Sign In Now ►
or Create A New Account ►
Rank This Matchup or Comment/Reply Below
A sticky pickle.
I don't even know how you pick something like this.
Ferris is great, but Raiders is superb (although it did result in that Chrystal Skull debacle)
Last time it looks like I went with Raiders, but when it first popped up my instincts said go with Ferris. I think its weird that the poster for Raiders calls Indy a hero. I never really thought of him as a hero type character, but I guess he is (at least he's more of a hero then Ferris). I
This is a tough one. Ferris is a movie that even people today can get all the jokes. Raiders is a brilliant movie. It seems so unfair.
Because I have Flickcharting balls of steel, I can easily decide on this matchup. Ferris Bueller is a cocky arsehole, while Indiana Jones punches Nazis. Now that I have shown you all the light, you may choose accordingly.
I prefer the adventurous Indiana Jones..........
Pfft boys, pfft. Self-confident rapscallion over Mr Andrenalin Jones: Reich spiker.
Ferris Bueller is a chickenshit. He's a bullshitter and a manipulator who spends the entire movie taking advantage of people, but at the end he has to run all the way home so mommy and daddy don't catch him. Cameron is the character who actually grows a pair. Bueller is all talk. Indiana Jones is a rogue and a player, but he actually stands for something. And he can kick your ass. (NOTE: I've noticed that Indiana Jones is sort of a thief, since he tries to steal that artifact at the beginning. Belloq is sort of the Ferris Bueller of the movie, because he is smooth and crafty, and takes the artifact from Jones. However, Belloq is too cocky to realize that he's not smart enough to manipulate powers that are beyond him. So he dies. Indiana Jones knows better, and he lives. There's some character growth, there, I think.)
Whoa, heavy words from Ethics McMorality eh? A fun-loving, gifted kid lays on his charm and has a nice ride, what's the biggie? Who does he really take advantage of? A dick principal that takes his job way too seriously? Some asswipe at a pretentious restaurant? Meh. So he's gotta run home, like that's not something every teen from here to Saskatchewan hasn't gone through right. Man, don't you remember that heart flutter when you thought your parents were gonna fuck you up for some picky shit. Brrrr, awesome times. And Cameron's a fucking loser. In fact it's his shameless loserness that plays of off Ferris' talents that makes the film work. I mean the wiener is constantly whining about his shitty life and how his daddy doesn't love him and blah, blah, pathetic, pathetic, woe is my fucking ass. Then he wrecks a mint fucking car for some totally gay catharsis. That's not balls, that's more vaginaness (albeit funny vaginaness). Oh, and Belloq is NOTHING like Bueller man. He's not cool, silver-tongued, flamboyant, cool or cool. He's not as cool as Indy either, but he would've kicked Jones' ass if the God of Moses hadn't stepped in so randomly. Indy knows better? Yeah the man presented as the rational skeptic in all three movies goes on his fun adventures and is saved by mysterious powers at the very end of each flick. He didn't know better, how could he? He just got lucky. (I don't think he's much of an ass-kicker either. Sure in the movies he man's up and the villains fall by the wayside, but when in the movies do you really think, "Yo this dude got some moves for real"? More accurate to say that everyone he fights is a pussy than to say he's a hardcore combatant. He's an ends badass, not a means badass.)
Bullshit! Ferris Bueller is a "gifted" bullshitter with doting parents, who he undoubtedly has taken advantage of from birth. Cameron has an asshole (step?)father, and most certainly didn't have the charmed upbringing Ferris did. If Ferris grew up in that sort of oppressive environment, how would he have turned out? People like him need dupes that let him get away with his bullshit. Cameron didn't even wreck the car on purpose, really. He was trying to fix the mess that Ferris caused and got pissed off. When the car was wrecked, he realized this was his time to take a stand. Ferris Bueller never likely was in such a position because he weasled his way out of everything, and his parents thought his shit smelled like flowers. Anyway, this thing about Jones not being an ass-kicker because all his opponents are pussies is some serious speculation. Maybe all the people Bueller takes advantage of are just idiots, so he's not gifted at all. Considering that Jones takes a large amount of beatings and keeps on going shows that he's a badass. And that big Nazi he fights was definitely no pussy. And even if all the other Nazis were pussies, Jones was still outnumbered. Give me a break. Ferris Bueller apparently lived in a town full of dupes. God didn't step in randomly in Raiders, anyway. That's what the whole movie was about. God's wrath was even hinted at on board the ship. The Nazis were guaranteed to try and use the power of the Ark (because that's why they were after it). When the shit started to hit the fan, Jones saw what was going down and let the Lord clean house. Jones did grow as a character because he starts out as a skeptical graverobber, but realizes at the end that there's some shit you don't mess with. Jones didn't know better in the sense that he knew that God was going to f&!k some shit up, but he knew what to do when the situation turned nasty. Belloq didn't show the proper reverence and was blown up. That's the point that the whole movie builds up to - You gotta know your limits. The sequels weren't even necessary. Raiders should've stood alone. In conclusion, Bueller is a spoiled bitch who always gets his way because he lives in a town full of idiots.
