Diapers
-
valleester — 18 years ago(March 22, 2008 11:08 AM)
"But anyway, back to the OP. Did you catch 3 Men on TV Land tonight?"
Naw. My satellite box has been giving us a little trouble for the past couple of days and Hubby accidentally knocked the 3 Men DVD into the corner underneath a bunch of stuff. Did you watch it? -
ExplorerDS6789 — 18 years ago(March 22, 2008 03:08 PM)
Yeah. You know, TV versions always omit the scene of Peter buying baby food. I guess it isn't a necessary scene or maybe it's a problem with product placement. Anyway, both scenes of Peter at the market were removed, as was the risque scene of Michael accidentally turning on Dr. Ruth Westheimer.
-
valleester — 18 years ago(March 22, 2008 09:24 PM)
I LOVE the baby food scene. It really does come very close to the overwhelming feeling a new parent has when faced with all the different choices in formula, baby food, diapering, and hygiene. The Dr. Ruth scene wasn't really all that funny, though. Having that scene cut doesn't seem so bad.
But then again, that's not the only scene that I wouldn't mind cutting. I never liked the heroine sub-plot. The men getting used to the baby was entertaining enough. -
ExplorerDS6789 — 18 years ago(March 22, 2008 11:45 PM)
"It really does come very close to the overwhelming feeling a new parent has when faced with all the different choices in formula, baby food, diapering, and hygiene."
And now today there seems to be an even wider range.
"But then again, that's not the only scene that I wouldn't mind cutting."
Like what else?
"I never liked the heroine sub-plot. The men getting used to the baby was entertaining enough."
That's understandable, but I think they added the heroine subplot in order to keep the story moving, to add some sort of emotional drive that really brings out the guys' feelings for the kid and make us the audience worry about them, and care about them. I mean, you could really see the emotion in that scene of Peter running through the apartment looking for Mary. And each time I see the scene of Peter and the two drug dealers as he gets the packages mixed up, I keep wishing he had just given them the little box right then and there and not have to have gone through their apartment being ransacked.
Some people find the drug dealing subplot unnecessary, I sort of half feel that way about it too. I mean just a simple film about three clueless bachelors and a baby sounds cute and enjoyablebut perhaps it would get tiresome and one-sided, and usually adding some bad guys to the mix makes for a great plot twistbut to each his (or her) own. -
valleester — 18 years ago(March 23, 2008 09:48 AM)
"And now today there seems to be an even wider range."
Do not get me started! To add insult to injury, some baby stuff (like most diaper creams and ointments,) are virtually useless. But you've gotta USE the stuff first to discover that!
"That's understandable, but I think they added the heroine subplot in order to keep the story moving, to add some sort of emotional drive that really brings out the guys' feelings for the kid and make us the audience worry about them, and care about them. I mean, you could really see the emotion in that scene of Peter running through the apartment looking for Mary."
I can see them using something to keep the story moving. It would be awful if it went static, but the same thing could have been achieved through the baby coming down with an uncontrollable fever. You have no idea how scary that is. Then, they could have had Peter and Michael run the baby to the ER, where her health would stabilize, but child services would come into play because they're not biological parents. There would still be the element of Peter and Michael being scared of losing the baby and it would be a lot more believable than the whole drug smuggling mess. -
ExplorerDS6789 — 18 years ago(March 23, 2008 10:57 AM)
"I can see them using something to keep the story moving. It would be awful if it went static, but the same thing could have been achieved through the baby coming down with an uncontrollable fever. You have no idea how scary that is. Then, they could have had Peter and Michael run the baby to the ER, where her health would stabilize, but child services would come into play because they're not biological parents. There would still be the element of Peter and Michael being scared of losing the baby and it would be a lot more believable than the whole drug smuggling mess."
Maybe. Perhaps they tried that subplot when writing the script and either it didn't work or maybe they didn't want child services to seem like villains? That or maybe they felt that a plot about guys taking in a baby that isn't theres and the government trying to take it away was maybe considered too cliche or too "Hollywood". But still that's a good idea you had. -
valleester — 18 years ago(March 23, 2008 08:31 PM)
"Perhaps they tried that subplot when writing the script and either it didn't work"
I can see that. Having a baby almost snatched away by child services is a lot more depressing than double crossing bumbling drug smugglers.
"maybe they didn't want child services to seem like villains?"
What do you mean SEEM?
"But still that's a good idea you had. "
Thanks.
-
ExplorerDS6789 — 18 years ago(March 23, 2008 11:44 PM)
"I can see that. Having a baby almost snatched away by child services is a lot more depressing than double crossing bumbling drug smugglers."
