Who adopt’s Tyler Durden’s philosophies as a creed other than assholes looking for another reason to get into fights?
Idiot space monkeys who saw the movie and thought it would be fun to create their own fight clubs.
Not his overall outlook or terrorism, but Fight Club did get one thing right (even if it was accidental), and that is two consenting adults engaging each other in a little violence, be it a fist fight, boxing, wrestling (olympic or college kind), or maybe even fencing can be incredibly liberating. We are conditioned not to fight and told violence is bad, but the types of guys portrayed in the movie - busboys, office workers, and just the frustrated - can really feel liberated by a consensual fight.
Kay Bailey Hutchinson’s old press secretary.
To be fair, one could argue that he’s just looking to get into a fight.
Another message that I personally didn’t take away from the film, but which I’ve heard some people complain about:
Saving Private Ryan: One mother’s last son is more valuable than the husbands, fathers, sons, and brothers of ten or twelve other women.
Or trying to appeal to the twentysomethings for whom Fight Club really rang true to them as teenagers when it was released.
Unless you’re short, that is. Then it’s perfectly acceptable for you to get made fun of the entire time.
Sadly this is a common enough trope in romantic comedies. Not surprising perhaps given their target audience.
I thought the main message (insofar as there is one) in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off was that having fun with your friends and outsmarting petty authority figures is a better way to spend a day than sleepwalking through worthless classes. It’s not terribly profound, but what’s wrong with that?
Also, adults tend to have little idea of what teenaged kids are really up to, and they might not like some of it.
The other, more pernicious message is that it’s OK to destroy a fantastically expensive object that belongs to one’s father, as long as one’s parents are emotionally distant. In fact, this will somehow improve one’s relationship with them.
This is a variant of the long-standing, idiotic, theme that rich people are almost always unhappy.
To be fair…the movie brings up this same point/asks the same question.
This is what finally killed **Desperate Housewives **for me. Gabby is using Carlos’ handicapped sticker to get good parking spaces, even though he’s not in the car with her. When confronted by a man *in a wheelchair *who threatens to call the cops, she snatches the phone out of his hand and throws it across the lot, then tiptups in her high heels to her convertible to make her getaway.
So, apparently on Wisteria Lane, paralyzed folks are fodder for hyucks.
This is true. However the more overall/central theme is:
Know your place and stay there.
Big, ugly guys can’t have hot chicks…but they can find true love if she becomes ugly like you. Ugly guys…Know your place.
Short guys shouldn’t be rulers/authority figures and if they are…they sure can’t have hot princesses as wives. If they do become rulers then they will be bad at it because they will overcompensate for their shortness…so they will be BAD rulers. Short people…know your place.
A woman who is hot and from high social status cannot marry down…unless she becomes ugly and then she MUST marry down. Ugly women…know your place!
Are we supposed to think she’s a bitch, though? They did a Seinfeld where they parked in a handicapped spot and we’re not supposed to laugh with them, but at them, for being such jackasses that they’d do that.
Actually, I think it is that the lives of a few men are not worth the bad publicity to the Government caused by the death of every son of one family.
Silly me, I thought the message was that mixed marraiges never work 
[Insert any action film here] mindless violence and fast movement trump logical reasoning and mature behavior every time. Not surprising perhaps given their target audience.
Blue Velvet: getting off using the creepiest methods available for the film rating is intriguing; pointless violence is necessary in the plot, and happy endings can happen even after you have murdered someone because he was a Really Bad Man.
I haven’t watched DH since, oh, the middle of its first season. That said, it’s always seemed to me that the four leads, and particularly Gabrielle, are at best antiheroes. They are deliberately bitchy and unpleasant, and you spend moer time laughing at them than rooting for them.
The redhead might be an exception, but I cannot remember her name, nor anything about her other than that she was OCD, elegantly hot, and, obviously, a carrot-top.
I guess I can see it that way, but every time I watch it (which is about twice a day*) I see her literally being labeled and then every time she tries to change, she get’s told not to, because she’s a tinker…it’s who she is.
*Of all the TV movies she wants to watch over and over it’s one of the few I don’t mind sitting through.
Not so much a bitch, but a stuck up, self absorbed, out of touch, I’m rich-you’re not type of person. That is…she’s important and you’re not. It’s just one of those things that if you are gonna piss and moan about everything she does (or Bree or Lynette etc…), you’re better off not watching the show at all. Kinda like Seinfeld love it or hate, embrace it or let it get under your skin.
That’s not what I got out of it. I saw it as more of a Taoist message.
Jenny dealt with her past with addictions to sex and drugs, and it nearly destroyed her. Lt. Dan couldn’t fulfill his destiny so he turned to alcohol and whoring to deal with it. Forrest simply accepted reality as he saw it, went with the flow, and attracted great things to his life by not fighting against life.
I’m probably way off on that analysis.