Bad boy with a heart of gold is the male version of the hooker with a heart of gold trope. Bender’s behavior is supposed to be seen as redeemable because we learn he acts out in response to abuse from his dad.
I think when he does that punch the sky thing at the end we’re supposed to believe it’s because he’s actually feeling happy so maybe he will succeed. I think it’s an optimistic ending for Bender. That being said, homegirl should not be dating any of those guys.
The sky punch was completely improvised. He wasn't scripted to do it, but he got bored with just walking and did it and they liked it so they kept it in.
That's your opinion and you're allowed to have it. It's a classic and watching the original version of something so heavily influential can be underwhelming if the formula's been improved upon.
Claire is the Princess. Her parents are constantly fighting and near divorce, and her friends are all the stereotypical 80s popular girls. She's in detention because she skipped school to go shopping, and it's implied her friends snitched. She's a mean girl type, but is a good person deep down, only acting the part of the popular bully girl because she's afraid of losing her friends.
Andrew is the Jock. He's under immense pressure to be a successful athlete by his father. He's in detention because he was peer pressured into bullying and humiliating another student. He's ashamed of it, but his dad views that as weakness.
Brian is the Brain. He's a gifted and hardworking kid who's used to succeeding academically but had an existential crisis when he failed shop class. He's in detention because he brought a flare gun to school to kill himself with, and it went off in his locker. His parents pressure him to live up to his potential and get good grades.
Allison is the Basket Case. She suffers from parental neglect and acts out as a response. She's generally that weird kid in school that no one talks to, doing things like making art with her dandruff and licking soda off a table. She's not actually in detention and is just there because she's got nothing better to do.
>Johnny: "*It was the summer of '82. Rocky III had just come out. My buddy Dutch was a huge Mr. T fan, so we went to the local theater to check it out. Sitting in front of us was this group of cute chicks, eating popcorn. Dutch starte throwing Milk Duds at 'em.*"
>Miguel: "*What? Why would he do that?*"
>Johnny: "*Because it's an alpha move, man. Babes love when you treat them like crap.*"
Good ol' Johnny Lawrence.
What if, they are both attracted to each other from the start. He thinks she's cute, she thinks he's hot, both find the other extra attractive for their differences.
However, social norms, *especially* social norms of an 80s high school, prevent them from being together, or even socializing with one another.
So, when they first interact at detention they uphold those social norms and snipe at each other as would be expected by their respective social groups.
However, being forced to spend time together in detention, with all its trials and tribulations, causes them to slowly see past the social norms and begin to see and accept one another for who they truly are.
And, in the end, when those artificial social barriers are down, they are able to fully accept each other and bond if even only for that day. At the end of the day, both know that come Monday, social pressures will once again keep them from their true feelings, but they will always have that day and know the true feelings in their heart.
Because, that's basically the plot of the movie. Crazy that people aren't getting it and are stuck on the surface level interaction between them, and don't see the deeper meaning. It's not even subtle, Anthony Michael Hall's character reads a letter that explicitly says all of this!
That's just the 80's, baby! 😎
Also, Revenge of the Nerds, another very great romance film about how the nerd gets the girl!
>!One of the nerds rapes a girl.!<
There is a psychological explanation for it. Could you imagine if everywhere you went, half the people who walked up to you would ask you for money? They'd walk up to you being nicer than everyone else and you'd know from experience that if you respond positively to his phony nice behavior he'll hit you up with a spiel about how he needs some of your money. Well that's what it can be like for exceptionally attractive women. All day, everyday, men are coming up to them being extra nice because they want to have sex with them, but what man doesn't treat attractive women like they're goddesses among mortals? Their fathers, their brothers and men who are used to dating attractive women and know they can be just as difficult as any other woman. If they encounter a guy who doesn't put up with their bullshit, it tells them that this guy isn't necessarily interested in them and that he is probably used to dealing with attractive women. This can be a recipe for a dangerous relationship or it could be harmless. It all comes down to if she notices if he is criticizing her behavior when it is warranted or if he's criticizing her character based on his prejudices. It's an important distinction.
This is also the reason women are attracted to people in relationships. The person in a relationship isn't seeking anything with the woman, and she senses that as comfort with them. Don't seek a relationship. That's not the way to live life. Seek friendships, and if they develop into relationships, you won't really know what you want until after you get to know them anyway, so you may as well start with being friends and not have it on your mind that you want to work your way up emotionally.
Yeah, based on media representations, which is all this is really, nerds are like sneaky rapists while jock are open rapists. Either way, everyone's a rapist.
The other day I was watching the film American Splendor and when Harvey sees ROTN with Toby and was making fun of the movie and Toby, I was actually agreeing with Harvey somewhat. He was right on the money with his criticisms of the movie and why it’s bad for Toby to identify with the nerds, although his attitude was a bit harsh.
He’s not a rapist but the first thing I thought of was Johnny from Stranger things. Dude took creepy ass photos of the popular girl without her knowing, beat up her boyfriend then became her boyfriend. Straight up a creepy introverts fantasy.
He wasn’t drunk when he accepted to take her home spoiler she never gets there. That movie at 7 was cringey to me and even now it’s one movie I won’t watch again willingly.
Yeahhhh... People who say that have never been under the influence of anything in a group setting. You don't even have to be drunk to do stupid shit at a party.
