Well, That Wouldn't Work Now: Things From Movies That Are Outdated or No Longer Politically Correct

[die Frau]

On 2/5/2020 at 7:21 PM, anna0852 said:

As an adult, Father of the Bride drives me nuts. 500 plus guests, at $250 a head?! I'd have loved to see George ask Nina which retirement account they were going to drain to pay for it. Or maybe crack the little brother's college fund?

Not to mention physically fitting that many people into their home. How on earth did they not kill their plumbing?

I'm 1000% on George's side about the costs. 

This is a very belated response, but I just saw this today, but I 100% agree! 

[Milburn Stone]

40 minutes ago, die Frau said:

This is a very belated response, but I just saw this today, but I 100% agree! 

Inflation Calculator says that would be $1,343,884.85 today.

[methodwriter85]

On 8/23/2020 at 10:48 AM, Milburn Stone said:

Inflation Calculator says that would be $1,343,884.85 today.

He paid all that for absolutely shit service? Like what did that really buy him if the wedding planners put him in the position where he had to do grunt work to the point he couldn't even do the wedding dance? 

 

 

[scarynikki12]

6 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

Like what did that really buy him if the wedding planners put him in the position where he had to do grunt work to the point he couldn't even do the wedding dance? 

They really should have framed the story with the recognition that Franck was the villain.

[xaxat]

I think you could make a really interesting remake of Father of the Bride that centers around class inequality in the US.  You take a rich family (presumably the bride's) with someone who is not that rich. The wealthy family family has certain expectations, the other just wants a wedding. 

Hi jinks ensue. 

[Milburn Stone]

On 8/27/2020 at 9:22 PM, xaxat said:

I think you could make a really interesting remake of Father of the Bride that centers around class inequality in the US.  You take a rich family (presumably the bride's) with someone who is not that rich. The wealthy family family has certain expectations, the other just wants a wedding. 

Hi jinks ensue. 

Also, both partners--who started their relationship as heterosexuals--have sex change operations, so they're still heterosexual.

[Scarlett45]

On 8/27/2020 at 9:22 PM, xaxat said:

I think you could make a really interesting remake of Father of the Bride that centers around class inequality in the US.  You take a rich family (presumably the bride's) with someone who is not that rich. The wealthy family family has certain expectations, the other just wants a wedding. 

Hi jinks ensue. 

Well in the original Brian’s parents who were wealthy offered to pay! And George’s pride wouldn’t let them which was ridiculous. George should’ve talked to his daughter and set some guidelines. 

[Kel Varnsen]

On 8/27/2020 at 10:22 PM, xaxat said:

I think you could make a really interesting remake of Father of the Bride that centers around class inequality in the US.  You take a rich family (presumably the bride's) with someone who is not that rich. The wealthy family family has certain expectations, the other just wants a wedding. 

Hi jinks ensue. 

Wasn't that the Adam Sandler movie The Week of? Where he was a working class guy and his daughter was marrying Chris Rock's son. Chris Rock was loaded and Sandler was working class but Sandler insisted on paying for the wedding.

[Kel Varnsen]

On 4/3/2017 at 6:42 AM, starri said:

You might get away with Fast Times at Ridgemont High, if a bit toned down (at least the masturbation scene and the abortion)

I watched Fast Times on the weekend and it made me think of this thread. There are a bunch of smaller plot points they would have to change other than the masturbation scene and the abortion. You probably wouldn't have a a 15 year old character having sex with a 26 year old. And if you did have a 15 year old character, even if she was played by an adult she probably wouldn't be topless. You also probably wouldn't have Spicolli dropping homophobic slurs in his daydream.

 

But those are easy enough things to change. The big thing I think is how low key it was for an R rated Teen comedy where it is almost a drama. If they actually made R rated Teen comedies these days it would end up having a lot more crazy over the top hijinks.

Edited July 27, 2021 by Kel Varnsen

[methodwriter85]

I think if you did Fast Times now, it'd either be an inoffensive PG-13 comedy like Let It Snow on Netflix or it would be a dreary, self-important "gritty" tv show like 13 Reasons or Euphoria. (Most ironic title ever.)

