# Resolved(?) - Chick Flicks vs. Guy Flicks **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 9, 2002, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-chick-flicks-vs-guy-flicks/141519 "2002-12-09T14:58:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![NDP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ndp/32/55_2.png) [@NDP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NDP)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-chick-flicks-vs-guy-flicks/141519/21 "2002-12-09T19:27:32Z")
Good topic. It immediately got me thinking about which films could fall under each category. > [@](#): > > Both Chick Flicks and Guy Flicks are films that simplify characters and plots - there are Good Guys and Bad Guys and the plot revolves around Achieving a Goal. But with a Guy Flick, the goal is about achieving something, whereas with a Chick Flick, the goal is about winning someone. This is an obvious over-simplification - in Guy Flicks, the hero gets a lover or final victory over childhood pain as icing on the cake quite often; and in Chick Flicks, the hero often achieves material success as well as falling in love, making peace with friends or parents, etc…but you get the idea. I think your definition of a “Guy Flick” is interesting. (Although for both definitions I would add “trying to win something or someone” because sometimes the efforts are not successful.) The following classic Guy Flicks would certainly be covered by it: –_The Great Escape_: the “something” is trying to break out of a German POW camp; –_The Searchers_: the “something” is trying to find Natalie Wood’s character; –_The Dirty Dozen_: the “something” is trying to blow up Nazis; –_Lawrence of Arabia_: a “thinking man’s Guy Flick,” the “something” is T.E. Lawrence’s attempt to enlist the support of Arab tribes to fight against the Turks; –any Sam Peckinpah movie: always involve the winning of “something”–usually through violent means. However, where does a movie like _High Fidelity_ fit in? The plot centers around a record store and the main male characters concentrate on such “guy” things as the obsessive rating, organization, and constant recategorization of popular music. However, this is also movie about relationships (i.e., winning someone). Thus, it seems to be a Guy Flick/Chick Flick hybrid. Also, Chick Flicks are more easily sub-categorized than Guy Flicks. There are mainstream Hollywood Chick Flicks like \*Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya Sisterhood or any movie starring Julia Roberts and “independent” Chick Flicks (which, to distinguish from more male-oriented fare like _Pulp Fiction_, I’ll call “Boutique Films”) like _The Piano_ or most Merchant-Ivory films. In the latter sub-category, the stories-while definitely female-oriented-are considerably more complicated and the exact “someone” that is trying to be won is obscure (or even non-existent). > [@](#): > > May I add another pair for consideration? “Family Film” vs. “Kiddie Film.” > > A Family Film will have happy feelings as well as “bad stuff” and enough of a range of humor for both children to enjoy and adults to find amusing. > > A Kiddie Film is an agonizing exercise for any adult to try to sit though. “Rugrats” etc. come to mind. This could also apply to TV shows as well. _Bullwinkle_ would fall under the first category while _Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood_ and most Hanna-Barbara Saturday-morning fare would be in the second category. ---
**Author:** ![lauramarlane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a5b964/32.png) [@lauramarlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lauramarlane)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-chick-flicks-vs-guy-flicks/141519/22 "2002-12-09T19:27:59Z")
Maybe we should define a separate category for movies like Tankgirl and that horrible Pamela Anderson flick(whatever it was titled)–I’m thinking “Crap” but if anyone else has any suggestions, jump in! ---
**Author:** ![Badtz\_Maru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e36b37/32.png) [@Badtz\_Maru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Badtz_Maru)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-chick-flicks-vs-guy-flicks/141519/23 "2002-12-09T20:29:05Z")
Someone said once that High Fidelity was a chick-flick for men - I can’t remember who said it, though, just something I heard on TV at one point or another. I really related to the movie, but most men I know do. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-chick-flicks-vs-guy-flicks/141519/24 "2002-12-09T20:29:59Z")
