There’s a new movie coming out called “Bubble Boy.” I’ve seen only one ad for it so far, and it looks promising (i.e., entertaining to me).
The original “bubble boy,” David Vetter, was born in 1971 and immediately placed inside a protective plastic bubble because his brother had died from a severe immuno deficiency. The media dubbed him “bubble boy,” and David adopted it. He lived in his bubble until he died in 1984.
The mother is not taking legal action but is calling for a boycott as is the Immune Deficiency Foundation. She calls the film hurtful and an insult to her son’s memory. Her main complaint, it seems, is the title of the movie because that name was associated with her son.
I’m not sure what to think about this. I am sympathetic to her pain, but I get irritated whenever I heard about individuals or group saying they were offended by a movie, TV show, joke, character, etc.
I’ve seen commericals for the movie. The movie strikes me as being in very poor taste. How about they make a movie to make fun of Stephen Hawking and that little boy who was attacked by a shark while they’re at it…
From what I’ve been able to gather, the movie isn’t making fun of Vetter. Rather, from the few clips I’ve seen on the previews, the guy’s mother looks like an over-protective germ freak. The guy in the bubble doesn’t look sickly at all, he just looks like a big doofus who’s trying to get his girlfriend back.
It seems a little presumptious to me that people automatically assume this is a film meant to direct scorn and ridicule at someone with a fatal condition who died seventeen years ago. Even moreso since no one’s seen it yet.
Why not? I’d pay to see Stephen Hawking made fun of. My feeling is, if you want to lampoon a particular person, have at it. Does a person’s infirmity or misfortune somehow mean that they can’t be treated like everyone else? If we can pick on Bill Clinton or Calista Flockhart or Prince Charles or the latest Boy Band[sup]TM[/sup], why not Stephen Hawking or that little boy who was attacked by a shark? What makes them out of bounds?
How about something called empathy and human decency. Not to be a stick in the mud, but I personally see a hell of a big difference between lampooning the foibles of a public figure (by choice) and an eight year old boy who is dimembered by a shark. To be honest, I wasn’t all that comfortable with the SNL and Leno jabs at Elian Gonzales either.
Hey, I’m all for empathy and human decency, but I don’t see a conflict here. Leno poking fun at Elian Gonzales doesn’t mean that he doesn’t sympathize with the kid (obviously, I don’t know if he does or not). Hell, I sympathized with Elian Gonzales, just as I sympathize with the kid who was eaten by a shark, and the bubble boy too. They are/were all in shitty situations through no fault of their own. That sucks. But that doesn’t mean I can’t find a satirzation of their situations funny. You can laugh at the joke and still cry for the kid.
Even if this is the case, I doubt it would make Vetter’s mother feel better. I don’t think she, or any other parent of a child afflicted with the disease, would appreciate the suggestion that their kids suffered only from overprotective parents and not a real medical condition.
Well, if my son had died young from a horrible disease I might be a little sensitive about a “comedy” based on that disease as well.
“Well, if my son had died young from a horrible disease I might be a little sensitive about a ‘comedy’ based on that disease as well.”
—Yeah, I agree. If someone came to me with a laff-out-loud slapstick comedy about the murder of Matthew Shepherd or the sinking of the submarine Kursk, I might suggest that they go back to the drawing board, at least till all the relatives and friends had been dead 50 or 75 years.
Geez, if the guy is actually healthy, then it seems to me that the “comedy” (such as it is) is based on the impact that the boy’s neurotic obsession has had on his life. The story is about her attempts to shield him from imagined threats, not about any actual medical condition.
Sure, the movie looks like a piece of shiite, but I would never want to give an inch in this situation… Most humour is based on pain. Should the film “Arsenic & Old Lace” have not been made, in order to spare the feelings of the thousands of people who have lost family members to poisonings?
I think that we’re all forgetting about the true victims here: Those who will be unwittingly dragged to see this movie by their friends or significant others.
Geez, if the guy is actually healthy, then it seems to me that the “comedy” (such as it is) is based on the impact that the boy’s neurotic obsession has had on his life. The story is about her attempts to shield him from imagined threats, not about any actual medical condition.
Sure, the movie looks like a piece of shiite, but I would never want to give an inch in this situation… Most humour is based on pain. Should the film “Arsenic & Old Lace” have not been made, in order to spare the feelings of the thousands of people who have lost family members to poisonings?
According to the mother, her big problem is with the title, Bubble Boy.
That is a phrase indelibly connected to her son, whether the movie is about him or not. As she points out, her son is the only child to have lived in such a bubble from birth to death (and because of research on her son, SCID is now treatable).
She has said explicitly that if they hadn’t called it Bubble Boy, then she wouldn’t be saying anything. She also says that she was very torn about just remaining quiet about it and letting it blow over, but she decided she didn’t want her son turned into a comedy, she wanted him treated with the respect he deserved.
All in all, she sounds very reasonable and I am supporting her call for a boycott (and I don’t think anybody would consider me overly sentimental).
The respect he deserved? What respect is that? Why does he deserve any more respect than anyone else? Because through no fault of his own he was born with a rare and horrible affliction? That, my friends, is what comedy is made of. Why is making fun of his affliction, which was not his fault, disrespecting him?
Ok, I’ve just dug myself into a huge hole, and am about to be buried in shit and fire, so I’ll shut up.
It’s called respecting someone’s feelings as a human being.
**
Yes, because making fun of dibilitating diseases is comedy gold.
I’m looking foward to the first comedy about Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s Disease). Laugh along with our hero as he slowly loses muscular control with hilarious consequences! Featuring a special appearance by Stephen Hawking in a side-splitting cameo!
Now to redirect…
No one is disrespecting the boy by making fun of the disease. The problem is the name of the film. The phrase “Bubble Boy” is tied to Vetter. The film, which is about a boy born with no immune system and named “Bubble Boy” strikes very close to home for a woman who had a son in the same situation and was known as “Bubble Boy.” She is not complaining of the content of the film, just the title.
Take the situation above, a comedy about a man suffering from ALS, and title the film “The Iron Horse” (Lou Gehrig’s nickname). See how this can be seen as insulting to the memory of Lou Gehrig?
Whoever said he deserves more? He deserves just as much respect as anyone else. And courts have ruled that the family inherits a person’s image and namesake… look at the Elvis Empire, fer cryin’ out loud. If her son was the only person to have been commonly referred to as “Bubble Boy”, it can be argued that the name - especially since it’s used in the same fashion for the movie’s sake - should be her property.
Yeah, 'cause we always respect everyone’s feelings as human beings. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Crunchy Frog *
**
Why couldn’t that be funny? It might be funny. I thought the South Park episode in which Timmy and the boy on crutches fought was hilarious. They were depicted as kids with normal, kid-like emotions and responses, despite the fact that they were handicapped (no offense meant by the use of that term). Maybe I’m reading too much into this, but the comedy in my opinion came from the writers lampooning our expectations of what handicapped kids are like and how they act. On the surface, two handicapped kids fighting seems like a terribly shocking and disrespectful thing to depict. But I believe that treated properly, it can work as comedy, and not be disrespectful.
Obviously, it is possible to depict such subject matter shamefully and disrespectfully. The line can easily be crossed. I don’t know where that line is, but I don’t believe that any subject matter is completely out of bounds simply because someone’s feelings may be hurt.