Clarification: at no point do you see Indiana Jones truly duck and cover, jab and move, roundhouse kick, arm-bar, guillotine choke etc etc. He just does some basic shit and people get fucked. There wasn't a single legitimate move in Raiders. That's why he's not a "fighter". Sure, even the most trained actors are given pussies and filming tricks but at least they display enough skill to earn their characters the label of "fighter" or "badass". Now I have no problem with accepting Indiana Jones surviving for the sake of the film and I can enjoy the comical mayhem and accept the flow of Raiders (even if it is the worst of the trilogy - fuck you Ravenwood) but there's no reason, no justification to call him an ass-kicker or a fighter. That's like calling Axel Foley a badass, he's not. Hell even Neo is laughable at times. Just some shit you accept, or even forgive, in movies and move on. And God totally stepped in randomly in Raiders. When the fuck did Indy figure out "Uh shut your eyes Marion" cause basically Yahweh's gonna pulverize some mofo's with a pseudo-spooky light show? Yeah, so that he figured out with his keen archeology skills and simple deduction huh? Same shit in the other movies ("tum Shiva-ke vishwaas karte ho" and "you must believe boy"). Now Ferris OTOH shows the audience his charm, we don't have to infer, accept or forgive his charm. His charisma's there for all too see. His bullshitting skills (I prefer charm) are precisely what make him gifted (plus it's a farcical comedy so there's some license granted). That IS a gift, arguably the most bountiful gift that you can be gifted with (well maybe a big dick, I'm not sure). What are you saying here? That people with rough backgrounds turn into whiny losers like Cameron and can't learn to be suave? And what 's his rough background anyway "oh no Mother and Father withheld affection"? Bueller is a man who realises that people are very much malleable. And let's be honest, most people ARE idiots. There's just no shortage of idiots that can be duped. Fuck 'em. Plus there's no evidence of him ever doing anything malicious with his talents, that's just an assumption. And even if he did, so what? What's all the hoopla about character growth and righteousness anyway? Some of the greatest, most fun characters ever are serious assholes. You know who you sound like dude? Jeanie Bueller, the player hater. Gasp.
You are now hitting below the belt by grouping me in with the player haters. I do not agree with the "You're just a play-a hate-a" rationale for excusing bullshittery. It was invented by so-called players so they could justify their sociopathic, obnoxious behavior. I am aware of your fondness for bullshitting (presumably because it is a skill you are good at), and so naturally you are biased. And Jesus, God was not random in Raiders! Random would be throwing him in without any previous mention. The whole movie is about the Ark's Wrath of God power. That's why the Nazis wanted it. It's the "gun on the mantlepiece" rule. They talk about the Ark's awesome powers at the beginning, and they actually use them in the climax. Not random! As for the ass-kicking capability of Jones, I will agree that Raiders is not filled with stunning fight choreography, but he does make use of what's available to him. He wins fights in the movie. In combat situations, he takes a beating and survives as opposed to the bad guys, who die. I'm not sure how many regular people are capable of defeating an army of Nazis. Your argument seems to be that since Harrison Ford does not fight like Bruce Lee in the movie, then taking on an army of Nazis amounts to nothing. You're creating your own definition, and I'm not going to get stuck arguing it with you. He stole a whole truck full of Nazis after getting got shot, beat on and dragged at high speeds. That's all I need to see. And Jones would've known not to look at the Wrath of God stuff, because he is a scholar after all. The Bible does mention that looking at God will kill you (in Exodus, I believe). Belloq was too busy being a greedy archaeologist to remember that fact. Anyway, Bueller was a spoiled bitch with doting parents who indulged his bullshit, thus allowing him to practice his bullshitting skills. Cameron's father was an anal retentive bastard who probably stifled him at every turn. I guess Cameron just needed to suck it up and learn the bullshitting trade some other way. Whatever. Not giving a shit about the truth and manipulating people might be a gift, but its value is dubious. Your assertion that it's flat out a good thing is just something you're pulling out of the air. Just because people are easy to manipulate, doesn't mean they should be manipulated. Some people are easy to steal from, too. Some people are easy to beat up. Some people are good at beating other people up. So? (I would lable Foley as a bullshitter for the cause of justice, by the way. So his bullshitting was good, mostly.)
