MovieChat Forums > Tucker: The Man and His Dream (1988) Discussion > GREAT MOVIE / BAD TIMING

GREAT MOVIE / BAD TIMING

posted 13 years ago by Lobo305
6 replies | jump to latest

First of all, I am an abnormality, a first generation Latino Republican who proudly served in the Military and finished University.

That said, I vote for the right person, not just the letter next to their name -AND- I can reason beyond perception.

In short, I love this movie but wonder if it was hurt by Reaganomics?

Looking at the economic / political environment today, I think a movie about a man like Tucker taking on both big time politics and the AUTO elite would likely fare better than it did in the late 80's.

BTW, I'm also a PC versus MAC but own both, plus an Android phone. (Again, I worry about what works best for me and don't diss on things just because I don't particularly like the company or native O/S). That said, Tucker reminds me a lot of Steve Jobs ... a man with ideas that did a great job selling them. Unfortunately for Tucker, he was forced to fight the politicians too and it was too big of an opponent at the time.

Imagine what he could have accomplished if he'd been allowed to continue.

"El riesgo vive siempre!"

[–] strntz 13 years ago

I disagree. While Reaganonics provided for a vital economy with lots of money for companies, their officers, and their workers, folks back then still had an appreciation of the American dream: a little guy with an idea who comes out of nowhere to change things.

In my opinion, the movie didn't play because lots of people just don't like movies without killing, car wrecks, suspense, vampires, sex, comedy, or excessively romantic themes.

I love the movie, love the story.

[–] mikekaraoke23 12 years ago

at least it was seen by alot of people

[–] gabby_bm 12 years ago

I think, more than anything, it was the title and subject matter. "Tucker" (the man AND his car) were relatively obscure at the time except for a handful of classic car enthusiasts and it was really kind of a shrug-the-shoulders kind of moment in cinema.
Easily I could compare it to 2005's "Munich" which involves an event so distant from the theater-going public that most of them wonder "what's so significant about that?"

Only through word of mouth do such films gain an audience. "Shawshank Redemption" is another example. "What the hell's a 'Shawshank' and why does it need to be redeemed?"

The film's title has to grab the general public in some way- a way that makes it relevant, important and/or relatable. It doesn't have to be in their face but it has to give a reason to shell out their hard earned money to go see it.

"Oh that's nice, sweetie" = Grandma's version of "cool story, bro"
#3

[–] mikekaraoke23 12 years ago

blimey, another post but 8 months later gabby_bm :]-I know what you mean but when it came out to Rent it made it's money back before coming out to buy!Which is great for word of mouth i rember being advertised for cinema+to rent i think i rented it from video store bout 11 times awww those were the days

[–] SunCanyonRoad 11 years ago

I disagree. Reagan's economic policies (continued by George HW Bush) was fools gold. Trickle down economics don't work and will never work. That's why HW was a 1 term Prez.

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

Trickle-down economics would work WITH regulation regarding HOW it trickles down. The point being that it MUST trickle down to the workers so they can buy more products which, in turn creates more jobs which, in turn, creates more demand for more products, creating even more well-paying jobs.

But when the top tier uses their breaks to purchase automations and export jobs, then the money has no place to trickle down TO.

Just like a water fountain, the water MUST reach the bottom in order to reach the pump so it can return to the top to trickle back down again. Without that, the fountain (employers) will just dry up and the pump (the public-generated economy) will eventually fall into disrepair.

"De gustibus non disputandum est"
#3