Episode 219 - Drop Dead Fred: LIVE! (w/ Casey Wilson)

[Mattrix 17]

17 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

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  

Paul cleared this up on twitter and said the point he and Casey were trying to make is that the movie is not enjoyable.  It’s grating and unpleasant regardless of Fred being a manifestation or an actual entity.  THATS how I feel too, this movie sucks.  If team Fred wants to think he’s a manifestation, FINE. That doesn’t make the movie good OR enjoyable.

[Mattrix 17]

6 hours ago, Ofcoursemyhorse said:

If you're Team Sanity you have to understand you're on the side of a domineering mother, creepy Tim Matheson, Annabella, and a nurse who threatened her ward with physical violence.

No, Paul cleared this up on Twitter. Team Sanity just thinks this movie sucks, regardless of anything else.  Mom good? Movie sucks. Mom bad? Movie sucks.  Manifestation? Movie sucks! Real entity? MOVIE SUCKS! 

Its very simple.  THIS. MOVIE. SUCKS. 

[Cameron H. 23786]

2 hours ago, Mattrix said:

Paul cleared this up on twitter and said the point he and Casey were trying to make is that the movie is not enjoyable.  It’s grating and unpleasant regardless of Fred being a manifestation or an actual entity.  THATS how I feel too, this movie sucks.  If team Fred wants to think he’s a manifestation, FINE. That doesn’t make the movie good OR enjoyable.

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.”

20 hours ago, Mattrix said:

Team Fred has made some compelling points, but they also have seemed to align themselves with this movie being good. I cant allow myself to be on a team that is seemingly synonymous with enjoying the movie 

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. 

[Rollo Tomasi 22]

33 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

 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.

Yes, but “the movie sucks” is an effective counterpoint to “the movie effectively conveys that Fred is a manifestation of Liz’s id.”  I haven’t seen his Twitter clarification, but during the pod I never thought Paul and Casey were saying “the filmmakers clearly intend for you to think Fred is an independent being.”  Instead, I took them to be saying “this film is a jumbled mess that sends mixed signals, is trying to be different things, and undermines whatever message it’s trying to convey.”  

[Cameron H. 23786]

3 hours ago, Rollo Tomasi said:

Yes, but “the movie sucks” is an effective counterpoint to “the movie effectively conveys that Fred is a manifestation of Liz’s id.”  I haven’t seen his Twitter clarification, but during the pod I never thought Paul and Casey were saying “the filmmakers clearly intend for you to think Fred is an independent being.”  Instead, I took them to be saying “this film is a jumbled mess that sends mixed signals, is trying to be different things, and undermines whatever message it’s trying to convey.”  

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.”

[FallAwayGrams 5]

Some of ya’ll (Team Sanity) have never been fully and repeatedly completely self-destructive, and it shows. 5 Stars. 

[SeaSkunk 212]

 

20 hours ago, Omaxem said:

As someone who sees himself as a major Car Guy, let me say this ( to Paul, because in my mind he reads these, and to everybody else ) 

Ahem:

.

.

.

MINIVANS ARE NICE.

Congratulations Paul, on buying a car that a) makes sense for you and your family; and that b) YOU like.

Fuck that guy. Eww.

 

 Tall's kids may run around a flaming house in ill fitting pajamas, but they will be cruising around town in a car that is both safe and stylish.

[SeaSkunk 212]

As someone who can't enjoy The Office due to extreme second hand embarrassment for Michael, this movie was a nightmare for me every time Fred got Pheobe Cates in trouble.

[Cameron H. 23786]

Possibly my biggest issue with this movie was the scene where Fred and Little Liz are pretending to be burglars and her father is trying to call the police. While he’s on the phone, they rip the downstairs phone out of the wall which disconnects her father’s call upstairs and leads him to exclaim, “They’ve cut the line.” Um, that’s not how phone lines work. 

That was a standard POTS line (plain old telephone service) connected with what looks to be a standard RJ11 tipped phone cable. Even if they ripped it out of the wall and destroyed the IW (internal wiring) phone jacks aren’t on a continuous circuit.  At worst, Liz’s father may have heard the phone briefly go off hook from being ripped out of the wall, but it wouldn’t have disconnected his call upstairs. 

In order to “cut the line” as depicted in the movie, Liz and Fred would have had to tamper with the lines coming in from the NID (Network Interface Device) from off the street which would have been difficult for a small child and her imaginary chaos agent friend to do accidentally or without the proper tools. 

Otherwise, everything else in the movie tracks 100%  

[The_Triple_Lindy 2482]

 

1 hour ago, Cameron H. said:

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 maybe 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.”

Three things:

1. I was under the impression that Team Sanity's position is that Fred is a real, independent entity, not just that the movie sucks. 

2. Since you brought poetry into this ... true literary criticism holds that an author's intentions for the work is irrelevant (that's called the Intentional Fallacy). Ergo, if 95% of the work is delivering the author's intention, but the remaining 5% undermines that reading, then the work is flawed. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the work isn't flawed, but for critics, judging how near or far a work comes to achieving "organic unity" is the whole point, not to assess the enjoyability. 

