitute, that interperetation is simply a bleeding-heart phenomenon caused by straight-white-male guilt.

Maybe the joke would have been as good, if not better, had the transsexual been portrayed as a more relatable character like the prostitute of the first movie. Of course that may have been a tricky thing to do without becoming preachy. This is just a low-brow bro comedy cash grab follow-up anyway, but still a reflection of the mentality of the intended public.
One can be sympathetic to minorities and excentrics without this coming from a sense of guilt. Even if it does comes from guilt it proves the person is trying to do away with moral bias. Hardly a bad thing, moral guilt is not hypocrisy on the contrary.

 

[jackanderson]

MovieBob: Hair of the Dog

How The Hangover went wrong.

Read Full Article

It's much, much, simpler than that, Bob.

It just plain wasn't funny.

 

[Karma168]

I think bob makes a good point. Comedy shows make use of poking fun at a relatable character (often the main character(s)) but by the sounds of it this movie doesn't do that, it just makes fun of a different culture. Sure a culture shock comedy would be fine if it respected the different culture, Hangover 2 just goes "they're different, lets laugh at that!" this was the kind of thing that old films used to do with black or Asian people, we stopped making those years ago as we decided they were unpalatable. Why is it then ok to make a throwback to this era the #1 in the box office?

 

[iNsAnEHAV0C]

I walked out of this abortion of a movie. Thank god my friend works at the theater and I didn't pay to see it otherwise I would feel like shit if I contributed a single penny to this films earnings. This was just bad. I obviously didn't see the end credits, but I assume that after they are over there is just a picture of a giant middle finger on the screen.

 

[rddj623]

This is exactly why I loved the first movie! It surprised me with it's heart. I had no desire to see the sequel and will not. Sad that it disappointed, I was kinda hoping for another surprise.

 

[Mister Linton]

One can be sympathetic to minorities and excentrics without this coming from a sense of guilt. Even if it does comes from guilt it proves the person is trying to do away with moral bias. Hardly a bad thing, moral guilt is not hypocrisy on the contrary.

This sort of moral outrage is misplaced and misguided. It comes from the personal biases of the one complaining and not from the source they are complaining about.

Moviebob was offended by the scene because HE interpereted his own feelings of "eeeww, that's gross" as an affront by the filmakers against transexuals. From a purely objective perspective, there was no clear intent to belittle anyone other than the 3 main characters and their values/judgement. His lame attempt to explain why he felt "eeww, that's gross" is to point fingers at the movie, it's intended audience, and the movie makers. "The camera angles made me think that way... hurr durr".

His other argument that the 3 main characters aren't relatable and therefore the jokes fall flat is more subjective and probably true for a lot of his audience. That is what he should have focused on all along.

 

[Avistew]

From a purely objective perspective, there was no clear intent to belittle anyone other than the 3 main characters and their values/judgement. His lame attempt to explain why he felt "eeww, that's gross" is to point fingers at the movie, it's intended audience, and the movie makers. "The camera angles made me think that way... hurr durr".

He's movie critic. Trying to figure the filmaker's intentions is probably second nature or something, so I don't find it hard to believe that it's exactly what happened. Not him going "oh, ewww" but him going "WTH, the film makers are trying to make the audience go 'oh, ewww'".

His interpretation is by no means the right one just because he's a critic, hell, different critics have different opinions, but I absolutely believes that he said what he meant, that the filmakers were trying to make the audience feel that way. And I don't think it means he felt that way and then felt guilty about it and blamed the film makers.
Hasn't it happened to you too? You read a book or watch a movie, and realise the author is trying to make a point you find horrible? That absolutely doesn't mean you agree with that point and are inventing the author's goal. Maybe you're misinterpreting it, maybe the author didn't even do it purposely but the message is still there, at any rate, if it shocked you so much it probably means you disagree with it completely. Otherwise you might not even have noticed it.

I found his explanation very informative. The first movie works because it's unexpected and the main characters are the butt of the joke. The joke isn't "eww, he married a hooker" it's "he married a hooker, he had prejudiced expectations about her and was proven wrong, and looks like a dick". In the second one, they removed the second part, so it's "eww, he had sex with a transsexual" and the part about him being a dick isn't shown in the movie. You might think it's implied or obvious, but they just never put it there, and it was their decision not to, and that means the punchline is "he had sex with a transsexual and he's reacting badly to learning about it", and to a lot of people, that's just not funny.

 

[PrinceOfShapeir]

One can be sympathetic to minorities and excentrics without this coming from a sense of guilt. Even if it does comes from guilt it proves the person is trying to do away with moral bias. Hardly a bad thing, moral guilt is not hypocrisy on the contrary.

This sort of moral outrage is misplaced and misguided. It comes from the personal biases of the one complaining and not from the source they are complaining about.

Moviebob was offended by the scene because HE interpereted his own feelings of "eeeww, that's gross" as an affront by the filmakers against transexuals. From a purely objective perspective, there was no clear intent to belittle anyone other than the 3 main characters and their values/judgement. His lame attempt to explain why he felt "eeww, that's gross" is to point fingers at the movie, it's intended audience, and the movie makers. "The camera angles made me think that way... hurr durr".

His other argument that the 3 main characters aren't relatable and therefore the jokes fall flat is more subjective and probably true for a lot of his audience. That is what he should have focused on all along.