> [@](#): > > and that horrible Pamela Anderson flick(whatever it was titled) Barb Wire. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-chick-flicks-vs-guy-flicks/141519/25 "2002-12-09T20:32:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by NDP \* > \*\*However, where does a movie like _High Fidelity_ fit in? The plot centers around a record store and the main male characters concentrate on such “guy” things as the obsessive rating, organization, and constant recategorization of popular music. However, this is also movie about relationships (i.e., winning someone). Thus, it seems to be a Guy Flick/Chick Flick hybrid. > > \*\* Liked your whole post, **NDP** - made sense. It’s funny that you should bring up High Fidelity - for some reason I had forgotten to mention Nick Hornby’s books - About a Boy certainly fits with High Fidelity. When I describe either of those books and the films, too, to people who haven’t seen/read them, I tend to call them “Chick books/films for Guys” - by that I mean, they are Chick-y in their ultimate focus on emotional fulfillment/winning someone more than something, but they are so accurately set within a Guy’s _milieau_ (pardon my French) that even guys who don’t normally like Chick Flicks like them - “hey, that’s me up there - I am always making lists like that”, etc… As for the Boutique Chick Flicks, I agree - Merchant/Ivory films, The Piano, etc. are far more complex than mainstream Chick Flicks, but at their heart they are about relationships, emotional fulfillment and winning someone more than something… And **lauramarlane** - I hear ya about Tankgirl and Barb Wire - I’ll go one step further - where do we put that old SDMB (and personal) favorite, _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ - action? honor? blowing stuff up? Check. Emotional fulfillment, romance, getting relationships right? Check. I think that Buffy is as successful as it is because it can shuffle genres so successfully while still using all of the standard language and landmarks to convince us that it is a Chick Flick one episode and a Guy Flick the next…what do you think? ---
**Author:** ![lauramarlane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a5b964/32.png) [@lauramarlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lauramarlane)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-chick-flicks-vs-guy-flicks/141519/26 "2002-12-09T20:38:27Z")
Buffy would have to be classified under mass appeal. My whole family watches it and loves it. We don’t watch much t.v., but Buffy is the show we catch on Tuesday nights. Would Smallville fit in that category, too? Even though it has a male lead, it doesn’t ignore its female characters at all–there’s a little bit of everything. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-chick-flicks-vs-guy-flicks/141519/27 "2002-12-09T21:00:15Z")
_Titanic_ is a better example of a James Cameron movie that is both a chick and guy flick. But if you really want to boost your box office take, appeal to the 10-15 set in non-controversial family films which emphasize the “guy” elements. Of the top 20 films by BO grosses ( [http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm](http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm) ), a minimum of 15 of them have appeal to those older kids. Check it out: it’s amazing. Even when looking at the [adjusted](http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted/) grosses, the youth appeal of the big movies is amazing. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-chick-flicks-vs-guy-flicks/141519/28 "2002-12-09T21:45:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JohnT \* > \*\*_Titanic_ is a better example of a James Cameron movie that is both a chick and guy flick. \*\* I would be interested in what others think, but in my book, Titantic is a 100% no-doubt Chick Flick. I could recite the reasons, but am curious - do others besides **JohnT** think of it as a Guy Flick? It has special effects elements and a big ship-split-in-half bit, but those are secondary dramatic effects to highten the amount of peril the doomed lovers (a phrase that defines a whole sub-category of Chick Flick) experience. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-chick-flicks-vs-guy-flicks/141519/29 "2002-12-09T22:07:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lauramarlane \* > **Dewey Cheatem Undhow, it seems that Thelma and Louise would be a chick flick with guy flick elements–stuff explodes, and they have the ultimate car wreck.