That's below the belt? Huh, well my bad if it's crass, callous or some shit but I'm sure you can see the similarities between your own line of reasoning and Jeanie's. Nyah, I don't know how great a bullshitter I am (I'm either "chickenshit" or still aspiring to "chickenshit") but given that we're talking about something that can only be viewed through the lens of our own psyches I think bias is a given. For example, you once said that you were not a guileful person so perhaps you're equally biassed? Irrelevant either way of course because that's all we do here, defend our own biasses for amusement/knowledge/shit. OK it's conceivable that "not Bruce Lee" is my own definition (and really I was just directly responding to your "And he can kick your ass" comment, I should've made that clear) but where we set the bar for "fighter", "ass-kicker" or "lover" is important here. More importantly is "how" we set the bar. If all the action was off-screen and some character just mentioned it in passing, would you still consider Jones an ass kicker or would you just say the writer just says he is? If every action scene was shown with more intricate/dextrous detail would that justify the labels more or less or exactly the same? So maybe it's not strictly a matter of "own definitions" but just an arbitrary point in a spectrum that we each subscribe to... no standard so to speak. Not too important a point though. Gun on the mantlepiece huh? Somehow that doesn't quite fit here. Due respect to Chekof (spelling?) but I could easily call it a preemptive hanging of the lantern, like hey we'll mention it and that'll make it ok even if it is some left field, wtf? type stuff. I'll concede that on some level that removes the 'randomness' so I'll just call it a weak move instead. Hell, if the timetravel in Superman stuff just happened to be mentioned in passing would that really have made the ending any less spurious? Forgive me, my knowledge of mythology is getting a little weak, but didn't the Ark house the tablet of commandments and nothing else? Now maybe I'm taking the Bible too literally but does looking at the tablet somehow/symbolically amount to looking at God Himself? Back to Bueller. Firstly, you're filling in Cameron's backstory without too many facts from the film; Cameron doesn't like him and all we know is what Cameron perceives (and we know he comes from a family rich enough to own a GT). Even if he was a "stifler" Cameron clearly uses it as an excuse to wallow in his own sorrow. Secondly (re Ferris), any "gift" of this nature is inherently valuable. At the end of your comment you say "flat-out good". "Good" is ambiguous here. If you mean good as in valuable (to the individual) than of course it's good. School, interviews, jobs, dating, it's all reliant of communication skills and bullshitting on some level. The gift of the gab IS a useful talent. However, if you mean "good" as in ethical, well I don't think I said anything like that in my last post. You said Ferris only gets by because his towns-folk are idiots and I simply pointed out that people are gullible in general so Ferris's talents are universal. I didn't say it was moral/immoral. I said fuck em as in I don't care either way. In fact I also pointed out (twice) that Ferris never really does anything sinister so. still, what's the big deal?
