It’s interesting, because I do kind of link these two works together, as they do seem to be equally polarizing, and it seems to me that folks that dislike one tend to dislike the other because of the self-centered protagonist. I personally love both works, even though (and probably a bit because) their protagonists are quite different than me. (I tend to prefer stories where the protagonist is quite unlike me.)
There’s a theory that Ferris didn’t exist at all.
I loved the reference in It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia.
I read a tongue-in-cheek review that posited that Bueller was actually Cameron, making the movie a madcap Fight Club.
I’ve heard the idea that it’s all Cameron’s fantasy a bunch of times.
I’m torn. I like Ferris the movie, I want to be Ferris the person.
But Ferris is a total jerk to Cameron (and the Ferrari!). Nothing will ever happen to Ferris because of anything that happened that day, yet you know Cameron will get, at a minimum, completely disowned by his father. They still won’t be speaking in 20 years. Cameron will be a slacker, and Ferris will be a senator.
Of course, Cameron should grow a spine, but that’s just blaming the victim.
It’s cute, but it doesn’t make ANY sense. Why would Cameron fantasize about the imaginary parents and sister and dog and prostitute of his imaginary friend?
Cuz he doesn’t have those things. He wants to be cool like Ferris. He wants a nice family like Ferris has. He’d even like a pain in the butt sister who’s jealous of him.
It seemed all deep and meaningful because of the way Ferris talked to the camera. He’s obviously self-centered, but he talks to the camera like he’s a smug know-it-all and feels he has to impart his wisdom on us. The stop and smell the roses line, the feeling that he has to protect Cam and analyses him and all.
It’s not even like he’s a petulant kid who wants to play hooky from school, he’s embracing life! YOLO! You should too!!
I really can’t remember - did the odometer thing not work in the movie, as in not making the odo roll backwards, or are people saying it “didn’t work” because of the catastrophe that followed?
It didn’t work in the movie. Here’s the sequence from the script:
That’s when Cameron launches into his “stand up to his dad” speech that precedes the Ferrari flying out the back of the garage.
I’m pretty sure everyone here is saying the odometer thing didn’t work in the movie, in the sense that running the car in reverse didn’t roll the odometer backwards.
Here’s the tail end of the above-quoted section, where he says “We’ll just have to crack open the odometer, roll it back by hand”
No, he becomes known as the starship captain who loses James T. Kirk on a shakedown cruise.
Oh man, I hate that scene.
That whole scene was meant, I’m sure, to make Kirk look like a bestest starship captain evah, and Capt Cameron to be a waste of a good chair, but really:
everything Kirk suggests is seen as it wouldn’t work/isn’t installed/etc. Why do you think Kirk is the one to suggest them? Because the current, actually NOT incompetent captain of the Enterprise, KNOWS what is and isn’t working/installed. He’s not going to waste breath on non-starters. If Kirk would have just STFU and let the actual crew solve the problem, maybe the crises could have been averted AND Kirk not blown out into the nexus.
It’s a case of what caused the Tenerif plane disaster. Everyone was deferring to the senior officer, who was missing critical information, rather than practicing proper crisis management, as in United 232.
I never looked at valet parking the same way again after seeing the movie…
My car’s not a Ferrari, but I didn’t valet my car in Chicago because of this movie. Yes, it’s unrealistic, but some people love dumb machines.
As far as the message of the move: I’ve always felt that it was a funny commentary on how far one could get on confidence, and paying the price for it getting out of hand. Yep, Ferris doesn’t end up paying the price, Cam does. Life isn’t neat in its judgment - same thing with Ferris’ sister and the car. Cameron should have shown up in his beater and had Ferris deal with picking his GF up in his POS from the start. He didn’t, and he took his father’s (even then) priceless car out. He himself made the problem something that’s going to take 20 years to mend. Until the car ran out the back of the garage, he just had to account for an early rebuild of the engine and transmission.
Now, I’m gonna tell you all the secrets this gum wrapper has to offer…
Kirk DOES shut-up and Captain Cameron suggests something nonsensical, you see Kirk shake his head before the suggestion is dismissed. Finally, Scotty channels his inner technobabble and saves the day
The real problem is that Starfleet CONTINUES to man Sector 001 with understaffed, unoperational starships.
Giant cloud monster? Send out the Admiral who doesn’t know his ships specs and the ship that hasn’t had a full shakedown.
The creator of the galaxy’s most dangerous weapon is in trouble? Send out the ship manned by cadets.
Enterprise hijacked by distraught crew? Don’t send anyone after your new ship broke down.
Whale probe? Clear the sector! Fuck Earth! You guys really don’t long range missile tech?
There are a couple of good Trek novels set on the Enterprise B that rehabilitate his character nicely.
The Ferrari in this insipid movie was a 1961 model, by the way.
My dad didn’t valet his car because of Chicago. And that was long before the movie.
Anyway, I agree with