** Yeah, but doesn’t this kind of prove my point? I have never, ever heard _Thelma & Louise_ referred to as a “Guy Flick.” It is always referred to as a “Chick Flick” (or, more precisely, a “Man-Hating Chick Flick”). IOW, the mere introduction of Guy Flick elements were insufficient to overcome the dominant Chick Flick label. In fact, I can only think of one film widely considered a Guy Flick, which no one in their right mind would call a Chick Flick, which has Chick Flick elements: _Aliens_. There are a lot of get-in-touch-with-your-nurturing-side elements to the film, but it’s still a Guy Flick through and through. In every other film I can think of with Guy Flick potential but Chick Flick elements, the Chick Flick elements utterly destroy any hope of the film being called a Guy Flick. And **Wordman** , I agree: _Titanic_ is a Chick Flick. It wasnt males that were going to see it eight and nine times in the theatres (at least not voluntarily, anyway). ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-chick-flicks-vs-guy-flicks/141519/30 "2002-12-09T22:21:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\* > And **Wordman** , I agree: _Titanic_ is a Chick Flick. \*\* Except for guys who are particularly interested in the Titanic, like me. I’ve always thought the story of the ship and its passengers gradually getting overwhelmed by the rising water–the sense of creeping dread, if you will–to be extemely compelling. I’ll watch _Titanic_ any chance I get, as well as the older film treatments from past decades. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-chick-flicks-vs-guy-flicks/141519/31 "2002-12-09T23:30:04Z")
**Titanic** is both. The first half is a chick flick (troubled loner meets inexperienced loner and “saves her”). The second half is a guy movie (boat cracks in half and sinks, thousands die). The ending, after the return to the present, is pure chickflickery, though. A rule of thumb: it’s a chick flick if it’s about one person dying slowly. It’s a guy movie if it’s about a lot of people dying quickly. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-chick-flicks-vs-guy-flicks/141519/32 "2002-12-09T23:30:16Z")
My theory about identifying Chick Flick vs. Guy Flick is very similar to yours, **WordMan.** I define it a little more broadly, though, based on _internal_ goal vs. _external_ goal. That’s why, IMO, relationship-type movies tend to be classified as Chick Flicks, because the protagonist’s objective doesn’t have any material impact on the external world (which is where this definition intersects with yours). Whether or not two people love each other is irrelevant to the house they live in, the amount of money they make, or any other physical objective. In a Guy Flick, by contrast, the relationships generally don’t change over the course of the movie. Person A is the Good Guy, Person B is the Bad Guy, and they go at each other over some physical objective: fancy car, spy code, ski championship, etc. That’s why there are so many 'splosions in Guy Flicks, because it’s an easy and obvious shorthand for Having An Effect On The World. It’s also why romantic relationships get short-shrifted – the Buxom Blonde isn’t really a person, she’s a goal, and the hero either nails her or he doesn’t. Since James Cameron was mentioned above, I’ll use _Terminator 2_ to demonstrate how my theory works. It’s an action movie with a female hero (but not protagonist: strictly speaking, Sarah is the _antagonist_, but that’s a tangent for another message). She can appeal to both men and women. Why? Because her objective, to protect the life of her son, has both an external component the guys can identify with (saving the future from the rise of the robots) and an internal component the women can identify with (her success or failure at protecting her son is integral to defining her worth as a mother). In this conception, _High Fidelity_ is certainly a hybrid. The Cusack character, from his own point of view, has an external objective: winning back his girlfriend. But in order to achieve this, he has to make an emotional exploration and change the way he relates to the world, which is the internal objective. Just my two pfennigs. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-chick-flicks-vs-guy-flicks/141519/33 "2002-12-10T12:52:57Z")