Whoa, wait. I'm not implying that you're chickenshit. Bueller was chickenshit because he acts all brash, but still ends up having to run home to maintain his world of BS. Even though he has doting parents who let him get away with everything. Bullshitting and chickenshitting are seperate things. I was only pointing out your bias in this situation because you seem to like movie bullshitters more than most people I've encountered. Actually, you've expressed an interest in characters who go the "create your own morality" route in the past, if I'm not mistaken. So it's not just bullshitting you're interested in. (That Cleckley guy defined sociopathy, right. Is that where you got your name?) So, maybe calling it a bias isn't even accurate (though, I try to explain my biases in comments, when applicacable.) It's part of a worldview that conflicts with my worldview. You are correct that Ferris Bueller has no obvious evil bullshitting plan up his sleave. But it is clear in the movie that his entire life is one long bullshitting spree. He is a chronic bullshitter. When is the line between "charmer" and "chronic bullshitter" crossed? To me, the act of bullshitting for one's own personal thrills or gain is immoral, especially when one does it as often as Bueller. What he does goes beyond the "gift of gab". He deliberately manipulates others just to get what he wants, and apparently has a messianic power over his town. I can't seperate the usefulness of a talent to the individual vs. how it is used on others. I can't just say "fuck 'em". And with Cameron, I'm thinking of quotes in the movie like when Bueller describes his house - "The place is like a museum. It's very beautiful and very cold, and you're not allowed to touch anything". Clearly Cameron's issues aren't just something he made up. Does he wallow? Yes. But his family life is probably the opposite of Bueller's. Instead of doting parents, he has materialistic robots, it seems. Anyway, I don't think the time travel move in Superman is comparable to God's Wrath in Raiders. That really was just out of nowhere, and had nothing to do with the plot. In Raiders, the Nazis were after the Ark because it had Wrath of God powers. They wanted to use it to take over the world. During that scene on the boat, a supernatural force is shown burning away the swastika on the crate that holds the Ark. That was an early indication that God was pissed off. When Belloq attempts the ritual, that was just going to far. The spiritual forces that come out of the Ark must've been sent by God. Jones may or may not have known if not looking would save him for sure, but it was worth a shot. If I read in the Bible that looking at God kills you, and the Wrath of God was coming out of the Ark... well, I'd just put two and two together. The ending completely and totally makes sense in the movie. It's explained early and foreshadowed about midway through. The whole movie is about the Ark. Superman has nothing to do with time travel. And the action scenes... Jones does mix it up in the movie in a variety of ways. You can't say that he doesn't shoot, punch, whip and drive his way through Nazis. He survives encounters that would kill most men. I'm just not sure how much evidence you need. The action is at the very least, not off screen.
The Ark! Bitches....
Yeah, I guess you could put it that way, too.
Not a worry dude, I know you weren't being offensive (in truth I wouldn't mind so much if you were calling me a chickenshitter, all part of the internet's big fun). I like both bullshitters and the independent philosopher types. The former because it's funny and the ability to direct people with nothing but words (and therefore remain free from coercion and absolute guilt) truly is attribute that defines 'cool'. The atter because I hate the idea of taking a code of ethics without questioning its logic or its roots (which is what society basically does). Obviously the two are closely related right? It's like "hey if you're gonna follow somebody else's principles for no good reason then that somebody may as well be me and I can give you plenty of no-good reasons". My usernae does come from Hervey Cleckley - I was originally Cleckley'sProof because a lot of my traits matched his checklist, and also because he first postulated the link between high intelligence and er kookiness. A lot of that work has been shredded or denied and there's little consensus on what sociopathology/psychopathology really mean; their really vague and misused terms now but I still thought the name was kinda apt and humorous as long as I knew what I meant. I don't know when the line is crossed; I can't know cause for me the line is always shifting. A lot of folk like the do unto others approach... so if you are willing to rob from people and that's where your ethical line lies then you should expect (or even accept) that sort of treatment yourself. I find this idea ludicrous. If I'm gonna be immoral, why do I need to be consistent; why can't one embrace a double standard in favour of one's self. So I only measure that line by what makes me feel bad (which of course is not morality at all, it's self-serving which takes us back to 'Ethical Solipsism' which fits perfectly with my 'Rational Choice' perspective perfectly. So yaeh, rhetoric aside, nothing Ferris does makes me feel bad. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy even. Cameron on the other hand always appears clingy to me, like he needs to be hugged or some shit. I don't like the sympathy-fishing drama queen types, they annoy me (especially when they're loaded like Cameron). I catch myself doing that shit every so often and it makes me feel ashamed. Euch. OK, let's see (fuck, I'm running out of keyboard stamina). Yeah Jones. The burnt swastika is only shown to the audience and not to Indy if I recall. Dramatic Irony is all good but Indy actually buying into that spooky stuff still makes little or no sense to me. Why exactly did Indy think anything would even happen? Cause the Nazis are into some occult shit and he's read the old book? He really didn't have any tangible reason to expect any vindictive ghouls. In fact all he has was other people's beliefs. And the writers took an easy/convenient conclusion. Oh, and finally the action stuff. Like I said, I can accept/forgive or enjoy Raiders (and others) but that won't make me call the guy a warrior or anything (heh, at least not in this thread). It's like Balls Out (Sean William Scott as a tennis coach) and Step Up (Channing Tatum as a dancer). Yeah I can watch both movies and see Sean and Channing's characters win their respective tourneys for the sake of the story/film but Sean can't strike and Channing is no BBoy so my limit is to just accept... but not to give them titles. Same with Indy. Luckily I dont mind silliness too much.