 

Edited August 2, 2021 by methodwriter85

[Kel Varnsen]

8 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

I think if you did Fast Times now, it'd either be an inoffensive PG-13 comedy like Let It Snow on Netflix or it would be a dreary, self-important "gritty" tv show like 13 Reasons or Euphoria. (Most ironic title ever.)

 

I can see the dreary self important thing. Stacey's would be dealing with all the trauma from her sex life (what with the statutory rape and the abortion) and Spicolli would probably be the kid with the learning disability that just needed the right teacher to get through to him.

Or it would be some super over the top American Pie/Superbad kind of thing 

 

[methodwriter85]

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I can see the dreary self important thing. Stacey's would be dealing with all the trauma from her sex life (what with the statutory rape and the abortion) and Spicolli would probably be the kid with the learning disability that just needed the right teacher to get through to him.

Or it would be some super over the top American Pie/Superbad kind of thing 

 

Fast Times had this wonderful middle ground, low-key approach to everything which you just wouldn't see now. It was funny and dramatic and most importantly, very real. Like no matter what high school you went to, you knew people who were like those characters. You don't really see that anymore- American teen oriented material is either really inoffensive (I will never watch the Fame reboot that imagined it as a PG-rated Disney comedy) or it's Trying To Make A Statement About the Trauma Of Adolescence, such as Euphoria being a dreary drama about a mentally ill teenaged girl who narrates her life in a bored monotone and she somehow won an Emmy for it.

It also didn't fit into what studios were making movies about most recently, which was either about teenagers who were dying of cancer/cystic fibrosis or fighting against their dystopian society. Feel-good high school R-rated comedies with an understated approach and a healthy dose of heartfelt drama just do not get made now.

Edited August 3, 2021 by methodwriter85

[blackwing]

I watched Murder by Death, which is from 1976.  It's about a group of famous detectives who are called to a creepy house for a dinner and murder party.  There will be a murder and whoever solves it will collect $1 million.

Each of the characters is loosely based on famous fictional detectives - Hercule Poirot, Miss Marple, Nick and Nora Charles, Charlie Chan and Sam Spade.

The Charlie Chan character is played by Peter Sellers and is just all around terribly racist.  He speaks in accented broken English, and the other characters make fun of how bad his English is.

I know this is a comedy and is played for laughs, but having a white actor play an Asian character, spouting Chinese philosophy, and embody the negative stereotypes of Asian people speaking English... just would never happen today.  All of the characters in this movie are caricatures, but the racial element with respect to the Charlie Chan character is too much.  Did people not think this was racist back in 1976?

Which made me think about one of my all time favourite movies, Clue, which must have been at least partly inspired by "Murder by Death".  At one point, Mr. Green gets up and says that his secret is that "I am a homosexual.  I feel no shame."  The other characters cringe and shy away from him.  Mrs. Peacock even says "oh how disgusting".  He comes across as very effete and effeminate and skittish throughout the movie.  But in one version of the endings, it is revealed that he is in fact straight and that was just a cover story.  He actually changes his voice to what is presumed to be his normal voice.

The movie was set in the 1950s so I think it was meant to imply that times were tough then.  But if this movie were made today I don't think they would take this approach with the Mr. Green character.

 

[Shannon L.]

I came across Doc Hollywood on tv the other night. As much as I love the movie, the bet between Ben and the mayor about Ben being able to seduce Lou is really creepy and probably wouldn't be part of the movie if it were made today.

[giovannif7]

5 hours ago, blackwing said:

I watched Murder by Death, which is from 1976.  It's about a group of famous detectives who are called to a creepy house for a dinner and murder party.  There will be a murder and whoever solves it will collect $1 million.

Each of the characters is loosely based on famous fictional detectives - Hercule Poirot, Miss Marple, Nick and Nora Charles, Charlie Chan and Sam Spade.

The Charlie Chan character is played by Peter Sellers and is just all around terribly racist.  He speaks in accented broken English, and the other characters make fun of how bad his English is.

I know this is a comedy and is played for laughs, but having a white actor play an Asian character, spouting Chinese philosophy, and embody the negative stereotypes of Asian people speaking English... just would never happen today.  All of the characters in this movie are caricatures, but the racial element with respect to the Charlie Chan character is too much.  Did people not think this was racist back in 1976?