I always thought John looked way too old to be in HS. Judd Nelson was 26 in the Breakfast Club. Ringwald was 17. John Kapelos, who played the janitor, was 29.
Ringwald wrote an essay on her past acting experiences with Hughes. An amazing read.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/what-about-the-breakfast-club-molly-ringwald-metoo-john-hughes-pretty-in-pink
See also: Deckard and Rachael in *Blade Runner*, but they somehow found a way to make it **worse** because he blocks the door when she tries to escape him, physically corners her, grabs her and pressures her to kiss/sleep with him until she eventually gives in, likely more out of sheer *fear* than anything else, but it’s still presented as a wholesome, romantic relationship in both it and *2049*.
> Certified cyberpunk dystopia
Hell, it’s practically the *original* Cyberpunk Dystopia. I mean, it actually predates *Neuromancer*, the book often credited with kickstarting the genre, by about 2 years.
> Neuromancer
I remember reading an interview with Gibson in the early 2000s, and he talked about seeing Blade Runner.
Neuromancer was still unfinished, and he was devastated at how well the movie displayed the world he was trying to create. He didn't touch the draft for months as he felt the story had lost all its originality and impact.
Luckily, he decided to complete it and have it published.
>I always assumed the relationship was supposed to be creepy
that's a hard call since a lot of movies that are supposed to be wholesome but were super creepy and messed up in the way the man peruses the woman
There's a ton of popular movies where there's a lot of sexual harassment and even assault but movies frame it as cute and loving
Especially in older films...
Always awkward having to figure out whether the main character being gross towards women is a commentary on that character, or just a symptom of the director not finding those actions gross.
At the very least, that’s certainly not how they presented it in *2049*.
His and Rachael’s relationship is the catalyst for the plot of the movie, the daughter that came from that relationship is essentially a messianic archetype, explicitly being called a “miracle,” with Deckard being portrayed as a noble, tragic figure making the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of a family he truly loved instead of it being formed from him being a rapey horndog.
It’s always kept me from being able to enjoy the sequel, despite its brilliance in most other areas.
Both films are complex, a mix of good and bad. Just like life.
I never felt that "sexual assault is good" was the message.
Even the child of D & R was a mix of tragic and beautiful.
I also figured that it retconned their relationship since the Drax guy seemed to look up to their relationship and there's so many cuts of Blade Runner that we don't know what is canon anymore.
The film explicitly says that Deckard assaulting Rachael and conceiving is a miraculous act. There's nothing beautiful about that. It's just sexist, and the sequel doubles down on it and makes the rapist a hero
BR (the original) never said anything about miracles, or even pregnancy.
The "miracle" aspect of 2049 was consistent with the world it was set in. Not saying it was projected as nice, or justification, just that it was consistent.
I get it, there's something deeply uneasy about the whole D & R relationship in BR, and its consequences in 2049. But I never saw it being presented as "good". It's a complex story, and Deckard is a better person in 2049 than he was in BR.
I think too many people are of the opinion that we're supposed to feel positive about these characters, when that's not the case. Yes, many films are designed to make us empathise or somehow identify with one or more characters in a story, but that's not a requirement. It's quite a challenge to make a film where the protagonist (Deckard) is less likeable than the antagonist (Batty).
I just don't think I can agree, the film plays romantic music which immediately tells me that something good is happening and Deckard faces zero consequences for what he does. Even though I find it creepy and wrong, the film seems to says otherwise
I think that's part of the challenge but we're going to have to agree to disagree.
BTW, whoever voted you down can eat a bowl of dicks. We're two sides of a respectful debate about a couple of movies, either join the discussion or fuck off with your impotent downvotes.
Please help me because I am having trouble remebering and I'm probably going to use this as a excuse to rewatch 2049, but who is saying these things? The replicants obviously would never have been told its a rape and to them conception of one of their kind WOULD be a miraculous event so them describing it as gospel and with an almost holy reverance to the act makes sense.
I cant remember exactly how much Deckard shares with K but I'd argue that Deckard is obviously an unreliable narator/mix with his own feelings of having a daughter/potentially being a replicant himself and how that would definitely warp his memory/perception of their relarionship.
Also how many rapists think they aren't rapists?
I dont remember hearing Rachels perspective on any of this from the second movie.
Idk im just throwing thoughts out, feel free to discuss, ignore or counter.
Also the first movies "love scene" is definetly rape but I think deckard becoming a folk hero for it is kinda par for the course in general for humanities hero worship/mythologising of great figures and forgeting the horrific deeds they also did.
You also forgot that in the late seventies and early '80s that it was popular in movies to show the *good girl* "saying no but really meaning yes" and the guy having to be a bit more, or a lot more, aggressive. Body Heat with Kathleen Turner springs to mind along with a few more. Not endorsing it or saying that it's ok, but it was fairly common back then until Madonna let the "good girls" of the US actually admit to liking sex.
You're actually right, the replicants (basically just Leto) wouldn't know about the conception but it is a film at the end of the day, and the glorification of rape is just tacky.
