My thoughts exactly.
Hey, if she wants to sue for trademark infringement, I say have at it. The profits from this apparent dog of a film ought to be about fifty bucks.
And so, because there isn’t always respect in the world means people shouldn’t be bothered to strive for it?
Neither of the boys face death because of their conditions in that situation. ALS kills people. It is untreatable. Besides which, you missed the point. Tie that paragraph to the last paragraph. Funny or not, if a comedy about ALS was titled “The Iron Horse” it would come off as disrespectful to Lou Gehrig, who died from ALS and was called the Iron Horse.
**
Fine. Anything can work properly for comedy. The problem isn’t with the content of the film, it’s the title of the film. It’s being called “Bubble Boy” and is about a boy who has no immune system. The phrase became popular because of Vetter, who was called “Bubble Boy” and had no immune system. Are you starting to see now? The mother isn’t complaining about the subject matter being inappropriate for a comedy, just the title in association with that subject matter. She would just rather the title be something less reminiscent of her son. Is that so difficult to understand?
**
Just FTR, I usually agree with this. If we can laugh at something, then it isn’t as threatening or dangerous. Some subjects need to be laughed at.
I’m just surprised the film doesn’t feature Pauly Shore and Tom Green.
Hey, it’s one of those films aimed at teenagers which hopes to make money by making fun of someone teens can preceive as inferior to themselves. Usually this type of film also includes someone clearly retarded and a midget. Does it?
That’s the way Hollywood works. I just hope no one from there noticed Eve’s comment about Matthew Shepard and the submarine Kursk, if they did scriptwriters will be hard at work on a “treatment” for a presentation tomorrow morning. Eve, you’ve got to quit giving them ideas.
It seems to me should would have had a worse time with the episode of Seinfeld. Not only was that man referred to as Bubble Boy, George popped the bubble in the end.
It makes me wonder if people make “moops” jokes when they find out what Mrs. Vetter’s son is famous for.
From the previews I’ve seen its got a midget and also another crappy stereotype common to these films you forgot to mention: an immigrant who mispronounces common English words. Looks to be real laugh riot :rolleyes: . When I first saw the trailer for this I thought, “Hey! Isn’t Pauly Shore’s career dead?” Only to discover he’s not in the movie (too bad, because that would only give me another reason not to go see this waste of film).
Why would you want to?
Wow, that’s some cold, f***ed-up malt liquor…
I’ll remember that if your child gets cancer-I can make fun of their situation, and still have some noble feelings of decency by mouthing a few maudlin sentiments.
(“I kid. I kid cause I love!”)
Man, American humor seems pretty low right now. Whatever happened to Ring Lardner?
If I had the disease myself (and I thank whoever is in charge for my good health) I would find the film and title considerably less offensive than finding out that John Travolta was going to play me in my biography.
“You don’t have much time left”
“uhhhh, when?”
“It is tough to say”
“uhhhh, what?”
“your time on earth, how much you have left”
“Hey, up your nose with a rubber hose doc!”
Crunchy:
I think I understand where you’re coming from. The movie title apparently refers to a particular person (whether or not it is intended to depict that person). In satirizing/ poking fun/ making sophmoric jokes, it disrespects that person, his memory, his family and the hardships they all went through. That seems to be the crux of the Lou Gherig “Iron Horse” example.
Shine, starring Geoffery Rush, depicted mentally ill(?) pianist David Helfgott. There were many very funny moments.
The Madness of King George, starring Nigel Hawthorne as “mad” King George III. He was pretty madcap and zany.
These two examples are probably off topic, but here’s what I’m thinking. These movies depicted actual people with actual terrible afflictions. At times, the depictions of these two men’s illnesses were quite funny. Did this disrespect the memories of David Helfgott and George III? I don’t think so. Were they “poking fun” at these people? Well, not really. (That’s where my analogy breaks down.) But that’s the kind of thing I’m thinking of when I say I believe that a comedy called “Bubble Boy” can be made and not necessarily be disrespectful.
Perhaps the trailers are misrepresenting the tone of the film (not likely, but it wouldn’t be the first time). Perhaps in the movie, the Bubble Boy ends up as a hero, with the adoration of all the townsfolk. Perhaps it’s a piece of derivative shit and I’m talking out of my ass.
But saying that a movie titled “Bubble Boy” is automatically disrespectful of David Vetter and his family simply because of its title is incorrect, in my opinion.
No, but a movie with the title Bubble Boy is automatically associated with David Vetter. I can see how it would be very unsettling, especially since they learned of the movie by seeing a commercial for it.
David Helfgott was involved with Shine. King George III is very much dead, as is anybody with any direct association.
I don’t know, they took a phrase associated with one specific person and turned their affliction into slapstick (look! He was hit by a bus and goes flying! how funny!).
I don’t think it is unreasonable for them to be offended.
Also, it should be pointed out that The Boy in the Plastic Bubble was also made without the Vetter family’s approval or participation. They were more accepting of that one, however, because it was a drama attempting to show the truth of the affliction.
Let’s take another approach. Two examples:
-
A movie called “Bubble Boy”, the wacky adventures of a kid obsessed with chewing gum. No reference to David Vetter, large plastic hamster balls for people or immune defficiency diseases in the film at all.
-
A movie called “Larry’s Adventure in the Great Outdoors” about a kid in a giant plastic bubble, clearly reminiscent of David Vetter’s predicament, but not a biography of him.