Which made me think about one of my all time favourite movies, Clue, which must have been at least partly inspired by "Murder by Death".  At one point, Mr. Green gets up and says that his secret is that "I am a homosexual.  I feel no shame."  The other characters cringe and shy away from him.  Mrs. Peacock even says "oh how disgusting".  He comes across as very effete and effeminate and skittish throughout the movie.  But in one version of the endings, it is revealed that he is in fact straight and that was just a cover story.  He actually changes his voice to what is presumed to be his normal voice.

The movie was set in the 1950s so I think it was meant to imply that times were tough then.  But if this movie were made today I don't think they would take this approach with the Mr. Green character.

 

As I am white, I won't claim to speak with any authority regarding the racism in the portrayal of the Charlie Chan character in Murder By Death. I do remember being very uncomfortable with it as I watched the movie, but it felt to me that the Murder By Death version of Chan was, at least in part, a parody that spoke against how badly and stereotypically the character was often portrayed in earlier American films from the 1930s and 1940s. As far as I remember, it's sadly very true that the racism of hiring white actors to portray Chan was never really addressed in any serious way - not regarding Sellers in Murder By Death nor any of the American Chan films starring Warner Oland, Sidney Toller, Roland Winters, and later Ross Martin and Peter Ustinov.

As a gay man, I can speak to the homophobic elements of Clue. Unfortunately, in 80s film comedies (especially those aimed at teens), heteronormativity ruled. Shunning, derision and verbal/physical attacks against gay characters was routine, and often celebrated by straight characters. Varying degrees of homophobic taunts are blatant in some of the biggest teen-targeting films from the 80s including Teen Wolf, Weird Science, The Breakfast Club, Sixteen Candles, Adventures In Babysitting, Police Academy and Crocodile Dundee - while positive representation of the LGBTQIA+ community in mainstream movies was all but impossible to find. So while the vitriol aimed at Mr. Green's perceived "gayness" may on the surface seem to be more a throwback to the 50s setting, that homophobic attitude from the other Clue characters sadly fits right in to that 80s genre.

The only type of same-sex activity in films that was acceptable in that era was the inclusion of a scene with two 'hot' women making out or getting physical with each other - and that was only when it was shot from a "straight male gaze" perspective, allowing the hetero guy to watch and hope/fantasize that he could join the two women and turn it into a threeway centered around him. Actual lesbians with no interest in a man horning into their lovemaking were just as reviled as gay men at the time.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

11 hours ago, blackwing said:

Which made me think about one of my all time favourite movies, Clue, which must have been at least partly inspired by "Murder by Death".  At one point, Mr. Green gets up and says that his secret is that "I am a homosexual.  I feel no shame."  The other characters cringe and shy away from him.  Mrs. Peacock even says "oh how disgusting".  He comes across as very effete and effeminate and skittish throughout the movie.  But in one version of the endings, it is revealed that he is in fact straight and that was just a cover story.  He actually changes his voice to what is presumed to be his normal voice.

One minor nitpick, because Clue is also one of my favorites. Mrs. Peacock never said that Mr. Green being a homosexual was disgusting, she said Professor Plum was disgusting for having sex with one of his female patients. I would think that would be a point in the movie's favor, that she responds with open distaste to the situation, even secondhand.

[Bastet]

13 hours ago, blackwing said:

The Charlie Chan character is played by Peter Sellers and is just all around terribly racist.  He speaks in accented broken English, and the other characters make fun of how bad his English is.

The various portrayals (by white men) of Charlie Chan were indeed horribly racist, and this was a parody of them - an exaggerated version of an already ridiculous character, made even more broad to show how simplistic and repetitive the original character was.  But in the same way all the others were parodied; there was never an acknowledgement of the racism on top of the broad storytelling all the other originals were subjected to by unimaginative writers.

[Spartan Girl]

As hilarious as the Clouseau vs Cato fights in the original Pink Panther movies, the whole character of Cato wouldn’t work today. Nor would the racist ways Clouseau would refer to him.

