Stu - was he a bad guy?
-
EightiesKid — 13 years ago(March 15, 2013 02:46 AM)
I'm glad they dumped the villain idea from the book to the movie. Even though from the audiences' perspective, we tend to be on Daniel's and the kids' side, we can see that Stu is a pretty good guy. The kids like him and he was making Miranda happy (although I'd question how fast she started seeing him).
The "loser" comment was the only time he was a pr*ck, and even that could've been secondhand stuff he'd heard from Miranda when she was mad.
btw, even though the ending is supposed to be ambiguous, I wonder if Miranda kept up seeing Stu or not? He probably was weirded out finding out Mrs. Doubtfire was Daniel and may have thought he needed to back off for awhile, lol. -
gza385 — 12 years ago(April 14, 2013 08:45 PM)
Stu was definitely a good guy, but from Daniel's perspective, he was his nemesis. The film makes it clear that Stu loves and respects Miranda, adores her kids and treats them all well. Sure, he called Daniel a "loser" but he was likely repeating what Miranda told him. And the comment wasn't untrue as Daniel lost his wife, his kids, even his house thanks to his immaturity.
Simply put, Daniel was bitter and jealous at how successful Stu was being in Daniel's old role as "dad" and resorted to childish acts to make Stu's life miserable (breaking his Mercedes emblem, throwing the fruit at his head, covering his food in pepper, etc). -
martino_CDLXXXIX — 12 years ago(June 05, 2013 08:42 PM)
You answered the question in your post.
It would be clichd and boring for him to be a pompous, deceitful womanizer, but as is clear from the scene at the pool bar, he's genuine and good replacement-father material. All of the reasons Daniel hates him are basically petty, jealousy-related reasons; he makes a lot of money, he's dating his ex-wife, he looks like Pierce Brosnan, etc. The only thing he does that can really be considered inconsiderate (excluding when he hits on Miranda at the beginning of the moviewe don't know how much he knew about her relationship status at the time) is call Daniel a loser, which is really hard to fault him for; everyone is at least a little more mean when talking about people who aren't present than when they are, and Stu definitely had the grounds to make that comment. I think the bar scene is a great moment because we're able to empathize with Daniel
and
understand that Stu is not the sleazy slimeball that Daniel wants to think he is. -
McFly_2015 — 12 years ago(July 09, 2013 08:49 AM)
i think the character was written/portrayed well for the tone of the film; it's supposed to be a family comedy with some dramatics. If they made stu a bad guy, it would have made the film much darker seeing as how he spends so much time around the children, potentially becoming their step father some day.
His main 'crime' is being rich and more responsible than daniel. But the reality is he's not a bad guy; even when Daniel nearly kills him at the end he doesnt freak out and demand Daniel arrested.
His character was important because it added an extra obstacle for Daniel trying to regain his children. -
Livana_Faolan — 12 years ago(July 13, 2013 01:11 PM)
I don't think he was a bad guy. But the comments he made about Daniel were out of line. Quite frankly, he didn't know what he was talking about. He was basing his opinion solely upon what Miranda, who was the bitter and spiteful soon-to-be ex-wife of Daniel, was saying about Daniel.
-
dan-willi84 — 12 years ago(August 10, 2013 02:46 PM)
Daniel did feel threatened by Stu and felt Stu was going to replace him as his kid's father. But calling Daniel a loser, by not actually meeting him and getting to know him, was uncalled for and judgmental. When Daniel put the pepper on Stu's food. He was really drunk and had drunken a couple of scotches and a bit of champaign. He didn't think that the pepper would cause him to choke and possibly kill Stu.
-
mcgill_j — 12 years ago(September 27, 2013 07:49 PM)
maybe loser was harsh to say. But I am assuming that Stu, didn't he mention dating Miranda in college previously? Or maybe it was in delieted footage or something?
But seriously. Calling Daniel a loser was kind of being kind. He was irresponsible, immature. They drifted apart. If you want to go with the clich opposites attract but as they grew older grew apart. Honestly the movie in many ways is about Daniel kind of growing up a bit.
Daniel I admit. I liked him a lot, he had principles. But he was also it seemed kind of a mooch to a wife who was earning all of the money. At least that's the impression that I got. That he would be the kind of dad who it was more important that the kids liked him rather than necessarily doing what was right for them. Throughout the film he does mature a bit.
Daniel is clearly jealous of Stu. Who is much more a match to Miranda. They were both much too serious minded. Not saying that's a bad or good thing, just the way it is. Honstly though Miranda was not exactly shy about slamming Daniel in front of Mrs. Doubtfire so I can't imagine she was any more kind in front of Stu.
Stu thought he was confiding in another adult. And saying what he was told was the truth. Yes Daniel did love his kids. That's quite clear. But he couldn't be mature enough to work through the 3 months abd get visitation the right way? He was short, cursed in front of his children.
Which is understandable with the stress of a deteriorating marriage. But I can't really blame Stu for that. Maybe he shouldn't have spoken out of school, but who is so perfect to have never done that? Daniel the entire film mocked Stu, who seemed oblivious. The only reason we forgive him is because it was so oblivious. He flat out said his wife had an STD, to Stu. Hardly things a mature adult would do either? so why hate Stu for saying something that wasn't even malicious as at at least he didn't know whom he was talking to.
