Debbie Reynolds Version - Bachelor Mother (1939) Discussion

[–] daybyday 18 years ago

The Debbie Reynolds version is titled Bundle of Joy, and was a musical remake of Bachelor Mother. They are both great films.

"I'm sure I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about." ~Mary Poppins

reply

[–] XweAponX 15 years ago

Bundle of Joy ought to have been retitled "The Contents of the Baby's Diaper"

And when I think of the smell of poodoo from a linen-challenged infant, I htink of this moovie! Ugh! It's like, M-bare-ass-ing.

ech! ech!! And to think that is Carrie fisher in there when debby is being flung about on the dance floor.

reply

[–] Registered_User 18 years ago

Yes, and it SUCKED. Avoid at any cost.

A good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.

reply

[–] XweAponX 15 years ago

Ah! I dont hate Bundle of Diapres all that much, but the music is verrry irritating.

You know, this is the only film I've ever seen Eddie Fisher. His daughter Carrie, looks a LOT like him.

It shows up in Star Wars episode Sicks: In Star Wars and The Umpire stikes back, the had her babyfat on her cheeks and so looked kinda like her mommy.

But suddenly in Return of the Jedi she looks like Eddie, her nose got a little elongated, and her face also.

reply

[–] katie1122e 18 years ago

I agree.. Bundle of Joy was a waste of film!

reply

[–] schwapj 11 years ago

Can't agree. Eddie Fisher wasn't good, in anything really, but Debbie Reynolds was so adorable, of all of Hollywood's women the one I'd most like to have brought home to meet my family and proposed to on the first date.

reply

[–] hka-3 10 years ago

Debbie Reynolds was terrific in Bundle of Joy. Overall I like Bachelor Mother just a little bit more...although if I recall correctly, Bundle of Joy did something better by having Eddie Fisher's character realize he was in the same predicament that Miss Parish was in when people jumped to conclusions that he was the baby's father. Then he understood what she had gone through when people jumped to conclusions about her being the baby's mother.

reply

[–] EllisFowler 10 years ago

although if I recall correctly, Bundle of Joy did something better by having Eddie Fisher's character realize he was in the same predicament that Miss Parish was in when people jumped to conclusions that he was the baby's father.

Much too broad and heavy-handed, I think. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I can't stand Reynolds or Fisher (or Carrie, for that matter) and found this remake unbearable. But then, I loathed The Opposite Sex as well.

reply

[–] b_pastel 18 years ago

I missed the first part of the movie. who's baby is it? how does the ginger rogers character get it?

reply

[–] mechacorta 18 years ago

Ginger has been laid off from her job at Merlin's, and is walking past a foundling hospital when she sees a woman leaving a baby at the doorstep, and taking off. She calls after the woman, then turns to the baby and picks it up as the door to the hospital opens and the woman therein presumes that the baby is Ginger's and that she is trying to abandon it.

"I'm issuing a restraining order: Religion must stay 500 yards away from Science at all times!!"

reply

[–] klasiu 15 years ago

New answer to an old thread, but the Debbie Reynolds version "Bundle of Joy" will play on ACM on April 1, 2009...just FYI

reply

[–] mojo2004 14 years ago

I always think films like this are stupid. Very easy to prove that you've never had a baby.

"Today is the tomorrow you were worrying about yesterday!"

reply

[–] entertainme5 14 years ago

How? This movie was released in the 30's! They had no way to test the suspected mother and the baby because there was no way to test for DNA. Plus, no one knew the baby's real name or the real mother so there would not be a way to dig up records.

"I have no memories I'm prepared to share with you."- Peter O'Toole

reply

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

A physical examination by a doctor, particularly an OB/Gyn, though intrusive, would be one way to tell. The baby was already about seven or eight months old by then but I still think they'd be able to tell if she had had a baby.

Also, if they really needed to prove she wasn't the child's mother, they could go back to the time when the baby would have been in utero then born and match that timeline with what was going on in her life.

None of that mattered though because at some point she decided to keep the baby. The baby had brought her luck, he was as adorable as can be, and not one person was judging her so why not. I would have wanted to make sure the baby hadn't been taken from someone but once that was cleared up I would have wanted to keep the baby too.

reply

[–] mechacorta 13 years ago

yes, now. but in 1939...?
Edit
Upon review, I realized the significance of the "HA-ha!"

I'm issuing a restraining order: Religion must stay 500 yards away from Science at all time.

reply