Edited August 6, 2021 by Spartan Girl

[Lugal]

I can't speak directly about the homophobia in Clue, but note that it was set in the 1950s during the Lavender Scare.  Mr. Green said he's lose his job for security grounds if he was outed.  Homosexuality was considered a security risk and J. Edgar Hoover launched the Sex Deviates Program in 1951 to investigate gay people.  Ironically, any individuals mentioned in the program reports were to be underlined in green pencil.

But Wadsworth also mentioned that his wife had friends who were "socialists" and everyone reacted nearly the same way to Mr. Green's revelations.  The Red Scare and the Lavender Scare were intertwined.

[Bastet]

Yeah, Clue presents their (the characters, the U.S. government, society at large) fear of communism and homosexuality as ridiculous (there's a ton of delicious social commentary in that silly movie), but does a far better job skewering the red than the lavender scare.

[magicdog]

On 8/5/2021 at 2:47 PM, giovannif7 said:

The only type of same-sex activity in films that was acceptable in that era was the inclusion of a scene with two 'hot' women making out or getting physical with each other

IIRC, towards the end of the Madonna film, "Who's That Girl?", the two cops who were tailing the characters regarding a stolen maguffin, suddenly embraced each other and started kissing.  It came out of nowhere and I remember the audience being quite shocked by it.

Edited August 10, 2021 by magicdog

[Blergh]

On 8/10/2021 at 1:17 PM, magicdog said:

IIRC, towards the end of the Madonna film, "Who's That Girl?", the two cops who were tailing the characters regarding a stolen maguffin, suddenly embraced each other and started kissing.  It came out of nowhere and I remember the audience being quite shocked by it.

Not to mention in The Blues Brothers (1980) having one male NAZI tell his compatriot that he loved him when they were about to die! I mean, these characters thus far had been bestowed ZERO   redeeming features  so it seemed that for the one to tell the other that he was attracted to him just seemed to attempt to show how worthless and subhuman they were instead of it being a case of showing that one adult could love another even in an unconventional way!  Even the Rancor's keeper mourning the beast Luke killed in self-defense in Return of the Jedi(1983) seemed more sympathetic- despite loving something that wasn't even the same species! 

Edited August 15, 2021 by Blergh

[Shannon L.]

On 8/5/2021 at 2:47 PM, giovannif7 said:

The only type of same-sex activity in films that was acceptable in that era was the inclusion of a scene with two 'hot' women making out or getting physical with each other - and that was only when it was shot from a "straight male gaze" perspective, allowing the hetero guy to watch and hope/fantasize that he could join the two women and turn it into a threeway centered around him. Actual lesbians with no interest in a man horning into their lovemaking were just as reviled as gay men at the time.

It's for this reason that I still have a hard time with love scenes between two women.  I'm an LGTBQ ally, so it's not that it bothers me in general, but simply because it was used as a man's fantasy (whether that man was on the screen or in the audience) for so long that it's hard to believe that they are written in for any other reason. I'm more pleased at there being more acceptance of love scenes between men now.  It's about time.

[methodwriter85]

On 8/14/2021 at 12:08 PM, Shannon L. said:

It's for this reason that I still have a hard time with love scenes between two women.  I'm an LGTBQ ally, so it's not that it bothers me in general, but simply because it was used as a man's fantasy (whether that man was on the screen or in the audience) for so long that it's hard to believe that they are written in for any other reason. I'm more pleased at there being more acceptance of love scenes between men now.  

This was so damn obvious in Cruel Intentions. We get a long makeout scene between the two girls but the two gay male characters we don't see zip but a hint that Joshua Jackson and Eric Mabius were el fragante. The "lesbian kiss" was so central to the advertising of the movie but but they neutered the gay males. Because the queer kiss scene was meant as nothing but sexual titillation for men.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

1 hour ago, methodwriter85 said:

This was so damn obvious in Cruel Intentions. We get a long makeout scene between the two girls but the two gay male characters we don't see zip but a hint that Joshua Jackson and Eric Mabius were el fragante. The "lesbian kiss" was so central to the advertising of the movie but but they neutered the gay males. Because the queer kiss scene was meant as nothing but sexual titillation for men.

Except anything can be fetishized. I've seen this a lot in various fandoms over the years, and it usually revolves around the male/male pairings. It also usually negatively affects the female characters, who either get shunted to the side or vilified to the point that they might as well be the villain to begin with. When I'm feeling generous, I can see it as a legitimate desire for equality or more representation, but mostly it just sounds like 'girls are yucky.'