Stu was boring.. a bit stuff, but a bad guy? No, not so much. -
Skele1029 — 12 years ago(November 11, 2013 04:05 PM)
Stu was a good guy. He genuinely cared about Miranda and the kids. This is made clear when he talks to that man at the pool. The only "horrible" thing he does in the movie is call Daniel a loser. But as others have pointed out, he was likely just repeating what Miranda had said to him, as Miranda was very spiteful and angry toward Daniel. Hell, Stu even continued being polite to "Mrs. Doubtfire" after "she" made many implications about Stu. You can see throughout the film that he becomes visibly annoyed with "her", but remains cool, calm, and collected.
Daniel just felt threatened by Stu out of jealousy. He didn't like the fact that some other guy was "moving in on his family". He hated Stu from the start, and tried to personally sabotage him in any way he could. He made Stu his personal nemesis.
It would have been interesting if Stu actually were a "villain", as he was originally supposed to be, who was just using Miranda and had no intention of acting as a father to her kids. That probably would have changed the whole tone of the film, though, making it darker. The director, Chris Columbus, felt that it hurt the relationship with Mrs. Doubtfire so Stu was re-written to be more the perfect potential replacement for a father. -
Jenocalypse — 12 years ago(November 29, 2013 02:32 PM)
Calling Daniel a loser seems preferable to gossiping about how Miranda is recently divorced. Especially when that just begs further questions. What were the odds someone particularly Daniel himself dressed in drag would be listening in?
Stu being a decent guy allows the movie to have an open ending and offer social commentary on the nature of family, seperation, and togetherness. Stu being a bad guy would have undermined that. -
The-Last-Prydonian — 12 years ago(December 09, 2013 03:05 AM)
You must have been watching a different movie from me as I didnt see any of that in Stu at all! Whatever in the movie gave you the idea he was this sleazy pick-up artist as you make him out to be?! He struck me as a middle-aged man who had no family of his own who had met a woman he had some fancy for and was going through a divorce. In this he saw the opportunity to finally maybe settle down with a woman he was fond of. Yes, she had kids and he had said in the past he didnt want the burden of children. But some people do change and as she says and he was having paternal feelings of he could be missing out on. He had seriously re-evaluated his life.
He seemed like a genuine enough guy and to be fair his comments about Daniel were pretty fair. Daniel although not an altogether bad person was a bit of a loser in how he had treated Miranda and was at times an irresponsible father. The start of the movie is a perfect example where he undermines Mirandas authority by throwing a birthday party for his son even though she had forbidden it because he had got a bad report card at school. And to make matters worse he cause a major disruption via the party where upon a neighbour is forced to call the police and Miranda and has to arrive and clean up his mess, making her look to be the bad guy in front of the kids.
Even though Stu didnt know Daniel personally we can only assume he knew her well enough as a past friend to have believed what she said as her soon to be ex-husband. Lets face it, we know it wasnt going to be a lie because we know by what we witnessed in the movie it was true. So I would give Stu the benefit of the doubt and say he was a good guy at heart who did like the kids. I dont think he would gone to so much bother to spend time with not only her but the kids if he was just out to get what he wanted! And Daniel although he didnt mean any real harm was a jackass for spiking Stus food which could have very well killed him! It was spiteful and out of order! At least he saw what he did and managed to correct his stupid mistake by saving him but never the less! -
Hitman84 — 12 years ago(December 22, 2013 02:05 PM)
I haven't seen this movie since I was a kid and found it on last nightwhen I watched it as a kid I never really knew what was going going on story-wise I just watched it for the comedy and never really seen any bad guys, but when I watched it last night I would definitely say the wife was the "bad guy" I couldn't stand her, she is just a bitch plain and simple, she basically wants Daniel to completely forget about his own kids and vise-versa, she's very selfish and one-sidedI wouldn't hit a woman but if I had an ex-wife like that it would take all I had not to knock her teeth down her throat lol
"Plum near cut his head in two mmmmm hmmmm" -
venturaa — 12 years ago(December 24, 2013 10:54 PM)
I think he was a good guy- when he said Daniel was a loser I think he was going off what Miranda had said about him. But he was hot and seemed sweet. Wondered why he was with Miranda to be honest
Snakes. Why'd it have to be snakes? -
patkav6 — 11 years ago(April 10, 2014 07:45 PM)
Just saw that scene again and it got me thinking too. It made him a good guy with honest intentions after those comments. I like that the movie didn't make him a cliche' villain at every turn. Him being a wealthy stiff gave Daniel enough fire to compete with.
-
cidandreevefangirl — 11 years ago(March 11, 2015 06:43 PM)
I think he was a good guy- when he said Daniel was a loser I think he was going off what Miranda had said about him.
Also, Daniel kinda proved him right throughout the movie. He
was
a bit of a loser. I understand that Daniel saw Stu as a threat to his family, but his constant attempts to upset or sabotage Stu were either childish (e.g. throwing fruit at Stu's head) or downright life-threatening (sabotaging his food). Daniel wasn't exactly Mr Nice Guy.
In fact, when I first saw the movie I was hoping it wouldn't end up with Daniel and the mother getting back together because Stu seemed like a much nicer and more stable father figure.