Let's just get the Wrath of God issue out of the way- Your Superman comparison was wrong. Your randomness argument was wrong. I pointed out the swastika burning as an example of a foreshadowing of God's Wrath on the Nazis. The whole movie was a build up to something going down with God's Wrath and the Ark, as I repeatedly explained. I'm not sure why you're nitpicking about Jones feeling something bad might happen with the Ark at the end. I gave a plausible reason why. The writer's did not take an easy/convenient conclusion. There are many movies where the villains get wiped out by trying to use powers they don't understand. If some crazy shit started happening, most sane people would be concerned. When Jones saw that maybe that Wrath of God stuff was real, he knew not to watch. Even if he wasn't a believer at first, seeing shit coming out of the ark convinced him. I don't know what you mean about him having other people's beliefs. If you mean the Bible, then he had a reason to believe the Bible at that point. Anyway, you're right that a bullshitter has no reason to be morally consistent, since they are probably immoral anyway. Why should they care? Still, assholes (and/or bullshitters) only get to be assholes because people let them be assholes. They need victims and the comforts of a stable society. Assholes wouldn't have anybody to steal from or bullshit or whatever else if a society based on some sort of laws or sense of decency did not exist. They are leeches who take advantage of the stability other people created. If everybody was a devious, immoral asshole then things would be quite different. I like being able to trust people. I like being able to believe that not every action has an ulterior motive. When assholes take advantage of others, a little more of the general goodwill erodes. I believe that good exists, and it takes a lot more to treat others fairly than screw them over. Life isn't fair (more like neutral), but people can be fair. In a world full of assholes, only the biggest assholes will survive. What a wonderful world it would be. Maybe I'm selfish, but if I find an old lady's purse and return it, I want her to be able to feel better about humanity. I don't want my act to cause her to be more trusting so some asshole can come along and take advantage of her. Immoral people who exist by taking advantage of others are chickenshits. As for Cameron, I don't see why he's worse than Ferris. Like I said, Ferris was raised by indulgent parents. He lead an easy life. None of his bullshitting skills came about because he had to bullshit to survive or something like that. He just bullshits because he can. It's empty. His positive attitude is empty. Yeah, maybe Cameron bitches alot, but he wasn't blessed with doting parents and bullshitting skills. I'm not saying he's likable, but I understand his issues. Ferris just pisses me off. I'll just accept your ass-kicking preference as a matter of taste, since you're into martial arts ass-kickery. I'm not as picky in that area.
Boo-ya! Back to the virtual world of flickchart and OHHHH my Gawd there's a whole lotta bullshit up in this thread. Wow, that's like a dozen, extended comments of the purest garbage. Awesomely awesome! Ummm, let's see. Wrong is such an absolute word, such a filthy word. I like, maybe prefer to say the hollow ending of Raiders in which the protagonist failed to do anything while the bad-guy nevertheless gets an ass-backwards, stand-up cremation is wrong. Like hey, Jones is impotent but Belloq's gotta pay so let's get God to ass-dick that scoundrel; some serious numen lumen shit for the sake of default, Hollywood closure. Maybe if Raiders was presented as (or at least had the consistent feel of) a cynical deconstruction of the general, naive idiocy of movies (where the good guy naturally saves the day)... well maybe then the eggshell, vacant ass, nugatory ending wouldn't be bullsheezy. Random? OK cool, so yeah tech'ly it's not random because of the build-up yarn but it's still every bit (well almost) as inane as travelling back in time to save some hack reporter. Fuck it, maybe I'm the only one that thinks the ending sucks (not that the numbers mean shit to me). ---- Eh, screw dissecting morality stuff... survival of the fittest yada yada, verbum sap, custos morae can eat a dick. ---- Bullshitting needs no backstory (what does it matter if he had to, or just felt like it?), but Cameron's whining... wah, maybe if his backstory was his father ass-fucking him with his mother's head, that might warrant Cameron's hyperbolic depression and ceaseless malaise (funny either way of course). Or if he vented with some real manly anger that doesn't involve the heartless murder of a classic vehicle, that'd be cool. I dunno if any of this siht makes sense. Shit's may be more entertaining when it doesn't. Note to self: must learn wayyy more latin to minimise cheese and maximise pomposity. Woo-hoo, woo-hoo, woo-hoo. I am to myself as God is to the insane.