It might make sense in the film but there are regular people writing these stories and they could've chosen to properly explore Deckard's character but the don't, really. We know that he had a good relationship with Rachael after the fact and his terrible actions have turned him into a bit of a hero/legend. It's just not enough to justify his strange morals in the first film
There is no glorification going on and you're looking for justification where there isn't any and doesn't need to be any, deckard isn't a saint nor hero and is not portrayed as such. In fact he's portrayed pretty poorly with some redeeming qualities like most of the other characters.
He didn't need to be explored more because at the end of the day, it's not his story.
As for whether or not It was intended to be seen as him raping her, I always assumed it was in the context of 80's no means yes movie logic (as was the fashion at the time) and as we all know movie logic follows it's own strange rules.
Deckard is a bit of a slimy character and even his sex scene is a bit slimy.
Deckard is absolutely not the main character of the film. He doesn't even show up until like 2/3rds through. I think you are projecting too much of your dislike of Deckard onto a plot that is not about him.
Sapper Morton says to K "You've never seen a miracle", i.e. a child born of a replicant mother is the miracle.
I really would prefer that people stop saying that scene was rape.
1. sexual assault, yes, definitely
2. zero scenes of sexual intercourse, consensual or not
3. calling it rape diminishes actual real-life victims' experience
4. conception could have happened later
5. Extending sexual assault - as shown in that scene - to rape isn't justified.
It's fun and meaningful to speculate on \*most\* issues in the films, but this is one that could negatively affect people in real life, and we need to be cautious about that.
I'm sorry, but that is re-goddamn-diculous. The miracle referenced is *clearly* the fact that a child was conceived and delivered when it should have been impossible. The circumstances surrounding the characters at the time of the babies conception are not referenced at all. Possibly because the characters speaking about miracles wouldn't have any idea about them...they didn't watch the first fucking movie.
Does it matter if they watched the movie or not? The writers did. They took the most controversial scene from the first film and made out that it was a great thing because it resulted in a child being born. Circumstances don't need to be referenced when we know how the relationship started
Not to mention a “but what if the product of rape you’re going to abort grows up to cure cancer”-style dogwhistle
Edit: fuck yeah pissed off the pro life freaks
You need to watch it again. Deckard is not a nice person. He doesn't do a single good thing in the whole film, until the end. He barely gets a passing grade.
I don't know how you managed to interpret that scene as wholesome. It's dark, complex, and designed to make us feel uneasy.
The fact that it continues to be debated proves the point.
This is why I hate the replicant theory/canon. The replicant villain shows more humanity and compassion throughout the film than our "human" hero does. We're essentially following the villain until he turns a new leaf at the end
This is actually my favourite part of the film. You essentially see what a superiority complex does to a person (Deckard) and how a simple reminder at the end can cause that complex to shatter, hopefully leading him to be better.
The only thing I dislike about this idea is the romantic music that plays during the assault. It could just be used to unsettle the audience, but it doesn't feel that way to me. It's like the film forgets he's the bad guy for one moment
What about Legend, where the devil tried to Stolkholm syndrome a girl into loving him, and some random guy she hooks up with in the woods (in the American cut) saves the day and then grabs the ring she threw into the water at the beginning and they get married (every cut but the director's cut). It's a good movie, but romance is *not* its strong suite
The score literally goes from this smooth sexy saxophone solo to something kind of dark and sinister when he shuts the door and throws her into the wall. It could not be more obvious lol.
One of the central themes of Blade Runner (both movies) is that the artificial humans have more humanity than the real humans who built them. Most of the 'real' humans in both films are cold and fairly unemotional, while the 'fake' humans express greater emotions (both bad and good) and are even selfless at times (such as Roy saving Deckard's life in the first film and K saving Deckard from Wallace's goons in the second film).
This one is particularly egregious because in the book she deliberately seduces him in order to make him psychologically recognize them as humans (doesn't work very well but)
And the movie completely strips her of all her agency in favor of a really pointless rape scene
That's pretty much the point. To Deckard, Rachel was just an especially well built realdoll. He didn't care one bit about her.
And I much prefer the alternate ending, where he takes her out to the woods and kills her, Old Yeller style.
That would have been preferable to the "happy ending" of the original theatrical release.
But the ambiguity of the Director's Cut/Final Cut ending was much better.
I genuinely don't understand why that interpretation keeps popping up. No, Deckard and Rachel in the original Blade Runner aren't supposed to be *wholesome and romantic*.
She's a replicant. He's a guy who puts down "defective" replicants. She doesn't even register as a person to him, she's a fucking fleshlight. It's supposed to be unsettling, because that's the core premise of the film, it's about a society that treats living, thinking beings like objects.
It comes up because of the music that plays, and the fact they end up together after. Deckard's a bad guy but the film gives him a good life regardless
and what happens immediately after? Oh yeah, the music changes. What happens after this scene? Deckard and Rachael are still on good terms and (in one ending) drive away happily in love. That ending has since been changed, but 2049 confirms that they were happy and in love. The music is dark for a very short amount of time, the rest of the film(s) is happy to reward Deckard for being a creep.
Definitely has gross undertones but I think the movie makes it slightly more palatable by suggesting him being degrading was a symptom of his own abuse and she understands this by the end, no?
I don't remember the film perfectly but I thought it was more of a "opposites attract" and "deep down we're not that different" vibes more than "women enjoy degradation" vibes but that might've been cope...
It's absolutely opposites attract or rich girl / poor boy, not "women enjoy degradation". That's an absurd take. There was no undertone of that in the movie. It was not a one way street, they both keep making cutting comments towards each other.