[methodwriter85]

9 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Except anything can be fetishized. I've seen this a lot in various fandoms over the years, and it usually revolves around the male/male pairings. It also usually negatively affects the female characters, who either get shunted to the side or vilified to the point that they might as well be the villain to begin with. When I'm feeling generous, I can see it as a legitimate desire for equality or more representation, but mostly it just sounds like 'girls are yucky.'

True. The Roswell reboot felt like a long yaoi fic between Alex and Michael.

[Kel Varnsen]

I was in the mood for some silly comedy this week so I ended up watching Old School and Eurotrip over the last few nights and I can't see these types of crazy R rated movies being made anymore. Old school because those Vince Vaughn and a Wilson brother tyoe movies were totally a product of their time. And Eurotrip because there was a lot of stereotype stuff that people would be offended by and because the R rated hight school sex comedy full of nobody actors doesn't really get made either.

That said I am surprised that Netflix hasn't tried to revive the R rated comedy. They already make a bunch of horror stuff, lower budget style action movies and date night style rom coms. Why are they not just getting a bunch of CW grade actors who work for cheap and make some R rated high school/coll he sex comedies. It is not like those movies cost a lot. 

Also on a side not I can't believe that Todd Phillips made three Hangover movies and by comparison Old School, which is way funnier, is kind of forgotten.

[Spartan Girl]

The Thief and the Cobbler aka Arabian Knight wouldn’t be made today because despite the good things it had going for it animation-wise, there is no way in hell you could have Middle Eastern characters with names like ZigZag and Princess Yum-Yum. I mean…REALLY?!

[starri]

I don't know why I've been thinking about Scream so much recently, apart from it being one of my favorite movies (not horror, movies period).  It's actually a movie that I think has aged incredibly well, with the glaring exception of the all-white cast--which was called out immediately in the actual text of Scream 2, so I can give it a pass.  

The gender issues are mostly good:  all of the women, Casey and Tatum included, fight like hell.  Gale, who is a character we should hate, we end up rooting for.  But the big gender issue surrounds Sidney's virginity.  Now, I do ultimately think she has agency over her sexuality, and the movie does squarely put its middle finger to morality tales of the early slashers.  

The problem that I have is how her ambivalence towards sex is treated.  Billy comes over early in the movie, agrees to respect her boundaries, immediately violates said boundaries, and is rewarded anyway when she flashes him.  And she's told multiple times that her not wanting to sleep with Billy is a problem.  Coming from Billy, well, it's utterly gaslighting, which makes how Sidney processes it understandable, but she hears it from Tatum too.  And her mom is constantly slut-shamed, also including by Tatum, although she at least does it gently.  I think the movie ultimately says that there's nothing wrong with Sidney having sex, but the way it gets there bothers me, if only a little.

[Bastet]

51 minutes ago, starri said:

And she's told multiple times that her not wanting to sleep with Billy is a problem.  Coming from Billy, well, it's utterly gaslighting, which makes how Sidney processes it understandable, but she hears it from Tatum too. 

Tatum is great in the grocery store scene, though.  Sidney says Billy is right, whenever he touches her she just can't relax, and Tatum says, "So you have a few intimacy issues as a result of your mother's untimely death. That's no big deal, Sid; you'll thaw out."

When Sidney goes on to say he's been so patient with her - "How many guys would put up with a girlfriend who's sexually anorexic?" - Tatum assures her, "Billy and his penis don't deserve you, alright."

[starri]

It's the "you'll thaw out" that's just a tiny fly in the ointment there.  Not a deal breaker, but it does stick out.  Tatum is a generally great character, there are just a few things that don't go over as well as they might.

I do think you could make the argument that Sidney having sex actually makes her more powerful in the end.  She makes what looks like a reasonable choice and trusts him, and then has her trust violated.  She cowers a bit over the decision, but then gets wicked pissed and runs him through, first with an umbrella and then with her finger.  The only thing that would have been better was that, in the final jump scare, she'd shot him in a different location than his head.