Well, actually the big melting extravaganza is the grand ending to the Belloq/Jones rivalry (the rivalry sets up the Wrath of God finale from the beginning), but I digress... before I even start. You're not the only one who finds the ending disagreeable, and all this discussing is not bullshit. You probably don't even think that it's entirely bullshit, or you wouldn't be indulging its creation (unless you just look at this as a competition of some sort, and the bullshit indulgence is secondary to flexing your brain muscles). This whole discussion has touched on many Great Human Issues, and others may be inspired to look at film (and life) philosophically because of discussions such as these. I must say, though, that I do not agree that "survival of the fittest" should be applied to humans, at least like I think you mean it. Because humans can use tools capable of mass destruction, moral action is the only way for people to continue to survive. The fittest are not the ones who are capable of taking advantage or beating people into agreement. They are a hinderance to human survival. Moral action is strength, and it's what sets us apart from the big lion who eats the little gopher... well, you get the idea. I guess the survival of our species as a whole wouldn't matter to a psychopath, but he won't have anyone to out-survive when the world blows up. (Not to say that all my decisions have been moral, or beneficial to the species, but I am starting to recognize that what I do in life matters. At least when viewed as part of the Human Big Picture.) I guess I look at Bueller like I look at folks who go hunting with all kinds of fancy weaponry and camouflage and traps... are they really earning that kill? I can only assume that the people who live in Bueller's town are like some oblivious deer, and he has easy pickins'. The two superior minds in that town are Cameron and Jeanie because they see what's going on. They seek to expose, or at least question, the False Prophet who is Ferris Bueller. Yes, Cameron is namby-pamby... but Jeanie emerges triumphant, if I recall. She has Bueller right where she wants him in the end, and she could've put a crack in his Evil Empire. But she doesn't, because she realizes at that point that she is righteous and Bueller is vulnerable. That's all that matters. The righteous prevail.
Not even going to read the novels above. This is apples and oranges but to compare a light and fluffy film like Bueller to a classic like Raiders is silly. Raiders is why they invented the cinema.
@Poopasaurus, Hey it's all up for comparison. That's why they invented flickchart. @KingofPain, Meh it's just another way to pass the time. But then, seeing life as a series of wasted moments and hoping that the frivolous indulgences that make up these wasted moments can provide a smooth, palatable transition into death, maybe then this isn't bullshit. Perhaps it IS my purpose in life. Cue the gong. But most likely its nothin' more than jus' somethin' to pass the time. I don't see anything profound in it. Competition is great, I love it and all but it's kinda useless to compete over something as blurry and subjective as art. --- Jeannie only triumphs when she realises that Ferris' easy successes are not the same as her own hard trials in life. She spends most of the movie contemplating her brothers ability dupe the masses and feeling sorry for herself over something that does not actually affect her. So she only succedes once she sees that Ferris' actions don't need to matter to her; he's not screwing her over so why should she screw him over? There's nothing for her to gain by er, harshing his mellow. --- Human Survival? What does it matter once you and everyone you like is dead? Just gotta maximise the fun while you're here. If helping others makes you fel good, well that's logical. If it doesn't, why restrict yourself? Not that I'm advocating rape or some Hostel shit in real life, but pictures is just pictures.
Well, at least we may have succeeded in wasting more moments on this particular topic than anyone else ever will. If there is ever a Flickchart award for Frivolous Indulgence While Transitioning Into Death, I feel a nomination is in order. But, you do need consider if you would actually be here if previous generations didn't plan ahead for the species just a little. I kind of like the idea that 10,000 years from now there will be people living unimaginably better than we are now, because this generation actually had some foresight and unity of purpose. And that's my whole feeling about Jeanie and Cameron - they actually had to deal with reality (unlike Ferris), so they are more honorable... and they are literally the only people (aside from Rooney, who was just doing his job, really) that can see through Bueller's BS. Have you considered that Ferris might be the Antichrist? He's got the characteristics. Rooney should've been a priest in the movie instead of a principal.
Oh, yeah, and you can objectively discuss what happens in a movie. You just subjectively decide whether you like it or not. Talking about movies may not be profound, but if you like movies then talking about them is what you do. And sometimes you might find something out that you hadn't considered before.