Totally. See then Peter and Michael, and probably Jack if he came back by then, would have to go to court. It would build up to where everybody, including us the audience, feel the men should get the baby, but the ice-hearted b*stard judge rules against it. They do movies like that all the time. How many movies about babies feature a subplot about drug smuggling? -
valleester — 18 years ago(March 24, 2008 08:16 AM)
"See then Peter and Michael, and probably Jack if he came back by then, would have to go to court. It would build up to where everybody, including us the audience, feel the men should get the baby, but the ice-hearted b*stard judge rules against it."
Actually, in real life, if Jack showed up along with the note that Sylvia left proclaiming the baby to be Jack's, with the way the child custody laws are currently written, the judge would have to allow the baby to stay with Jack pending a DNA test to prove that Jack is the father. Once the DNA test came back positive, the judge would issue a document confirming the baby's paternity, he would then send Jack a custody order to fill out detailing the baby's primary custody and what visitation, if any, the primary custodial parent felt the reponding parent should have and then the judge would set up a new hearing for the custody order, which would give any interested parties (Grandparents, Sylvia,) the chance to contest Jack's custody order. Of course, Sylvia would be facing charges for child abandonment, so it's highly likely that the court system would restrict her time with the baby to supervised visitation on the weekends, holidays and the baby's birthday. Sylvia's parents would have a shot at unsupervised visitation, but the court system currently favors biological parents (I can't tell you how grateful I am for that,) over grandparents so they'd be completely out of luck, where joint custody is concerned.
"They do movies like that all the time."
The only movies like that I can think of are The Next Best Thing and Big Daddy. Were there others?
"How many movies about babies feature a subplot about drug smuggling?"
True. But anyone that has had the misfortune to run into the drug smuggling world knows that what happened in the movie would not happen in real life. In real life, when Peter tried to hand the guys the baby, they would have lost their s.h.!.t. The would tell Peter upfront that they weren't there for the baby, they were there for drugs. When Peter and Michael would have told them that they didn't know what they were talking about, that the only package they'd received was the baby, they would have shot either Peter or Michael and then browbeat the other one until one of them remembered the other package. Then they would have gotten the package, told Peter and Michael that if they went to the cops, they'd wind up dead, they'd leave and Peter and Michael would never have heard from them again. -
ExplorerDS6789 — 18 years ago(March 24, 2008 06:44 PM)
"Actually, in real life, if Jack showed up along with the note that Sylvia left proclaiming the baby to be Jack's, with the way the child custody laws are currently written, the judge would have to allow the baby to stay with Jack pending a DNA test to prove that Jack is the father. Once the DNA test came back positive, the judge would issue a document confirming the baby's paternity, he would then send Jack a custody order to fill out detailing the baby's primary custody and what visitation, if any, the primary custodial parent felt the reponding parent should have and then the judge would set up a new hearing for the custody order, which would give any interested parties (Grandparents, Sylvia,) the chance to contest Jack's custody order. Of course, Sylvia would be facing charges for child abandonment, so it's highly likely that the court system would restrict her time with the baby to supervised visitation on the weekends, holidays and the baby's birthday. Sylvia's parents would have a shot at unsupervised visitation, but the court system currently favors biological parents (I can't tell you how grateful I am for that,) over grandparents so they'd be completely out of luck, where joint custody is concerned."
Well, based on those facts, I think they opted to go with the drug smuggling plot because it was more exciting. Movies that center around the courts and litigation are often a yawnfest.
"The only movies like that I can think of are The Next Best Thing and Big Daddy. Were there others?"
One with a similar plot is the Halle Berry film "Losing Isaiah."
"When Peter and Michael would have told them that they didn't know what they were talking about, that the only package they'd received was the baby, they would have shot either Peter or Michael and then browbeat the other one until one of them remembered the other package."
Maybe it was lucky those two weren't very good smugglers or they might have done that.
"told Peter and Michael that if they went to the cops, they'd wind up dead, they'd leave and Peter and Michael would never have heard from them again."
They sound like guys right out of The Godfather. Sonny and Mike Corleone ransacking clueless bachelors for drugs. -
valleester — 18 years ago(March 24, 2008 07:58 PM)
"Well, based on those facts, I think they opted to go with the drug smuggling plot because it was more exciting. Movies that center around the courts and litigation are often a yawnfest."
You've got a point. It's hard to make a child custody issue in a court funny. In my (admittedly limited,) experience, it's anything but funny.
"One with a similar plot is the Halle Berry film "Losing Isaiah."