[Bastet]

Oh, that doesn't bother me, because I don't take it as her referencing being "frigid".  Sidney wants to want to have sex with him, but something happens, she freezes up (see, the imagery can be there despite a deliberate rejection of the word), and doesn't want to.  To me, Tatum is saying there's nothing wrong with Sidney that she reacts that way; it's something that's happening right now while she's still processing severe emotional trauma, but some day it won't, and Billy and his dick can just deal until that happens or get lost -- Sidney will be ready when she's ready.

Edited August 22, 2021 by Bastet

[methodwriter85]

I always took that whole plot in Scream to be that something deep inside Sydney knew that something wasn't right with Billy, but she chose not to listen to her instincts and trust him enough to have sex. This was the whole era of the 80's and 90's when self-defense classes were being pushed, and women were being told to listen to their instincts about predators. Of course I had read "The Gift of Fear" before watching Scream on tape. It was never about Syd being "frigid" but about some deep part of her brain that recognized Billy as a predator and therefore told her to get into "flight" around him.

Edited August 27, 2021 by methodwriter85

[Danny Franks]

On 8/15/2021 at 10:46 PM, methodwriter85 said:

This was so damn obvious in Cruel Intentions. We get a long makeout scene between the two girls but the two gay male characters we don't see zip but a hint that Joshua Jackson and Eric Mabius were el fragante. The "lesbian kiss" was so central to the advertising of the movie but but they neutered the gay males. Because the queer kiss scene was meant as nothing but sexual titillation for men.

I mean, the intended audience for that movie was guys who wanted to see Buffy being naughty (and I won't pretend that wasn't the main attraction for my teen self as well), so it's not like the whole thing wasn't a cynical attempt to grab attention and cash.

It was a bunch of pretty young people being very sexual without actually having any sex scenes or nudity. The 'highlights' were that kiss and the quasi-incest discussion between SMG and Ryan Phillippe, and I don't remember much else, despite knowing the storyline of Dangerous Liaisons pretty well.

On 8/17/2021 at 2:37 PM, Kel Varnsen said:

That said I am surprised that Netflix hasn't tried to revive the R rated comedy. They already make a bunch of horror stuff, lower budget style action movies and date night style rom coms. Why are they not just getting a bunch of CW grade actors who work for cheap and make some R rated high school/coll he sex comedies. It is not like those movies cost a lot. 

It's definitely a subgenre that Netflix could easily jump onto, though I don't know how profitable it would be (or how the profitability of anything on Netflix is actually calculated). But I imagine the big hang up they might have is figuring how to do it without being "called out by the woke brigade" or whatever they say when being crass and tasteless is called out.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

6 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

But I imagine the big hang up they might have is figuring how to do it without being "called out by the woke brigade" or whatever they say when being crass and tasteless is called out.

Maybe, I mean there are more than a few things in Eurotrip that people would be upset about.

Although Netflix has what seems like a pretty lucrative relationship with Adam Sandler so they seem to be ok with lowbrow stuff (although that is kind of an assumption since the only Netflix/Sandler movies I have seen are Uncut Gems and the one where his daughter marries Chris Rock's son). So it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to go from a Sandler movie to an American Pie style comedy.

[xaxat]

I really wonder how the next generation of Bond movies will play out. This is a world where damn near every adult carries a camera at all times, a ton of cities have surveilance cameras combined with facial recognition, people can be identified by their DNA because their relatives signed up for Ancestry DNA or 23 And Me.

Anonymity is pretty much gone.

[magicdog]

On 10/28/2021 at 7:01 PM, xaxat said:

I really wonder how the next generation of Bond movies will play out. This is a world where damn near every adult carries a camera at all times, a ton of cities have surveilance cameras combined with facial recognition, people can be identified by their DNA because their relatives signed up for Ancestry DNA or 23 And Me.

Anonymity is pretty much gone.

Maybe it would be better to have it set in the 60s again.  You can have all the fun, cool fashions and all the un-PC fun of the older films without the modern issues.  The Man From Uncle film was pretty good at nailing the era.

[Milburn Stone]

If the next Bond is set in the present, the arch-villain will be somebody who believes gender is biological.