In that case Sloane is the real hero of the movie (or the Whore of Babylon). She totally gets the reality, sees through Ferris' silliness and still decides that it's the best, most satisfying way to proceed. She sees, it, accepts it, enjoys it and reaps its benefits. That's how you deal with reality IMO, you see the good and the shit and you move on. --- "You just subjectively decide whether you like it or not." - not sure what to make of this line. It's part redundant, 'cause "like" is "subjective" by default. But it's also part contradictory, 'cause you don't "decide" what you "like" conciously, you either do or you don't (at any given moment). But that's neither her nor there, I get what you mean in the second comment and I don't disagree enough to make a point of it.
Hey to break up this great discussion...but it's Raiders...all the way.
I think there should be a T-shirt sporting Bueller's image with "Antichrist" under it and one with Sloane's image with "Whore of Babylon" under it. That Sloane observation may actually be profound... I might have to rewatch the movie just to see if it holds up. (Some people try to determine what they like objectively. But even those who are subjective about their likes are influenced by objective input to some extent, right? I ate a banana once and it made me sick, so I never ate another banana again. Even though I objectively can see others enjoying bananas I still don't eat them. Wait, does that in some way explain what I was saying? I'm just throwing it out there.)
I think Cleckley and King need their own podcast to set it straight...I decide on these more difficult matchups one way: "Is Indy a better adventure move, or is Farris a better comedy". Well, Indy is probably the best adventure movie ever made, and Farris, well, Farris is not a total comedy all the way through. Just like any John Hughes movie, it gets real "teen" serious at the end. Farris is definitely top 50, but it falls short of becoming a monumental comedy film.
Man, I don't even know now. Did this whole objective/subjective thing when I studied epistemology/research methodology and even then I wasn't sure. I mean even those who claim to be objective must be subjective to a massive degree (when it comes to art). I always figured enjoyment is about preferences so it's primarily subjective. I mean, not liking bananas cause the made you sick.. that's totally subjective right? Cause you must objectively know hat it won't make you sick again I guess. *Shrugs*. I stay away from chocolate because objectively they're bad for me but damned if I don't love sugar as much as boobies. I don't think that clears it up either. Pisses me off that I've never hd a resolution for this subject.
I wish I'd been privy to this debate all along! I'm with Cleckley that the deus ex machina ending of "Raiders" detracts from the rest of the film no matter how much build-up there is for the supernatural. This is why "The Temple of Doom" is my favorite of the Indy movies: it's the only one where Indy has to carry the day himself (after, admittedly, Short Round breaks the spell). That said, I also agree with KingofPain that the nature of Indiana Jones as a character allows for him to not be the triumphant hero. For me, the one line that best characterizes Indy was one of his own: "I don't know! I'm making this up as I go!"
As for "Ferris," I think it's integral that he was a "silver spoon." The allure of the movie is that it's the fantasy of youthful rebellion and somehow that fantasy is cleaner and easier to get into when the character has none of the constraints that most of the audience have. Plus, ultimately his rebellion is as much against his own social class as anyone else, and we the Have Nots get a vicarious pleasure from his defiance.
The payoff in "Ferris" is more satisfying than that of "Raiders," and while I try to have a holistic view of each movie I see, the truth is that--like most people--my impression is strongly influenced by how I feel when the movie ends. "Raiders" leaves me with a, "Wait, what? That's it?" taste in my mouth.
Just to set things straight - the ending is not a "deus ex machina" situation. The good guys don't win. The bad guys don't win. God wins. The whole movie builds up to the climax and it makes perfect sense in every regard. While Belloq and Jones are fighting like children over the Ark, Go steps in and makes it clear that they were both out of their league. It's a big joke. In absolutely no way is it a deus ex machina. It's totally fair to like other movies more, but at least get the point of Raiders right if you're going to criticize it.
Go is actually supposed to be God. Go is just his nickname.
Ferris encouraged me to skip school several times in my youth. Raiders is the better movie, but i prefer Ferris.
Oh my god, Cleckley and KingofPain always get in these huge arguments. Calm down guys, it's just Flickchart, and Ferris wins this EASILY.
This is a hard one...
@Conner Dude, don't see it as an argument. At least not in the conventional "hurt feelings" sort of way. It's just discourse. Dude has mad skillz and I like seeing people with mad skillz construct their deconstructions.
Raiders of the Lost Ark. The plot is simplistic and the action is superb. Indiana Jones is like a household name around the world. Ferris Bueller is more national.
Really really really really hard i'll go with Ferris, but not by far