Cameron H.

I still see that as being an argument about quality versus enjoyability. Which, again, no one is arguing that the movie is flawless. June and Jason both agreed to that. However, knowing that it was the filmmakers’ original intention that Fred was a manifestation of Liz, and that that message still came through loud and clear for some of the viewers, means that it at least did an adequate job conveying that message, it just didn’t universally convey that message. And for our purposes, that’s the problem. Both sides seem to accusing the other side of either ignoring (perhaps willfully) the quality of the film or its message, but I don’t feel like that’s the case, and it’s just creating false equivalencies. Team Fred gets that it isn’t the best made film ever. Team Sanity gets what the film was trying to do. However, that’s why I’m hesitant to accept “it sucks because it failed to do A, B, C well,” as a valid argument, because for some people, it absolutely DID do those things well. How can one group tell another group that they’re wrong when they’re the group that successfully got out of the movie what the filmmaker intended? Or, to put it another way: (Team Fred and Team Sanity are sitting with the person who wrote “Roses are Red.”) Team Fred: “I like the poem because it takes three self-evident statements to convey its strong, favorable opinion about another person.” Team Sanity: “The poem actually sucks. The imagery is juvenile, the meter is simplistic, violets aren’t actually blue, and I don’t think it adequately conveys the emotion the writer intended.” The poet: “I’m sorry you feel that way, Team Sanity, but I wrote it with the intention Team Fred understood it to have.” Team Fred: “I mean, Team Sanity isn’t totally wrong, it could have been better. Still, I think it’s sweet and I will accept it for what it is.” Team Sanity: “I get what the poem is trying to do, and I get what Team Fred is saying, but it didn’t work for me so it must not work at all.” Team Fred: “But it DID work...” Team Sanity: “Bup, bup, bup - it doesn’t work at all.”

I get that, but that’s a) not really the argument he was making during the episode (he shouldn’t have to/get to “clarify” on Twitter) and b) subjective. I get you think the movie sucks. I get that Paul and Casey think the movie sucks. And that’s fine. But clearly that’s not how everyone feels. Falling back on “Yeah, but the movie sucks” isn’t a counterpoint to “”Fred is a manifestation of Liz’s id” anymore than “It’s just a movie” can be used to defend all of its faults. It’s a false equivalency being used (by both sides) to dismiss the other side’s point. Also my response to you was more in regard to you saying that the movie can’t be good and enjoyable and had nothing to do with “Team Fred” and “Team Sanity.” My point was that something being “good” and something being “enjoyable” aren’t mutually exclusive - especially not for this podcast. I don’t think anyone is arguing that DDF is a good movie, just that they enjoyed it for what it was. The term “good,” that is to say its quality as a film, is an objective term; whether it’s “enjoyable” or not, is subjective and up to the individual viewer. Just because Casey and Paul didn’t think that the movie was good, doesn’t diminish the fact that June and Jason enjoyed the movie. Conversely, just because June and Jason enjoyed it, doesn’t suddenly improve its quality. I just meant to say that the show has never been about those distinctions.

I saw this on IMDb, and I’m not sure if Team Sanity was trying to suppress to this to strengthen their argument (especially considering some IMDb Trivia was read during the episode), but I think it’s worth posting this: “There's an alternate ending where Lizzie is at Mickey's house reading his daughter Natalie a bedtime story. And after a few minutes, Natalie comes out of her room where she tells both Lizzie and Mickey that her "imaginary friend" ripped up her teddy bear. Lizzie asks Natalie the name of her imaginary friend. Natalie reveals that her imaginary friend's name is Drop Dead Fred. The scene ends with a shot of a pop-up book opening revealing a pop-up illustration of Drop Dead Fred with a voice over of Fred saying "Playtime". When the film was screened for a test audience, the audience hated the ending because they hated the idea of Fred disappearing forever. This prompted New Line Cinema to cut the ending and reshoot it where Fred is seen with Natalie pulling a prank on Natalie's babysitter. The original ending was included as an extra on the 25th anniversary Blu-ray.” So, really we can blame test audiences for the muddled ending - which is something we all agree was poorly handled. It seems clear to me that Drop Dead Fred was always written and meant to be a manifestation of Liz’s psyche. Had the movie ended as originally intended, not only would it have explicitly shown Liz’s he was always a part of her, it would also reveal that Drop Dead Fred to be a storybook character! This would have totally explained how she and the little girl could share the same imaginary friend. However, as a proud Team Fred member, I agree that not everything is perfectly done, but I think it does an adequate job of conveying its message. I would like to clarify though, in the up skirt scenes, Liz is 100% projecting Fred. Those two moments are meant to tell us something about how Liz is feeling in those moments and convey two different messages. In the first instance, as Jason said, it was a way of taking her mother down a peg. She knows her mother is being uptight and intransigent and is essentially thinking to herself, “Relax, mom. You really need to get laid.” In the second scene, Liz is struggling against feelings of inadequacy and jealousy. She sees Fonda standing there looking beautiful, and projects Fred as a way to imply a degree of promiscuity on Annabella’s part. It’s a way of helping her cope with an awkward situation. It’s not that she’s any better or worse looking than Fonda, but she certainly feels like Fonda is more desirable than her, and this is her way of taking her down a peg and explaining to herself why that might be.