[Kel Varnsen]

On 10/28/2021 at 10:01 PM, xaxat said:

I really wonder how the next generation of Bond movies will play out. This is a world where damn near every adult carries a camera at all times, a ton of cities have surveilance cameras combined with facial recognition, people can be identified by their DNA because their relatives signed up for Ancestry DNA or 23 And Me.

Anonymity is pretty much gone.

Has Bond ever relied on anonymity? The only things I can think of are his cover job working as an exporter and his very unfortunate disguise in You Only Live Twice. But other than that he seems to always introduce himself using his real name and rarely uses a disguise. Even in Casino Royale at the end of the parkour scene he gets caught on camera shooting a guy so it's not like cameras are something new.

[kiddo82]

You Couldn't Make The Devil Wears Prada Today

I mean, isn't the movie supposed to be a satire of that environment in the first place?  I don't see it as glorifying that culture at all.  The Mirandas and the Emilys, to me, are either shit people or just plain ridiculous, and not to be emulated.  Entertaining, yes, but both things can be true.  (and come on, if you can't find the dark humor at the dismissive and almost irritated way that Emily Blunt says that the former assistant "sliced her hand open with a letter opener" as she rolls her eyes then I don't think we'd be very compatible friends.)

I could go on but the biggest issue I have with the article is the cerulean scene.  It's probably my favorite in the movie.  Meryl Streep delivering that dialogue while doing all her Miranda business and all in character is a master class.  Now, far be it for me to refute Ms. Streep, but I don't think this scene serves to make Miranda empathetic.  What I think it does do, however, is it holds a mirror up to the audience.  We are all complicit and are influenced by those people in that room whether we even know it or not.  That is a sobering thought for me in my Old Navy jeans (Gap if I'm being really fancy) who, like Andy, thinks she is above the frivolous world of the high fashion industry.  So instead of me liking Miranda more, it makes me challenge myself more.  Acknowledging that Miranda has a point isn't endorsing the way she treats people and her overall shittiness.  Again, both things are allowed to be true. 

Are we seriously going back to the Hays code with some of these retro criticisms?

Edited November 24, 2021 by kiddo82

[Milburn Stone]

6 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

Are we seriously going back to the Hays code with some of these retro criticisms?

Sometimes a clickbait is just a clickbait.

[methodwriter85]

9 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

Sometimes a clickbait is just a clickbait.

Yeah, but it's having real life effects on entertainment. The Gossip Girl reboot is so deathly afraid of criticism that it wrote the series like the Supportive Women SNL sketch.

[Milburn Stone]

15 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

Yeah, but it's having real life effects on entertainment. The Gossip Girl reboot is so deathly afraid of criticism that it wrote the series like the Supportive Women SNL sketch.

I share your dislike for overly "orthodox" entertainment, but part of me has an abiding faith that people in the end will reject After School Specials in favor of programming they actually enjoy.

[magicdog]

Quote

 

You Couldn't Make The Devil Wears Prada Today

I mean, isn't the movie supposed to be a satire of that environment in the first place?  I don't see it as glorifying that culture at all.  The Mirandas and the Emilys, to me, are either shit people or just plain ridiculous, and not to be emulated.  Entertaining, yes, but both things can be true.  (and come on, if you can't find the dark humor at the dismissive and almost irritated way that Emily Blunt says that the former assistant "sliced her hand open with a letter opener" as she rolls her eyes then I don't think we'd be very compatible friends.)

I could go on but the biggest issue I have with the article is the cerulean scene.  It's probably my favorite in the movie.  Meryl Streep delivering that dialogue while doing all her Miranda business and all in character is a master class.  Now, far be it for me to refute Ms. Streep, but I don't think this scene serves to make Miranda empathetic.  What I think it does do, however, is it holds a mirror up to the audience.  We are all complicit and are influenced by those people in that room whether we even know it or not.  That is a sobering thought for me in my Old Navy jeans (Gap if I'm being really fancy) who, like Andy, thinks she is above the frivolous world of the high fashion industry.  So instead of me liking Miranda more, it makes me challenge myself more.  Acknowledging that Miranda has a point isn't endorsing the way she treats people and her overall shittiness.  Again, both things are allowed to be true. 

Are we seriously going back to the Hays code with some of these retro criticisms?