Should Vetter’s family be upset by either of these movies?
My last response, since it starting to feel as if you are deliberately being dense about the differences here.
First, Shine and Madness of King George were biographies, not slapstick fiction poking fun at them.
No, those quoted examples above don’t seem to be offensive to the person. Here’s the subtle differences you’re failing to grasp:
In your first example, gum chewing would have no relevance to David Vetter, whereas as calling a film “Bubble Boy” and having the protagonist suffer from an immune deficiency has a direct relevance to Vetter in both title and subject matter.
The second example you site seems to be all the mother is asking for - a different title for the film. I’ll say AGAIN, since you missed the last few time, His mother isn’t complaining about the subject matter of the film, only that title in association with that subject matter.
Actually, I think the movie looks entirely unfunny, and I cannot imagine why on Earth anyone would spend seven bucks and two hours of his life to see it. If history is any indication, that means it will be a blockbuster.
Dr. J
Dense: yes.
Deliberately dense: no. I’m trying to understand your point. Let’s dispel some ignorance, here.
I admitted that those examples were pretty far off the mark.
I didn’t miss it the last few times. I think it’s absurd and I was trying to illustrate that. As I said before, I completely agree that a film can be made that is disrespectful to the Vetter family. I disagree that this is that film. Since nobody has actually seen it yet, I believe that it is premature at best for Mrs Vetter to call for a boycott. Her asking for a title change simply because it refers to her son is ridiculous. She doesn’t own the phrase “Bubble Boy”. If anything, considering the phrase itself sounds vaguely perjorative, I’d thing she’d want to distance herself and her family from it as much as possible. Did she call her son “Bubble Boy” when he was alive?
Title be damned - it’s clearly not intended to be a biography of David Vetter. Do you really think that this silly movie will make a lick of difference to the Vetter family or anybody suffering from this disease? Why should this family even care, unless they want to share in the profits? Even if it depicts the boy as a goat-raping mongloid who eats freshly-killed fetuses for breakfast, so what?
To me it’s the same as when Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” was released, and all the fundies were up in arms about how disrespectful it was. It was slapstick. It was funny. It made fun of Jesus. But so what? Do you honestly believe that anyone left that movie thinking “You know what? That movie was right. Jesus was just a regular guy who died for nothing. I think I’ll become an athiest.”?
Now I’m (finally) seeing your side of the matter a little more clearly. What you’re saying (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that since this is obviously not about her son, she shouldn’t take it so close to heart, especially since the phrase “Bubble Boy” is public domain. That is a valid point, but I still sympathize with the mother on this. You wanted to know what the big deal was, we’ve pointed it out as best we could, but it still doesn’t seem like a big deal to you. That’s your perogative.
**
Just a nitpick, and not at all relevent to the discussion, but this is one of my favorite movies. “Life of Brian” did not make fun of Jesus. Jesus was in only one scene at the very beginning, doing his sermon on the mount. It made fun of the blind following of other people’s ideas about religion. It made fun of religion as an institution and encouraged people to think for themselves.
Uh, people have seen this movie already. The IMDB already has a review up from someone who attended a “sneak preview”. It sounds like it would be a terrible movie under any circumstances, but I find it all the worse as it has brought even more pain to a family that has suffered enough.
Apparently it does make a difference to the Vetter family and people suffering from this disease, or else they would not be speaking out against it.
As Crunchy Frog has already pointed out, The Life of Brian did not mock Jesus. But even if it had, there’s still no comparison. Mrs. Vetter (who, unlike the Blessed Virgin Mary, is still with us here on Earth) lost two children to a horrific disease. I think she has every right to be upset about a lowbrow comedy that uses her son’s tragic situation – and it was truly her son’s situation, as no other child has ever spent his life in a bubble – for cheap laughs. To compare this real woman’s genuine pain to a bunch of uptight fundies is insensitive at best.
Yup, that was my point. But…
You all certainly have a very good point, too.
I’ve always been pretty much a fire-breathing defender of the right of the arts to do basically anything they like (as long as it was legal), regardless of good taste or people’s feelings. I’ll have to think some more about this.
[Hijack]
Yeah, the Life of Brian analogy was pretty weak, too. I’m aware that Brian wasn’t supposed to be Jesus, and I’m also aware of what the Pythons were really poking fun at. I’ve got the film on tape. But I felt that the similarity was close enough to this situation to try to illustrate my point.
[/Hijack]
Not to speak for the other previous posters, but I didn’t hear anyone call for censorship of this tripe. I still think the film makers have every right to put it out and let the public vote with their dollars. Unfortunately we may not get a clear handle on how many stayed away due to the offensive title/premise and how many will avoid it simply because it sucks (if it does;) ).
Viva the First Amendment!
Agreed. But Mrs Vetter calling for a boycott smacks of censorship to me. Someone who may get some benefit out of this movie (ha!) may avoid it after hearing that she and others are offended by it. Not strictly censorship, but the result is the same.
Then Roger Ebert saying “this movie is so bad that your $7 would be petter spent paying for a gallon of paint so you can watch it dry” is censorship.
Someone saying “this movie offends me, if you agree please don’t see it” is not censorship. If she found a judge willing to stop distribution of the film then that would approach censorship (depending on the grounds).
And you are right, davesink, I would want nothing done to prevent Disney making this movie, but then I would want nothing done to prevent me from asking that others not see it.
I think i’ve seen that movie about 500 times. Used to watch it over and over again when I was younger.