MovieChat Forums > alv790 > Replies
alv790's Replies
Clip shows are not something writers "decide" to use if they are tired or feeling lazy. It's a mandate by the producers because they are extremely cheap, since they use previously filmed material.
That was normal back then, actually. You were supposed to be able to watch a random episode and get a complete story without having to watch the previous one.
I'm watching it now, and I was born in the early 80s. Of course, that's not typical. The vast majority of people being born now will never watch LITB. That's normal, because TV content is often considered disposable. Few people will be watching Big Bang Theory in 2080, I would say.
However, a few will develop an interest in classic TV shows, and if they want to watch a family show from that era, LITB is well-positioned, since it became something of a cult phenomenon, representing the idealized, innocent, happy family life of the 50s. Also, it's actually good.
So it will fade, yes, but it won't be completely forgotten.
Eddie Haskell was an iconic character. One of the best TV "villains"... well, not exactly a villain, but a slimy, insincere sycophant.
RIP, Ken Osmond.
You are under the impression that brothers sharing the same bedroom was regarded as something undesirable that was done only out of necessity, when the house was too small for individual bedrooms. I may be wrong, because I had not been born then, but from reading accounts from people who were, I get the impression that it was normal, and not necessarily considered a hardship back then. So the question, how come we are sharing a bedroom when we have a guest room would not necessarily come up.
Well, you don't get to see a death certificate, but still... several get shot, several are thrown down the cliffs and remain still... Now that i remember it, when the ship that came to rescue them arrived, they destroyed the pirates ships and boats with their cannons.
Oh yes. That island and that treehouse looked like a children's wonderland to me. Man, I loved this movie as a kid.
I loved this movie as a little kid, and I wanted to be Francis. He was a kid like me and he was having a great time there on the island, with the animals, the cool treehouse, the lake, the beach, his older brothers...
They would ruin the story if they remade it now. Nowadays, Hollywood is incapable of making a movie set in the past without giving the characters a modern mindset.
Yes, the fight was slapstick, although a number of pirates get shot, get thrown down a high cliff, fall into the pit with the tiger... you have to assume there would be casualties. Of course, it's a clear case of self-defense, since they were being attacked by a gang of bloodthirsty murderers.
Certainly a family movie, although I never associated it with Christmas in particular. It did have a Christmas scene, but it was only a small part of the movie. Also I guess that in the northern hemisphere we tend to associate Christmas with winter, and of course the weather on that island seemed always tropical.
The thing is, I don't think Turner smacked his son out of concern for the other player. That was the excuse he gave himself, but I think he was furious because his son had not followed his order.
In the film it's not clear whether it had been on purpose or a mistake, and Turner never worries about finding out, or about giving his son the benefit of the doubt.
Also, if you have good reason to punish your son, you can find better ways than slapping him in public. That's only going to breed resentment. If you need to say or do something negative, do it in private, and after hearing him out. That goes for your son or for anyone under your authority.
For money. At his age and at this point in his career, this is what pays, and he wants to maintain his expensive lifestyle and leave money for his descendants. That's his right.
If he doesn't care about the quality of his filmography why should you?
It is a better story that way, because if they won the match it would had obscured the message of the movie: that, at that point, winning or losing the match no longer mattered, because the Bears had already achieved the victories they truly needed. They had won their self-esteem and their dignity. The rest was just a little league game.
At that point, Buttermaker had learned to care for someone else again. Even the seemingly most pathetic among the kids (Lupus) had a new-found self-respect. He had friends for the first time in his life ("Nobody ever stuck up for me before"). He had been put on the field to play the most important part of the match, because win or lose he was part of the team and was there to play ball, he wasn't just some embarrassment to be hidden in the name of winning ("Listen, Lupus, you didn't come into this life just to sit around on a dugout bench, did ya? Now get your ass out there and do the best you can"). Because of that, he even had his moment of glory when he caught a homerun ball right about to go over the fence, which for other kid would be a great play, but for him was an incredible moment. The circle was completed at the end of the movie, when Tanner said "Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!", and then Lupus added "And another thing, just wait till next year!" and was cheered by his team mates. The Lupus at the start of the movie would never have had the self-confidence to do that.
And in the end, that's the powerful message of the movie. That winning a little-league trophy was never the important thing. Do you think Lupus was the loser in this movie? Coach Turner won the trophy but was the lesser man and lost the respect of his son and wife. Who was actually the winner, then?
Well, I understand where OP is coming from. It would have been satisfying, if cliched, to see the Bears win. However, I agree with those who said the ending is perfect. It's a bittersweet ending that shows there are more important things you can win or lose than a little league match. If the Bears had won the game, it would divert attention from the fact that they had already won before that.
If you need a winning moment, that could be the instant when Lupus catches that homerun ball right over the fence. Think about it, Lupus, the utterly hopeless, the worst player ever, the most bullied kid, the butt of every joke... and Buttermaker puts him on the field on a key inning, because they are all part of the team and they all play, thus giving him the opportunity for that moment of glory. Or, going back further than that, the moment when Tanner sticks up for Lupus ("Nobody ever stuck up for me before"), or the moment when Kelly Leak sticks up for Tanner during the final match.
The Bears didn't need to win that match because they had already won their self-esteem and their pride. On the other hand, Coach Turner won the match, but really who cares about that little league trophy, when he had lost the respect of his son and his wife. Who is the winner and who is the loser? As Tanner says, they can take their trophy and shove it straight up their ass.
I agree, and I think this movie makes a better Mighty Ducks sequel than D2. Like the first movie, this one has a more grounded theme, instead of D2's "because we won our pee-wee league we are now Team USA and we win the junior world championship."
Hormones happened?
Anyway, Charlie was also discontent in D2 when he felt that Bombay was losing sight of what made the Ducks work. The kid clearly had idealized Bombay's style in the first movie, and did not like it to be changed.
I don't think putting Adam on Varsity was his decision, but otherwise yes.
Yep. It did not go anywhere, though. It was just an excuse for Charlie to meet Linda.
Actually, he told them that if they ate them they would sleep and never wake. So, yes, he told them they were poisonous and potentially lethal. However, that does not necessarily mean he was right.
At the end of the movie, the sailor who gets first into the boat says that they are not dead, they are sleeping. The ending leaves us with the ambiguity of whether they can be revived.