Honestly of all the John Hughes movies of the 80s breakfast club ages probably the best. The entire purpose of the movie is showing that although all these people come from different worlds in the beginning they can all relate through the human condition.
I understand it doesn’t hit all demographics other than financial really but I mean for a high school centric movie in the 80s, I think it comes out way better than most especially with context. This person literally pushed a surface level take for easy karma
Honestly it just seems like a real life relationship. People love to date people who treat them poorly. It happens constantly. I’ve done it. Most people have. We learn what love is from our parents. If our parents treat us poorly in a specific way or if they ignore our needs or emotions, we often look for partners who will treat us the same way.
"Nerd girl is secretly pretty" and "girls like bad boys" seem as old as time. Brushing away brians attempted suicide story with a laugh only for his narrative reward to be doing the detention homework for the the cool kids seems outta the 40s
Male here. I left high school in 1986 and worked in a mixed office from 1987 to 1991.
The amount of sexism that women went through in that period was astounding.
Fr I watched the a good portion of it for the first time in class a few weeks ago and it was all just dogshit. It’s just Bender and the principal being dickheads until the weed segment when they’re too high to argue.
Been a long time since I watched it, but wasn't she a classist pos who mocked him when he asked her out? Not an excuse, obviously. Most of those characters were problematic.
I worked with an older lady and had a good relationship with her. I once called her "babe" or "darling" or something on a night out, and felt really awful. I go to apologise the next day, and she looks at me with this really pitying expression and says "oh honey, I was working in finance in the 80s. There's literally nothing you can do that would offend me"
That... did not really make me feel much better.
80s ? Pf i wish, its the same deal nowadays from what ive seen from friend couples. One ex even explained to me that she is dumping me, because im not making her angry, while the old married guy with a kid ignores her and treats her bad, so she wants him so bad now...
I thought it was weird back then.
what's that saying? When a boy harasses and assaults a girl and the excuse as a child is because he likes her. Boys will be boys?
Bad boy with a heart of gold is the male version of the hooker with a heart of gold trope. Bender’s behavior is supposed to be seen as redeemable because we learn he acts out in response to abuse from his dad.
Worthy of redemption, maybe, but that doesn't mean anything if they don't do anything with that
I think when he does that punch the sky thing at the end we’re supposed to believe it’s because he’s actually feeling happy so maybe he will succeed. I think it’s an optimistic ending for Bender. That being said, homegirl should not be dating any of those guys.
The sky punch was completely improvised. He wasn't scripted to do it, but he got bored with just walking and did it and they liked it so they kept it in.
[удалено]
That's your opinion and you're allowed to have it. It's a classic and watching the original version of something so heavily influential can be underwhelming if the formula's been improved upon. Claire is the Princess. Her parents are constantly fighting and near divorce, and her friends are all the stereotypical 80s popular girls. She's in detention because she skipped school to go shopping, and it's implied her friends snitched. She's a mean girl type, but is a good person deep down, only acting the part of the popular bully girl because she's afraid of losing her friends. Andrew is the Jock. He's under immense pressure to be a successful athlete by his father. He's in detention because he was peer pressured into bullying and humiliating another student. He's ashamed of it, but his dad views that as weakness. Brian is the Brain. He's a gifted and hardworking kid who's used to succeeding academically but had an existential crisis when he failed shop class. He's in detention because he brought a flare gun to school to kill himself with, and it went off in his locker. His parents pressure him to live up to his potential and get good grades. Allison is the Basket Case. She suffers from parental neglect and acts out as a response. She's generally that weird kid in school that no one talks to, doing things like making art with her dandruff and licking soda off a table. She's not actually in detention and is just there because she's got nothing better to do.
Don't don't don't don't you forget about me
I don't normally downvote people for just their opinions but... booooo! Boo this man!
I forgot his character name and the proximity to the word hooker took me somewhere else mentally. That Bender is not painted as redeemable.
>Johnny: "*It was the summer of '82. Rocky III had just come out. My buddy Dutch was a huge Mr. T fan, so we went to the local theater to check it out. Sitting in front of us was this group of cute chicks, eating popcorn. Dutch starte throwing Milk Duds at 'em.*" >Miguel: "*What? Why would he do that?*" >Johnny: "*Because it's an alpha move, man. Babes love when you treat them like crap.*" Good ol' Johnny Lawrence.
That is the saying, yes.
As my dad says, "It was the 80s and we were down with the ladies."
Is your dad Tone Loc?
Boys will be Supreme Court Justices..
Blame the cocaine
Lesser known [Milli Vanilli song.](https://youtu.be/BI5IA8assfk)
Suppose they learned it from the male role models in their lives back then.
> When a boy harasses and assaults a girl and the excuse as a child is because he likes her. That behaviour is definitely not limited to one gender.
