This message has been deleted.

He was a prick for calling Daniel a loser. I didn't really have any sympathy for him after that.
Just because I'm not on THEIR side, doesn't mean I'm on YOURS.

he had a bad tan & was did a bad parking job of his car.
Season's greetings!

When Stu called Daniel a loser, he had never even met Daniel. It was just something he picked up from Miranda.
The ONE time Stu and Daniel interacted (after the choking scene), they got along just fine, shaking hands and going their separate ways.

Stu was a cool guy but he was in the way of our hero and his happiness. The movie perfectly made us feel good when Daniel got back at Stu. But it really was all an illusion.
I think the real enemy in the whole movie was Miranda herself, since had the dumbest, most selfish reasons to destroy that family. Since Miranda is shown as a tough, confident, strong woman, we ended up projecting all of our angry toward her on Stu. He is a man. No one wants to think badly of women.

that's what she said.
"You have to live life to its full chorizo!"-Mario Batali

Stew!!
_ _
The IMDb Boards end on Feb 20!
Farewell to you nice people out there! You know who you are.

You're getting thicker I mean "warmer".
Think chowder. Then think thicker.

"I would glue noodles and prunes to my shoe
For one oozey spoonful of jellyfish stew."

• Prelutsky

bouillabaisse?
Season's greetings!

perhaps
or maybe some other kind of food that could be described as a thick soup, and happens to sound a little like Stu.

"I would glue noodles and prunes to my shoe
For one oozey spoonful of jellyfish stew."

• Prelutsky

a bisque?
Season's greetings!

Stu is really more of a thick soup than a bad guy.

Every single person on the face of the Earth is unique.
except for you.

As to a bad guy, his presence as an anti-Daniel, I wouldn't class him as a bad guy. But in some of his actions I would. He seems to home in on Miranda very quickly. I admit that her colleague mentions that when Stu phoned him he specifically asked for her.
My guess was with the back story. My guess was that, one time before she was a Mom and before she met Daniel, she and Stu had been an item. She thought he was out of her system by still the old feeling lingered and his rather sudden arrival brought to old emotions flooding back. The reason for their break up was he had no intention of having kids or a family life. Now he's back and there is a ready made family for him to step into. At the pool he's great with the kids.
I think to class him as good or bad leaves you with a very ambiguous answer. As to myself he isn't a bad guy, but he isn't good either. His timing is rotten. Miranda did seem a little too pleased when her colleague mentioned him, maybe she was already on the lookout.
Originally, in the script the movie was to end with Daniel and Mirada getting back together but that was quickly vetoed by Robin Williams. I think the real ending they used was that ultimately, Miranda did keep seeing Stu and he became a feature in the kids life, but but he realizes that he can't deprive the kids of their real father and he mustn't try to replace that.
As to his 'loser' comment he was bang out of order. But I do agree that it was probably what he thought after hearing about Daniel from Miranda. Most fathers have certain things they feel it is there right to do (teach a son to shave. buy him is first pint, etc.) and they'd feel violated if somebody else did that. So as long as Stu took a back seat I think he and Daniel might get on they would never be friends but they could at least be in the same room as one another.
To sum up, he's not a bad guy, but not a good guy as far as his timing goes
If I can't save you, I swear to God, I am gonna stop you!

One thing that pissed me off about Stu was that he called Daniel a 'loser' when he didn't even know himAnother one was when he had a five year-old on his shoulders and sitting on his lapMow me..being a parentI'd beat the hell out of him & beat the hell out of the mother for allowing it.

If Stu is a bad guy then Daniel is certainly a criminal. He disturbed the peace by having that anarchiac party for his son, vandalized Stu's car, threw a piece of fruit at him behind his back (assault), and poisoned Stu's meal with pepper (attempted murder).

It's been a long time since I've watched this, but the only thing remotely negative I remember him doing was calling Daniel a loser, and even that I could see why. Miranda probably wasn't painting Daniel in the best light to Stu.
It was quite obvious that Stu was quite fond of Miranda and her children, and his intentions were good, whereas I remember Daniel coming off as an immature jackass (vandalizing his car, throwing a lime at his head when his back was turned), and even goes as far as to nearly kill the man, and he had absolutely no justification for that one. In some ways, Stu came off as a better guy than Daniel.
Logan, buddy. It's me, Deadpool! I shot youuuuuu.

There really isn't any bad person in the film.
We accept the love we think we deserve
http://mrsantonyelchin.tumblr.com/

I don't think he was a bad guy judging by what he said about the kids at the pool. At the start of the movie I got the impression he was so confident with women and felt he could get any he wanted and wasn't that interested in long term relationships, however he seemed to be open to the idea of settling down perhaps as he said he was now pushing 40. I think he was a bit flash and a bit of a show off but I guess he was quite successful and lived a good life.
The world is your lobster.

Now that I think of it, Stu probably was the main antagonist of the film.

No,
The Father-in-laws in movies/ shows never actually are they're just created as PERFECT Gary-Stu (excuse the pun) in order to contrast the main character.
Any Questions??

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.

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.

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?

This message has been deleted.