Ugh. Forgot about that one. Gotta admit, I'm not a huge Halle Berry fan. She's like a female African American version of Johnny Depp. Creepy.
"Maybe it was lucky those two weren't very good smugglers or they might have done that."
LOL!
"They sound like guys right out of The Godfather. Sonny and Mike Corleone ransacking clueless bachelors for drugs."
Except those are actors. The guys I'm talking about really mean it. -
ExplorerDS6789 — 18 years ago(March 24, 2008 09:24 PM)
"Ugh. Forgot about that one. Gotta admit, I'm not a huge Halle Berry fan. She's like a female African American version of Johnny Depp. Creepy."
Have you seen that movie?
"Except those are actors. The guys I'm talking about really mean it."
I've heard. But they're actors playing roles based on guys who really mean it.
So anyway, you said there were other parts you would've cut from this movie? What would those be? -
valleester — 18 years ago(March 24, 2008 10:58 PM)
"Have you seen that movie?"
Nope. Can't stand Halle Berry and I can't stand Jessica Lange. Since they were the two leading ladies, I decided to sit that one out.
"I've heard. But they're actors playing roles based on guys who really mean it."
True. I wish that I could recall the scene to tell ya if they get it close to reality, but it's been so long since I've seen it.
"So anyway, you said there were other parts you would've cut from this movie? What would those be?"
Maybe I wouldn't have cut parts so much as done them differently. The Peter-Rebecca sub-sub-plot wasn't very well written. You find out through the movie that Peter and Rebecca have decided to see other people, but the signals seem mixed. In one scene, a pretty lady asks Peter if he and Rebecca are still exclusive and he assures her that he's free to see other women, leading the audience to believe that it was his choice to see other people. In the same scene another guy comes up to Peter and asks him if he and Rebecca are still together and Peter says that he and Rebecca are still together and have been exclusive for five years, leading the audience to think that it was Rebecca's idea. Then Peter asks Rebecca to stay the night and she says something to the effect that she thought that Peter was uncomfortable with that, leading the audience to believe that Peter was the one to end their exclusivity. Then came the famous, "Don't babies DOODLE IN HUNGARY?!" scene, during which Rebecca coldly replies to Peter that she won't help him because they agreed to see other people. There was just too much ambiguity. Don't forget that in Rebecca's scene with Peter and Jan, she acts very standoffish towards the baby, her off hand comment to Michael's date at the play about the baby, when Peter goes to comfort the baby during Rebecca's overnight visit, Rebecca doesn't help him, and in our last scene with Rebecca, we see her smiling nicely at Peter and the baby and then making the grumpy face at the drool on (whatever that object was,) as soon as Peter closed the front door. Thei relationship was so problematic. It stuck with me and took my focus away from the guy's relationship with the baby. I would have had Peter and Rebecca break it off clean during the party scene and I would have had Michael's gf be a touring musician so that he couldn't get any help from her. And that's just for starters. -
ExplorerDS6789 — 18 years ago(March 25, 2008 12:17 AM)
"True. I wish that I could recall the scene to tell ya if they get it close to reality, but it's been so long since I've seen it."
Which proves it's not a very memorable scene.
"In one scene, a pretty lady asks Peter if he and Rebecca are still exclusive and he assures her that he's free to see other women, leading the audience to believe that it was his choice to see other people. In the same scene another guy comes up to Peter and asks him if he and Rebecca are still together and Peter says that he and Rebecca are still together and have been exclusive for five years, leading the audience to think that it was Rebecca's idea."
Either that or Peter was fooling both parties. Telling the lady they see other people meaning he was available while telling the guy they're together to prevent him from trying to date her.
"Thei relationship was so problematic."
Totally. Some women are just plain fickle. Believe me, I've met a few in my day.
"I would have had Michael's gf be a touring musician so that he couldn't get any help from her."
It seems that in both 3 Men movies, we don't see much about Michael's dating life, nor did he seem like a plot centered around him. 3 Men and a Baby, the second half anyway, saw Jack as the central character, while in the first half it was Peter and Michael both as central characters; in 3 Men and a Little Lady, it was mostly the three men in the first half, but once they got to England, Peter became the central character in the plot. So Michael didn't carry a plot himself. If they made a third 3 Men movie, something along the lines of 3 Men and A Frat Girl, perhaps a plot or subplot can revolve around Michael Kellam. Who knows? I mean at least it would give Steve Guttenberg something to do, he hasn't done much of anything since the mid 1990s.
"That's just for starters"
What else would you cut/change?