Perhaps the distinction between the teams is that Team Sanity is taking a critical approach while Team Fred is just taking a personal response where being overly critical is a detriment?

Personally, I can be incredibly critical of things I totally enjoy. I just didn't enjoy Drop Dead Fred nearly as much as I've enjoyed coming to this board and mixing it up with everyone. 

3. People who experience something as a child can enjoy and defend their enjoyment as adults, but it would be remiss not to point out that the same thing can be said about cults.

Is it time for tuxedo football yet?

[Rollo Tomasi 22]

1 hour ago, Cameron H. said:

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 maybe 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.”

Obviously this is at the heart of the disagreement, but I think the more accurate analogy would be if we were discussing a poem that went:

Rose are red,

Vomit is blue,

Sugar is sweet,

and so are you.

 

Team Sanity:  What is the vomit line about?  Is this poem supposed to be tender or funny?  If the poet is trying to express affection for the other person, why are they talking about vomit?

Team Fred:  Sure, the vomit line could be better, but it’s clearly intended to be a love poem.  If you just pretend the vomit line doesn’t exist, it’s a very sweet poem.

[Cameron H. 23786]

36 minutes ago, The_Triple_Lindy said:

 

Three things:

1. I was under the impression that Team Sanity's position is that Fred is a real, independent entity, not just that the movie sucks. 

2. Since you brought poetry into this ... true literary criticism holds that an author's intentions for the work is irrelevant (that's called the Intentional Fallacy). Ergo, if 95% of the work is delivering the author's intention, but the remaining 5% undermines that reading, then the work is flawed. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the work isn't flawed, but for critics, judging how near or far a work comes to achieving "organic unity" is the whole point, not to assess the enjoyability. 

Perhaps the distinction between the teams is that Team Sanity is taking a critical approach while Team Fred is just taking a personal response where being overly critical is a detriment?

Personally, I can be incredibly critical of things I totally enjoy. I just didn't enjoy Drop Dead Fred nearly as much as I've enjoyed coming to this board and mixing it up with everyone. 

3. People who experience something as a child can enjoy and defend their enjoyment as adults, but it would be remiss not to point out that the same thing can be said about cults.

Is it time for tuxedo football yet?

1) I was responding specifically to people saying the movie as a whole sucks. Somehow it feels like we’ve all conflated “Fred is real  = bad movie,” and “Fred is Liz’s manifestation = good movie.” I think that’s a mistake. I think, as others have stated, if you are Team Fred you’re probably more likely to have derived enjoyment from the movie, but you’re not necessarily under any illusions to its quality. 

2) I guess that depends if we’re talking about “real literary criticism” versus, “we’re just talking through our feelings about it in a heightened stupid debate.” If we judged it against the Intentional Fallacy, then yeah, it absolutely fails. My point with the poem was more to illustrate how the argument seems to come off. Neither side is all right or all wrong.

Team Sanity is definitely taking a more analytical approach to the film, and Team Fred is absolutely more emotional. Logically, we should be separating the debate from quality and content. If we did that, I’m sure we would all agree that the movie isn’t particularly well made. We would also probably (mostly) all agree on the writer’s intention. The problem is that these two things have become inextricably linked in the debate, because for Team Fred, the message is more important than the quality and vice versa for Team Sanity. No one is really going to give up their position one way or the other because it all comes down to what’s more important to the individual.

 Most of the things I enjoy, I enjoy because of my ability to view them critically. The worst type of movie, for me, is one that leaves you feeling nothing; thinking nothing. That’s what I can enjoy both HDTGM and Unspooled. I like being able to pick movies apart and discuss what makes them work or not.

3) I’m not sure I follow your logic on this point.

Catch!

[Cameron H. 23786]

18 minutes ago, Rollo Tomasi said:

Obviously this is at the heart of the disagreement, but I think the more accurate analogy would be if we were discussing a poem that went:

Rose are red,

Vomit is blue,

Sugar is sweet,

and so are you.

 

Team Sanity:  What is the vomit line about?  Is this poem supposed to be tender or funny?  If the poet is trying to express affection for the other person, why are they talking about vomit?

Team Fred:  Sure, the vomit line could be better, but it’s clearly intended to be a love poem.  If you just pretend the vomit line doesn’t exist, it’s a very sweet poem.

That’s totally fair. However, I think it might also be fair to say that Team Fred...likes vomit? Lol

I agree, the movie is not for everyone. I can see why people would hate it. It’s just that those things aren’t deal breakers for Team Fred.

[Cameron H. 23786]

I just want to say, whether you are Team Sanity or Team Fred, this movie has brought a bunch of new people and perspectives to the boards. I’ve really enjoyed reading all of your insights.

[Hiny Rugburn 25]

I think one thing this episode has taught us all is that Ladyhawke MUST be covered in the near future. They've already done two of Paul's Superman movies. Got to cover all those bases now.