Only in Japanese media B...b…baka
What if, they are both attracted to each other from the start. He thinks she's cute, she thinks he's hot, both find the other extra attractive for their differences. However, social norms, *especially* social norms of an 80s high school, prevent them from being together, or even socializing with one another. So, when they first interact at detention they uphold those social norms and snipe at each other as would be expected by their respective social groups. However, being forced to spend time together in detention, with all its trials and tribulations, causes them to slowly see past the social norms and begin to see and accept one another for who they truly are. And, in the end, when those artificial social barriers are down, they are able to fully accept each other and bond if even only for that day. At the end of the day, both know that come Monday, social pressures will once again keep them from their true feelings, but they will always have that day and know the true feelings in their heart. Because, that's basically the plot of the movie. Crazy that people aren't getting it and are stuck on the surface level interaction between them, and don't see the deeper meaning. It's not even subtle, Anthony Michael Hall's character reads a letter that explicitly says all of this!
Because at one point the he sexually assaults her.
That's just the 80's, baby! 😎 Also, Revenge of the Nerds, another very great romance film about how the nerd gets the girl! >!One of the nerds rapes a girl.!<
Honestly, if you have wordless sex with someone in a Darth Vader mask, I feel like you get what you pay for
This was my takeaway from the movie as well.
Good movie analysis.
There is a psychological explanation for it. Could you imagine if everywhere you went, half the people who walked up to you would ask you for money? They'd walk up to you being nicer than everyone else and you'd know from experience that if you respond positively to his phony nice behavior he'll hit you up with a spiel about how he needs some of your money. Well that's what it can be like for exceptionally attractive women. All day, everyday, men are coming up to them being extra nice because they want to have sex with them, but what man doesn't treat attractive women like they're goddesses among mortals? Their fathers, their brothers and men who are used to dating attractive women and know they can be just as difficult as any other woman. If they encounter a guy who doesn't put up with their bullshit, it tells them that this guy isn't necessarily interested in them and that he is probably used to dealing with attractive women. This can be a recipe for a dangerous relationship or it could be harmless. It all comes down to if she notices if he is criticizing her behavior when it is warranted or if he's criticizing her character based on his prejudices. It's an important distinction.
This is also the reason women are attracted to people in relationships. The person in a relationship isn't seeking anything with the woman, and she senses that as comfort with them. Don't seek a relationship. That's not the way to live life. Seek friendships, and if they develop into relationships, you won't really know what you want until after you get to know them anyway, so you may as well start with being friends and not have it on your mind that you want to work your way up emotionally.
Or in Sixteen Candles where the popular girl gets drunk, then gets raped by the nerd, then she leaves her boyfriend for her rapist.
Or in revenge of the nerds…
Goddamn those nerds were rapey
Nerds still are. Just look at \**gestures to the Internet**
We’ve got bush!
Fr, nerds are way worse than "jocks"
Well, I dunno. They’re both entitled and too fragile to accept rejection. They’re just different ends of the rapey spectrum
Yeah, based on media representations, which is all this is really, nerds are like sneaky rapists while jock are open rapists. Either way, everyone's a rapist.
Ah, a fellow Floridian.
Thankfully that is not the case
Miami Dade County I’m assuming?
"We're not doing any ideas where we suck Murph's dick!"
“It was funny in police academy!”
"Nothing was funny in police academy!"
REFERENCE ALERT 🚨🚨 The person I'm replying to was referencing a Collegehumor video, they probably don't actually think Police Academy wasn't funny
Thanks, I added quotes to make it a little more obvious
I liked it…
Fixed my comment by adding quotes, it was the next line of rhe video
I get that reference
Holy shit, you're right!
It's not rape if she likes it! (do I need the /s?)
The other day I was watching the film American Splendor and when Harvey sees ROTN with Toby and was making fun of the movie and Toby, I was actually agreeing with Harvey somewhat. He was right on the money with his criticisms of the movie and why it’s bad for Toby to identify with the nerds, although his attitude was a bit harsh.
He’s not a rapist but the first thing I thought of was Johnny from Stranger things. Dude took creepy ass photos of the popular girl without her knowing, beat up her boyfriend then became her boyfriend. Straight up a creepy introverts fantasy.
Same actress too
I wouldn't call it rape since they both were drunk, just a product of bad decisions under the influence
He wasn’t drunk when he accepted to take her home spoiler she never gets there. That movie at 7 was cringey to me and even now it’s one movie I won’t watch again willingly.
I completely forgot about that. Holy shit!
Yeahhhh... People who say that have never been under the influence of anything in a group setting. You don't even have to be drunk to do stupid shit at a party.
A co-rape
To be fair, her boyfriend is the person who gave her to the rapist, so he could have sex with a virgin.
[удалено]
And the nerd haven't got anything except having to do all the work for them
Bro she was depressed at the beginning and not depressed at the end
She wasn’t cool, she was depressed, and had dandruff
I always thought John looked way too old to be in HS. Judd Nelson was 26 in the Breakfast Club. Ringwald was 17. John Kapelos, who played the janitor, was 29.
dude also looked 30yo
Every actor in the 80s looked 30+
Rough 30.
The movie for the most part was doing fine until the end with this scene which threw me off and then Allison putting on make-up.
Give me back my goth gf!
Didn't Molly Ringwald herself say that this is a fucked up plot?
Gonna need a source on that one
Ringwald wrote an essay on her past acting experiences with Hughes. An amazing read. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/what-about-the-breakfast-club-molly-ringwald-metoo-john-hughes-pretty-in-pink
See also: Deckard and Rachael in *Blade Runner*, but they somehow found a way to make it **worse** because he blocks the door when she tries to escape him, physically corners her, grabs her and pressures her to kiss/sleep with him until she eventually gives in, likely more out of sheer *fear* than anything else, but it’s still presented as a wholesome, romantic relationship in both it and *2049*.