 

I don't think it's an issue anywhere close to the Hays Code at all!  I see no reason TDWP couldn't be made now.  I do think Andi's friends and boyfriend were jerks and she should have dumped them, but other than that, you're correct in that neither Miranda nor Emily are worthy of emulating (although plenty of people do, thinking this is the way to get ahead).  However both at the end of the film do get slight bits of respect:  Miranda for giving Andi what she wanted (the golden ticket after working for a year as the assistant) and Emily for saying at the end that she respected Andi during her time there and the replacement would have big shoes to fill.

What I find a bit disturbing are these films that glorify villains from past works (Cruella, Maleficent, et al) and make them into heroes!  I'm not saying villains can't be interesting or have motives as to what lead them to do what they do, but there's a difference between that and retelling the story as if they were wronged!

When I think of the Hays Code (aka The Breen Code) I think of trying to entertain audiences without offending decency standards of an earlier society.  Sure, many movies I have enjoyed over the years would have never been made (or heavily reworked) if the Code were still in use, but there is a trade off considering films (and TV for that matter) being made today.

[angora]

On 11/25/2021 at 11:13 AM, Milburn Stone said:

I share your dislike for overly "orthodox" entertainment, but part of me has an abiding faith that people in the end will reject After School Specials in favor of programming they actually enjoy.

It’s a TV show, not a movie, but IMHO, Everything Will Be Fine (on Netflix) is one of the best “woke” shows out there. The main adult characters move in progressive social circles in Mexico City (she’s a feminist artist moving into more commercial fare, he’s on a radio show that includes discussion of current events/politics,) and they subscribe to all sorts of liberal ideologies, but I don’t think the show ever feels like it’s preaching. Namely, because the characters are messy as hell and often have crappy, inconsistent follow-through on their own ideals. They’re just trying to figure life out and often failing, sometimes rather spectacularly. Rather than “tackling issues,” the show threads in stuff like sexual harassment, classism, polyamory, climate consciousness, feminism, and others in a way that feels organic, not preachy.

[JustHereForFood]

4 hours ago, magicdog said:

What I find a bit disturbing are these films that glorify villains from past works (Cruella, Maleficent, et al) and make them into heroes!  I'm not saying villains can't be interesting or have motives as to what lead them to do what they do, but there's a difference between that and retelling the story as if they were wronged!

I agree with this. It worked with Wicked, but there's no need to apply it to every story.

[proserpina65]

On 11/27/2021 at 7:04 PM, JustHereForFood said:

I agree with this. It worked with Wicked, but there's no need to apply it to every story.

I don't think it actually worked with Wicked.

[methodwriter85]

The issue with making the Devil Wears Prada is that it's just increasingly unbelievable that anyone would work at a print magazine company. Although I guess they could change it to an online mag? 

[scarynikki12]

I haven't seen the movie but have watched the scene and did Miranda ever answer Andie's question about the difference between the belts? I know the focus is on how Andie's behavior insulted Miranda and led to the subsequent explanation of how the sweater she was currently wearing was only because the fashion industry are puppet masters who secretly control the purchase choices of the general public (whether it's her favorite color, something she could afford, or she just needed a new sweater and this was the first option she saw at the store apparently doesn't matter). But I want to know why the first belt wasn't acceptable! I suspect it's just an arbitrary choice and the puppet master response was meant to divert attention from the fact that Andie, despite her scoffing, had a point.

[xaxat]

On 12/1/2021 at 11:05 PM, methodwriter85 said:

The issue with making the Devil Wears Prada is that it's just increasingly unbelievable that anyone would work at a print magazine company. Although I guess they could change it to an online mag? 

It's still a real thing. From earlier this year.

Bon Appetit Implosion Inspires HBO Max Comedy Series (Exclusive)

Quote

Walker-Hartshorn, meanwhile, revealed to Business Insider that she was paid a base salary of $35,300 with no increases for nearly three years, and that when she asked Rapoport for a raise, he told her, “Well, maybe you should consider that this is not the right job for you.” While in the role, she had to clean Rapoport’s golf clubs, fetch his son’s passport and teach his wife how to use Google Calendar. “He treats me like the help,” she said at the time.

Not a remake, but a similar situation from real life.