[starri 116]

11 hours ago, gigi-tastic said:

So out curiosity what's your Drop Dead Fred of the movies we have covered or a movie that we should cover! Mine is Spice World. I fully think it's crazy but it's a FUN crazy that they seemed to hate. I don't know if it's because I loved it so much as a child but I was really disappointed by how they saw the movie.

 

Hackers.  I realize it's not a good movie, and gets almost every detail about computers wrong, and makes it seems like hackers are hanging out in cool clubs.  But it has actors that are surprisingly committed to their parts, starred guys that I was into as a teen newly hatched from the gay egg, and had Matthew Lillard as a somewhat gender- and sexually ambiguous character when that was pretty uncommon for mainstream movies.

And it has a great soundtrack.

In a similar vein, one they haven't covered is Empire Records.

Hack the planet!  HACK THE PLANET!

[Cameron H. 23786]

12 hours ago, gigi-tastic said:

So out curiosity what's your Drop Dead Fred of the movies we have covered or a movie that we should cover! Mine is Spice World. I fully think it's crazy but it's a FUN crazy that they seemed to hate. I don't know if it's because I loved it so much as a child but I was really disappointed by how they saw the movie.

Fun fact I had a Spice Girls birthday complete with Spice Girls cups, plates, napkins, WRAPPING PAPER... the whole works. I got Posh and Baby Spice barbies as a gift I seem to recall.

I think that movie for me might be Beautiful Creatures. While I might enjoy other movies they’ve done more, that’s the one movie that I can think of where I fundamentally disagreed with them on almost every point. Like Drop Dead Fred, I’m not saying Beautiful Creatures isn’t without its issues, but I think they went way harder on that movie than it really deserved.  

[joel_rosenbaum 1269]

4 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

IThe poet: “I’m sorry you feel that way, Team Sanity, but I wrote it with the intention Team Fred understood it to have.”

Oppenheimer, they tell me you are writing poetry. I do not see how a man can work on the frontiers of physics and write poetry at the same time. They are in opposition. In science you want to say something that nobody knew before, in words which everyone can understand. In poetry you are bound to say... something that everybody knows already in words that nobody can understand.

Paul Dirac (allegedly)

[The_Triple_Lindy 2482]

4 hours ago, Rollo Tomasi said:

Obviously this is at the heart of the disagreement, but I think the more accurate analogy would be if we were discussing a poem that went:

Rose are red,

Vomit is blue,

Sugar is sweet,

and so are you.

 

Team Sanity:  What is the vomit line about?  Is this poem supposed to be tender or funny?  If the poet is trying to express affection for the other person, why are they talking about vomit?

Team Fred:  Sure, the vomit line could be better, but it’s clearly intended to be a love poem.  If you just pretend the vomit line doesn’t exist, it’s a very sweet poem.

3 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

3) I’m not sure I follow your logic on this point.

Sorry, I should've clarified that this last comment didn't have anything to do with what you wrote. It was snark directed toward a repeated sentiment elsewhere throughout the boards.

[LTL 154]

Team Sanity know we're right and are open to hearing Team Fred opinion...but Team Fred is condescending and have no time for Team Sanity that "doesn't get it" .. also Team Fred it's time to grow up and let it go ....we are NOT our child selves. We have rent mortgages children bills responsibilities. 

I liked this film as a kid HATE as an adult.

[muttnik 476]

If anything, "Fred" would be really pleased with all of this.

[Cameron H. 23786]

The only thing I’m certain is that if “Fred” exists he’s probably just Johnny Rotten having a laugh.

[gigi-tastic 2322]

5 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

The only thing I’m certain is that if “Fred” exists he’s probably just Johnny Rotten having a laugh.

Fucking Fred would love the Sex Pistols and their nihilism. Team Sanity however prefers The Clash because we want our punk music to stand FOR something not just be against everything.

[Cameron H. 23786]

1 minute ago, gigi-tastic said:

Fucking Fred would love the Sex Pistols and their nihilism. Team Sanity however prefers The Clash because we want our punk music to stand FOR something not just be against everything.

100%

[TopMoose 33]

BABADOOK SPOILERS AHEAD

Team Fred here.

At the end of the podcast I was thrilled that Paul made a comparison to The Babadook but he didn't come to the same conclusion I did. In The Babadook, the monster isn't defeated or killed - it still lives in the house with the mother and son. They acknowledge it and feed it but keep it under control so it can't hurt them.

Fred represents Lizzie's spontaneous, fun-loving, confident side and, without that in her life, she becomes a timid, mousy pushover. Remember how self-assured and put-together she became after Fred's re-appearance in her life and how meek she became once Fred got weaker due to the green pills? It took her a while to control her wild impulses, but during the pivotal dream sequence, she finally comes to terms with Fred in her life. Like the Babadook, Fred isn't killed or eliminated - He becomes an integrated, positive force of her personality leading her to self-actualization.

I'll concede that the movie doesn't stay consistent with its own rules (no one is saying that this is a sterling piece of cinema) but I choose to believe that Fred is a projection of Lizzie's mind. TEAM FRED!