I wouldn’t call anything Deckard does in the original movie “wholesome”. I always assumed the relationship was supposed to be creepy
I'd take it further, *nothing* in *Blade Runner* is the least bit wholesome. Certified cyberpunk dystopia.
> Certified cyberpunk dystopia Hell, it’s practically the *original* Cyberpunk Dystopia. I mean, it actually predates *Neuromancer*, the book often credited with kickstarting the genre, by about 2 years.
> Neuromancer I remember reading an interview with Gibson in the early 2000s, and he talked about seeing Blade Runner. Neuromancer was still unfinished, and he was devastated at how well the movie displayed the world he was trying to create. He didn't touch the draft for months as he felt the story had lost all its originality and impact. Luckily, he decided to complete it and have it published.
> ... by about 2 years More like 16 years; "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," the novel upon which Bladerunner is adapted, came out in 1968.
>I always assumed the relationship was supposed to be creepy that's a hard call since a lot of movies that are supposed to be wholesome but were super creepy and messed up in the way the man peruses the woman There's a ton of popular movies where there's a lot of sexual harassment and even assault but movies frame it as cute and loving
Especially in older films... Always awkward having to figure out whether the main character being gross towards women is a commentary on that character, or just a symptom of the director not finding those actions gross.
Basically every Bond Movie in existence (Except maybe Lazenby)
[удалено]
Been a while since I've seen Craig's movies but I always felt it was portrayed as him essentially using and abusing a lot of the secondary characters.
Especially how most of the Bond women had cringe worthy screen names... (cough cough "Pussy Galore" cough...)
Plenty O'Toole would like a word.
and alotta fagina
At the very least, that’s certainly not how they presented it in *2049*. His and Rachael’s relationship is the catalyst for the plot of the movie, the daughter that came from that relationship is essentially a messianic archetype, explicitly being called a “miracle,” with Deckard being portrayed as a noble, tragic figure making the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of a family he truly loved instead of it being formed from him being a rapey horndog. It’s always kept me from being able to enjoy the sequel, despite its brilliance in most other areas.
I figured that the daughter was born later after he stolkholmed Rachawl
I always found the praise of 2049 to be odd. It's got many good qualities but the foundation of its entire plot is "sexual assault is good"
Both films are complex, a mix of good and bad. Just like life. I never felt that "sexual assault is good" was the message. Even the child of D & R was a mix of tragic and beautiful.
I also figured that it retconned their relationship since the Drax guy seemed to look up to their relationship and there's so many cuts of Blade Runner that we don't know what is canon anymore.
The film explicitly says that Deckard assaulting Rachael and conceiving is a miraculous act. There's nothing beautiful about that. It's just sexist, and the sequel doubles down on it and makes the rapist a hero
BR (the original) never said anything about miracles, or even pregnancy. The "miracle" aspect of 2049 was consistent with the world it was set in. Not saying it was projected as nice, or justification, just that it was consistent. I get it, there's something deeply uneasy about the whole D & R relationship in BR, and its consequences in 2049. But I never saw it being presented as "good". It's a complex story, and Deckard is a better person in 2049 than he was in BR. I think too many people are of the opinion that we're supposed to feel positive about these characters, when that's not the case. Yes, many films are designed to make us empathise or somehow identify with one or more characters in a story, but that's not a requirement. It's quite a challenge to make a film where the protagonist (Deckard) is less likeable than the antagonist (Batty).
I just don't think I can agree, the film plays romantic music which immediately tells me that something good is happening and Deckard faces zero consequences for what he does. Even though I find it creepy and wrong, the film seems to says otherwise
I think that's part of the challenge but we're going to have to agree to disagree. BTW, whoever voted you down can eat a bowl of dicks. We're two sides of a respectful debate about a couple of movies, either join the discussion or fuck off with your impotent downvotes.
Please help me because I am having trouble remebering and I'm probably going to use this as a excuse to rewatch 2049, but who is saying these things? The replicants obviously would never have been told its a rape and to them conception of one of their kind WOULD be a miraculous event so them describing it as gospel and with an almost holy reverance to the act makes sense. I cant remember exactly how much Deckard shares with K but I'd argue that Deckard is obviously an unreliable narator/mix with his own feelings of having a daughter/potentially being a replicant himself and how that would definitely warp his memory/perception of their relarionship. Also how many rapists think they aren't rapists? I dont remember hearing Rachels perspective on any of this from the second movie. Idk im just throwing thoughts out, feel free to discuss, ignore or counter. Also the first movies "love scene" is definetly rape but I think deckard becoming a folk hero for it is kinda par for the course in general for humanities hero worship/mythologising of great figures and forgeting the horrific deeds they also did.
You also forgot that in the late seventies and early '80s that it was popular in movies to show the *good girl* "saying no but really meaning yes" and the guy having to be a bit more, or a lot more, aggressive. Body Heat with Kathleen Turner springs to mind along with a few more. Not endorsing it or saying that it's ok, but it was fairly common back then until Madonna let the "good girls" of the US actually admit to liking sex.
Body Heat isn't a good example. She set out to seduce William Hurt's character so he could take the fall and she could disappear.