**Max Torque** - I love that quote about a Chick Flick = one person dying slowly, and a Guy Flick = a lot of people dying quickly. I can’t remember where I first heard that - do you know its source? **Cervaise** - the _externally_ motivated for Guy vs. _internally_ motivated for Chick is worth exploring. And I agree with your analysis of T2 - it does seem to embody both qualities in a balanced way. I respectfully disagree with you about High Fidelity though - it is a Chick Flick in its motivations - he wants his relationship with his girlfriend to be right and is willing to go through self-discovery to get there. The fact that his path is accurately depicted from a guy’s POV is what makes the movie acceptable and good from your “typical” guy’s perspective… **javaman** - I hear you about people who dig movies because they are interested in the topic - a Titanic-aholic will the that movie regardless of its Chick-ness or Guy-ness. That doesn’t change my assertion that it is primarily a Chick-Flick, dressed up with Guy Flick special effects in the second half to keep guys engaged and to inject more drama into the Chick Flick story. But the Guy elements never rival the Chick elements for primacy, the way they do in another Cameron flick, T2, per **Cervaise’s** analysis. ---
**Author:** ![Mycroft\_Holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a5b964/32.png) [@Mycroft\_Holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mycroft_Holmes)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-chick-flicks-vs-guy-flicks/141519/34 "2002-12-10T13:17:18Z")
In a similiar discussion a little while ago (sorry, I haven’t searched for it), I asked how _Jerry Maguire_ fit into the Chick Flick/Guy Flick discussion. To me it seems to be a Chick Flick even though it’s got football and all that other **manly** stuff going on. But it’s still primarily about the guy getting the girl or the girl getting the guy. So it fits into the Chick Flick = someone definition as given by **WordMan**. Another good example might be _African Queen_ with Humphrey Bogart. Chick Flick or Guy Flick? ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-chick-flicks-vs-guy-flicks/141519/35 "2002-12-10T16:37:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by WordMan \* > > * * * > > **javaman** - I hear you about people who dig movies because they are interested in the topic - a Titanic-aholic will the that movie regardless of its Chick-ness or Guy-ness. That doesn’t change my assertion that it is primarily a Chick-Flick, dressed up with Guy Flick special effects in the second half to keep guys engaged and to inject more drama into the Chick Flick story. \*\* For the same reason I never miss _Desk Set_, starring Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy, because the context of its story is a pre-1960 computer system installation, which fascinates me no end. But it is nonetheless a quitessential romantic comedy, and as such definitely a chick flick. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-chick-flicks-vs-guy-flicks/141519/36 "2002-12-10T18:49:12Z")
**WordMan** , it’s from **[The Mating Habits of the Earthbound Human](http://us.imdb.com/Details?0165874)**. The narrator, David Hyde Pierce, makes the observation. ---
**Author:** ![vibrotronica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a9a28c/32.png) [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-chick-flicks-vs-guy-flicks/141519/37 "2002-12-10T20:24:51Z")
This is certainly the most reasoned and thoughtful discussion of chick vs guy flicks I have ever seen. But I must take issue with the assumption that all movies are either a chick or a guy flick. I have always seen CF’s and GF’s to be (somewhat) debased subcategories of movies. Yes, there are many, many movies that are either chick flicks (Steel Magnolias) or guy flicks (Die Hard), but ALL movies do not fit into this conceptual framework. Take Casablanca, for example. Although it has elements of both, it is neither a CF nor a GF. It appeals to both, as a truly well crafted movie should. ---
**Author:** ![airdisc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e19adc/32.png) [@airdisc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/airdisc)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-chick-flicks-vs-guy-flicks/141519/38 "2002-12-10T20:35:15Z")
I always pictured chick flicks being movies showing Reese Witherspoon tossing someone into hell while going “HAW HAW HAW!”. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-chick-flicks-vs-guy-flicks/141519/39 "2002-12-10T21:14:46Z")
Does she have a little mustache? ---
**Author:** ![Avalonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-chick-flicks-vs-guy-flicks/141519/40 "2002-12-10T21:48:49Z")
I think that there are an awful lot of films that get categorized as “Chick Flick” or “Guy Flick” prematurely. Some of them simply defy these categorizations. Throwing a couples examples (of many) out there… how would you classify _In the Bedroom_? How about _Leon_ (_The Professional_)? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-chick-flicks-vs-guy-flicks/141519.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-chick-flicks-vs-guy-flicks/141519.md?page=3)