Finished the episode. Still 100% Team Fred. Yes, I think she wrote the letter herself. I don’t think she’s completely insane, but after losing her car, job, and philandering husband in one day - plus being forced move back home with her domineering mother - I think she’s definitely suffered a psychotic break. And I think this break is primarily due to the repression she’s suffered since childhood. It’s left her ill-equipped to deal with the turmoil in her life.

Does anyone have time to maybe try some of these sites? https://clouttechie.com/sites-like-rabb-it/

Personally, I don’t really think that’s the distinction. I think there’s a difference between enjoying a movie and thinking it’s good. Isn’t the podcast’s raison d'être that the hosts - and us by extension - enjoy watching bad movies? At least, that’s always been my takeaway. I can watch Drop Dead Fred or Lake Placid and get the same enjoyment that I do watching The Seventh Seal or Citizen Kane. I think it’s all valid to some degree. And by that standard, it doesn’t surprise me in the least to hear that Jason liked it or that it was formative for June. It’s part of who they’ve always been. That being said, I have not had the opportunity to listen yet, and I have not heard the arguments one way or the other. However, based on my experience watching DDF this week, I am fully Team Fred

That’s fascinating! I just shared with Erin. Thank you very much!

I think this is why I voted “no” as well. It’s also why I feel like comedies are so hard to pin down in terms of greatness. From a cinematic perspective, they rarely push the envelope. It’s not like you can point to the camera work or something more tangible. It honestly comes down to “Is this funny?” It has to essentially live and die on that question alone, and as we’ve discussed before, that’s a highly subjective thing. Did I think Bringing Up Baby was funny? Sure. Are there other movies that I find funnier? Absolutely. Honestly, one of the reasons I keep pushing for Groundhog Day for inclusion, even though it’s not necessarily my favorite comedy, is because it’s not only funny, but it’s well-crafted, innovative in subject matter (Groundhog Day has become an adjective to describe similar time looping stories), and it has a point of view. There’s a philosophical reason for it to exist, even if the viewer doesn’t personally subscribe to that philosophy. With movies like Bringing Up Baby it’s all just “aren’t dizzy dames and leopards zany?”

Listening to this episode, I realize that I like very few modern comedies.

My thoughts are very much along the lines of Amy and Paul. I liked the movie just fine. I thought it was fun and charming. However, there was nothing about it that made me feel like it was the best cinema has to offer - not even within its own genre. So, no, I don’t think it belongs on the list, but I don’t want it to be forgotten either.

That was my thinking. Speed 2 is pretty bonkers and fun.

Is everyone cool for this Friday?

Not yet. Tom tested some, but nothing that would suit our purposes.

Tiptoes and Speed 2 are up next. I’ve never seen Tiptoes and I’m not sure if that one would be fun or offensive.

Yeah! Thanks for checking it out! Im good for Friday, but next Friday might be better for others due to the short notice. I figure we use it until it busts

Absolutely! I always find it interesting how movies are always nostalgic for a period about 20 years ago. In the 80’s movies are littered with 60’s music. The 90’s seemed obsessed with the 70’s. Even now, if you look at Captain Marvel, we’re starting to see the 90’s come into prominence. I suppose it’s just the time period the writers grew up in, but it’s weird that they have to pull from the past to appeal to contemporary youth.

I don’t care how old he might have actually been, but watching people call Barenger “kid” was weird.

Oh yeah, I liked the music. In fact, I already owned some of it before watching. I guess I don’t see why they didn’t just set the movie in ‘73 (the year of Springsteen’s first album). Was ten years not long enough to build up a “He might have faked his death mystique?” But that can’t be right because they make a crack about him living with Jim Morrison in Paris and he died in ‘71...

That was so weird. The music (for the most part) was pretty anachronistic. I guess they were trying to suggest that Eddie was ahead of his time, but it just felt really out of place. Also, I had issues with him being referred to as a “genius.” Berenger wrote the music and lyrics for their only hit, but because Eddie arranged it into a three chord, boogie he’s suddenly the innovator?

I have to say, overall, I enjoyed the movie, but at the end, I couldn’t help feeling like it was a bit pointless. I’m not sure if anyone else agrees.

Just wanted to thank Tom again for this link.it was very much appreciated. The quality isn’t that bad really.

I'm sure a lot of people would. It would be nice to turn the bit into something positive. I agree, that at this point, it would be the only way to justify the episode. Like @grudlian.said, you don't want to set a dangerous (i.e. obnoxious) precedent, but if you turned it into an event (and make it clear that this is a one time deal), then why not? You can maybe even set it up as an auction. Like they will only do an episode if they reach a certain dollar amount which will be donated to the charity of their choice. I don't want to speak for them, but honestly, I think this would be a pretty cool idea.

Presumably, “Michael Bay” has already paid for them, so it shouldn’t really be a problem to sell them for charity. Wouldn’t that just be like putting your Blu-Rays up on eBay or something? Giving them away would be no problem at all. (If they were autographed, that would be even better )