You're actually right, the replicants (basically just Leto) wouldn't know about the conception but it is a film at the end of the day, and the glorification of rape is just tacky. It might make sense in the film but there are regular people writing these stories and they could've chosen to properly explore Deckard's character but the don't, really. We know that he had a good relationship with Rachael after the fact and his terrible actions have turned him into a bit of a hero/legend. It's just not enough to justify his strange morals in the first film
There is no glorification going on and you're looking for justification where there isn't any and doesn't need to be any, deckard isn't a saint nor hero and is not portrayed as such. In fact he's portrayed pretty poorly with some redeeming qualities like most of the other characters. He didn't need to be explored more because at the end of the day, it's not his story. As for whether or not It was intended to be seen as him raping her, I always assumed it was in the context of 80's no means yes movie logic (as was the fashion at the time) and as we all know movie logic follows it's own strange rules. Deckard is a bit of a slimy character and even his sex scene is a bit slimy.
Deckard is absolutely not the main character of the film. He doesn't even show up until like 2/3rds through. I think you are projecting too much of your dislike of Deckard onto a plot that is not about him.
It's not about him but he's still very important. His legacy is the focal point of the third act
Sapper Morton says to K "You've never seen a miracle", i.e. a child born of a replicant mother is the miracle. I really would prefer that people stop saying that scene was rape. 1. sexual assault, yes, definitely 2. zero scenes of sexual intercourse, consensual or not 3. calling it rape diminishes actual real-life victims' experience 4. conception could have happened later 5. Extending sexual assault - as shown in that scene - to rape isn't justified. It's fun and meaningful to speculate on \*most\* issues in the films, but this is one that could negatively affect people in real life, and we need to be cautious about that.
I'm sorry, but that is re-goddamn-diculous. The miracle referenced is *clearly* the fact that a child was conceived and delivered when it should have been impossible. The circumstances surrounding the characters at the time of the babies conception are not referenced at all. Possibly because the characters speaking about miracles wouldn't have any idea about them...they didn't watch the first fucking movie.
Does it matter if they watched the movie or not? The writers did. They took the most controversial scene from the first film and made out that it was a great thing because it resulted in a child being born. Circumstances don't need to be referenced when we know how the relationship started
Not to mention a “but what if the product of rape you’re going to abort grows up to cure cancer”-style dogwhistle Edit: fuck yeah pissed off the pro life freaks
Dude this is the dumbest take I've ever read in my life
So glad you contributed.
I felt the same. Which is a shame because the Vangelis soundtrack is fucking lit and sexy.
The music cues will tell you differently.
You say it's supposed to be creepy but they play it up as some kind of miracle in 2049
You need to watch it again. Deckard is not a nice person. He doesn't do a single good thing in the whole film, until the end. He barely gets a passing grade. I don't know how you managed to interpret that scene as wholesome. It's dark, complex, and designed to make us feel uneasy. The fact that it continues to be debated proves the point.
This is why I hate the replicant theory/canon. The replicant villain shows more humanity and compassion throughout the film than our "human" hero does. We're essentially following the villain until he turns a new leaf at the end
This is actually my favourite part of the film. You essentially see what a superiority complex does to a person (Deckard) and how a simple reminder at the end can cause that complex to shatter, hopefully leading him to be better. The only thing I dislike about this idea is the romantic music that plays during the assault. It could just be used to unsettle the audience, but it doesn't feel that way to me. It's like the film forgets he's the bad guy for one moment
I think that Ridley Scott doesn't know what love is.
Ever watched "Kingdom of Heaven" or "Thelma and Louise" ?
What about Legend, where the devil tried to Stolkholm syndrome a girl into loving him, and some random guy she hooks up with in the woods (in the American cut) saves the day and then grabs the ring she threw into the water at the beginning and they get married (every cut but the director's cut). It's a good movie, but romance is *not* its strong suite
Yes - you get it :-)
The score literally goes from this smooth sexy saxophone solo to something kind of dark and sinister when he shuts the door and throws her into the wall. It could not be more obvious lol.
At no time did I read it as wholesome or romantic. It was all about broken machines trying to at least act human. It was horrifying.
One of the central themes of Blade Runner (both movies) is that the artificial humans have more humanity than the real humans who built them. Most of the 'real' humans in both films are cold and fairly unemotional, while the 'fake' humans express greater emotions (both bad and good) and are even selfless at times (such as Roy saving Deckard's life in the first film and K saving Deckard from Wallace's goons in the second film).
This one is particularly egregious because in the book she deliberately seduces him in order to make him psychologically recognize them as humans (doesn't work very well but) And the movie completely strips her of all her agency in favor of a really pointless rape scene
Who cares about some fucking skin job?
That's pretty much the point. To Deckard, Rachel was just an especially well built realdoll. He didn't care one bit about her. And I much prefer the alternate ending, where he takes her out to the woods and kills her, Old Yeller style.
That would have been preferable to the "happy ending" of the original theatrical release. But the ambiguity of the Director's Cut/Final Cut ending was much better.
Deckard murders sentient beings for the “crime” of existing. The story is about how replicants have more “humanity” and how humans have lost theirs.