So your theory is that Moviebob didn't like the movie because he's a closeted homophobe and this movie made some part of him realize it? Does that logic apply to everyone?

 

[Mister Linton]

He's movie critic. Trying to figure the filmaker's intentions is probably second nature or something, so I don't find it hard to believe that it's exactly what happened. Not him going "oh, ewww" but him going "WTH, the film makers are trying to make the audience go 'oh, ewww'".

His interpretation is by no means the right one just because he's a critic, hell, different critics have different opinions, but I absolutely believes that he said what he meant, that the filmakers were trying to make the audience feel that way. And I don't think it means he felt that way and then felt guilty about it and blamed the film makers.
Hasn't it happened to you too? You read a book or watch a movie, and realise the author is trying to make a point you find horrible? That absolutely doesn't mean you agree with that point and are inventing the author's goal. Maybe you're misinterpreting it, maybe the author didn't even do it purposely but the message is still there, at any rate, if it shocked you so much it probably means you disagree with it completely. Otherwise you might not even have noticed it.

You are right that I am simply making an assumption about how Moviebob came to his conclusion based on my past experience with this kind of bleeding heart outrage. I'll repeat an example I have used before: Everyone who thought the "twins" in Transformers: ROTF were racist stereotypes of African Americans are in fact projecting their own personal racist stereotypes on a pair of ROBOTS.

Similarly, I presume that Bob is projecting his own reaction to this part of the film on others and being outraged for no reason. I may be wrong in how he arrived at his conclusions, but there is still no real agument that his assumptions about the filmakers intent are accurate in any way.

 

[incal11]

I presume that Bob is projecting his own reaction to this part of the film on others and being outraged for no reason. I may be wrong in how he arrived at his conclusions, but there is still no real agument that his assumptions about the filmakers intent are accurate in any way.

You can't project stereotypes on anything, even robots, if it doesn't provide you with the bias first. It's painfully obvious the film makers tried to reach their audience in that way. After all those explanations, what would you consider a real argument ?

 

[Shjade]

The differance here is that the guy apparently got so hammered on booze and possibly other mind altering substances where he actually went to bed with theis transgender without knowing it was a transgender. Nobody is just pointing and saying "that's gross and wrong" to an exagerrated degree just because it's a transgender, but because of the sex and the intoxication.

I can't comment on the specifics of the movie's portrayal of this situation and the attached joke since I haven't seen the movie. I can only speak directly on the themes present.

Given that, working solely on the information provided by people who HAVE seen the movie, it sounds as though in this case the upset isn't caused solely by the content of the joke. Yes, being all freaked out and disgusted by finding out you slept with an [insert unanticipated gender here] while you were hammered is an old and often-told joke at the expense of whomever was so hammered. In this movie it sounds like the freaking out happens more at the expense of the hooker, which isn't funny: having gotten so plastered that you hire a transsexual hooker without realizing it, take part in the services of said hooker, then are mortified by what you've done the morning after is funny because you are a moron. It's not the hooker's fault you're a moron; the joke shouldn't be a the hooker's expense. He/she isn't the one who did anything funny, and simply being transsexual isn't a joke.

Is that more clear? If the movie doesn't really go in that direction, my mistake.

 

[llamaquest101]

I actually liked hangover 2. It's the same characters i enjoyed in the first film in more crazy senarios. It made me laugh anyway and i didn't feel like i wasted my money.

 

[Mister Linton]

assumptions about the filmakers intent are accurate in any way.[/quote]
You can't project stereotypes on anything, even robots, if it doesn't provide you with the bias first. It's painfully obvious the film makers tried to reach their audience in that way. After all those explanations, what would you consider a real argument ?[/quote]

I presume that Bob is projecting his own reaction to this part of the film on others and being outraged for no reason. I may be wrong in how he arrived at his conclusions, but there is still no real agument that his assumptions about the filmakers intent are accurate in any way.

You can't project stereotypes on anything, even robots, if it doesn't provide you with the bias first. It's painfully obvious the film makers tried to reach their audience in that way. After all those explanations, what would you consider a real argument ?

All those explainations amounted to "The hooker in the first one had a heart of gold, this one didn't therefore she was the butt of the joke" and from you: "It's painfully obvious". I'm afraid it will take more than that to constitue a concrete argument.

Also, what bias did the robots in ROTF provide? The way they talk? That stereotype falls squarely on the viewer, not the robots. So, yes, people project their own stereotypes everyday.

 

[Kizi]

I saw this movie last Friday. I can't say I LOVED it, but I certainly laughed, so I got what I paid for. I don't think the film should be shouted down because of this one scene. I admit going all "whaaaaat the hell?" during that particular scene, because it really was unexpected (and personally I think it's gross), which is one of the things I think the director was going for: unexpected. The audience sort of laughed from disgust, but I don't think that's the filmmakers' fault, it simply indicates this particular audience's view on this subject.
That's my take anyway.

 

[kickyourass]

MovieBob: Hair of the Dog

How The Hangover went wrong.

Read Full Article

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.

It's a clear case of the writers not realizing what they had done right, and thus failing to repeat it.

That's exactly the feeling I've been getting from the Hangover 2, I was already about to skip this film entirely, but after reading Bob elaborating, I KNOW I'm going to skip this.