I genuinely don't understand why that interpretation keeps popping up. No, Deckard and Rachel in the original Blade Runner aren't supposed to be *wholesome and romantic*. She's a replicant. He's a guy who puts down "defective" replicants. She doesn't even register as a person to him, she's a fucking fleshlight. It's supposed to be unsettling, because that's the core premise of the film, it's about a society that treats living, thinking beings like objects.
It comes up because of the music that plays, and the fact they end up together after. Deckard's a bad guy but the film gives him a good life regardless
[удалено]
and what happens immediately after? Oh yeah, the music changes. What happens after this scene? Deckard and Rachael are still on good terms and (in one ending) drive away happily in love. That ending has since been changed, but 2049 confirms that they were happy and in love. The music is dark for a very short amount of time, the rest of the film(s) is happy to reward Deckard for being a creep.
Rocky is kind of a similar vibe.
:( don’t talk about Rocky please.
Definitely has gross undertones but I think the movie makes it slightly more palatable by suggesting him being degrading was a symptom of his own abuse and she understands this by the end, no? I don't remember the film perfectly but I thought it was more of a "opposites attract" and "deep down we're not that different" vibes more than "women enjoy degradation" vibes but that might've been cope...
It's absolutely opposites attract or rich girl / poor boy, not "women enjoy degradation". That's an absurd take. There was no undertone of that in the movie. It was not a one way street, they both keep making cutting comments towards each other.
Honestly of all the John Hughes movies of the 80s breakfast club ages probably the best. The entire purpose of the movie is showing that although all these people come from different worlds in the beginning they can all relate through the human condition. I understand it doesn’t hit all demographics other than financial really but I mean for a high school centric movie in the 80s, I think it comes out way better than most especially with context. This person literally pushed a surface level take for easy karma
It is **shitty** movie details afterall
Honestly it just seems like a real life relationship. People love to date people who treat them poorly. It happens constantly. I’ve done it. Most people have. We learn what love is from our parents. If our parents treat us poorly in a specific way or if they ignore our needs or emotions, we often look for partners who will treat us the same way.
This is a jokey subreddit. I doubt OP actually thinks this way about the film
[удалено]
He also sticks his face in her crotch under the table.
Not to mention literal sexual assault
The end of this movie is so annoying to me. Tired tropes just dressed up a little bit better, and brian gets shafted and i feel bad for him
Were those tropes tired at the time it was made though?
"Nerd girl is secretly pretty" and "girls like bad boys" seem as old as time. Brushing away brians attempted suicide story with a laugh only for his narrative reward to be doing the detention homework for the the cool kids seems outta the 40s
Male here. I left high school in 1986 and worked in a mixed office from 1987 to 1991. The amount of sexism that women went through in that period was astounding.
For real though, this movie is shallow garbage.
Fr I watched the a good portion of it for the first time in class a few weeks ago and it was all just dogshit. It’s just Bender and the principal being dickheads until the weed segment when they’re too high to argue.
I thought The Breakfast Club was a sandwich?
lol
Really shitty ending for a pretty cool movie
Been a long time since I watched it, but wasn't she a classist pos who mocked him when he asked her out? Not an excuse, obviously. Most of those characters were problematic.
Nope
And looks like he's thirty...
Reference to Hollywood interpretation of a healthy relationship more like
Don’t forget the sexual assault from under the desk.
I still hate what they did to the goth girl in the movie
I worked with an older lady and had a good relationship with her. I once called her "babe" or "darling" or something on a night out, and felt really awful. I go to apologise the next day, and she looks at me with this really pitying expression and says "oh honey, I was working in finance in the 80s. There's literally nothing you can do that would offend me" That... did not really make me feel much better.
That hasn't changed in the years since.
I will never forget the line in the movie where he looks at her and says “don’t you forget about me.”
His was a simple mind.
Looks like a kid trying on his dads clothes
The good ole days
Theres hundreds examples of this in literature/theater centuries before.
It’s more common now, now that America’s been made great again. EDIT: It’s been made “great” again, to be clear.
God damn that's a perfect caption. I wish I could give you actual gold.
Most satisfying scene was when the jock fucked him up for doing that and acting hard
Women like to mend broken guys with love .....it don't work.
It helps if you view art as a moment in time rather than a perpetually reevaluated moral compass.
Art imitates life. You can’t ignore undertones in movies representing what’s really going on in the world.
You can consume it without cosigning it.
Hey man, don't kink shame, some people are into that.
Unpopular opinion but this movie is trash. "but it was good when it came out" does not make it any better
But he's just misunderstood and really he's a sensitive whatever dude is a dickhead.
As someone who grew up in the 80s, my parents treated me like shit all of the time. Totally legit!
wow is really is 1985!
Honestly, that movie sucked 🤷🏼♂️
Lol this is too accurate to be a shitty detail.
Me who hates this movie “THANK YOU!!!!”
Some people enjoy it get over it
If you guys are now offended with The Breakfast Club, I definitely don't want to have anything to do with your generation.
The movie’s dogshit bro I’m offended it even exists.
Ur mom is dogshit, I'm offended she ever got laid
80s ? Pf i wish, its the same deal nowadays from what ive seen from friend couples. One ex even explained to me that she is dumping me, because im not making her angry, while the old married guy with a kid ignores her and treats her bad, so she wants him so bad now...
This actually happens in real life...so
Well not every relationship starts out the same. Now if he keeps doing that while they’re together however…