MovieChat Forums > That Was Then... This Is Now (1985) Discussion > They butchered the character of M+M

They butchered the character of M+M

posted 15 years ago by ReelsOfTape
5 replies | jump to latest

Badly. Despite physical description, Frank Howard would've been a nice choice, had the screen writer stuck to the book.

IN the book M&M is a hippie. Sensitive, trusting, nice, serious, calm, innocent hippie kid.

In the movie he's a regular kid who has a short temper (which is completely unlike him in the book.) He made a face after the bigger girl smiled at him at the bowling alley, and he wouldn't give mark any money. This isn't M&M -- In the book he offered Mark and Bryon his fifty cents he got every week.

Why oh why. he was my favorite character.

Things have never been so swell, I have never failed to fail.

[–] polexia 14 years ago

I read this novel when I was I think 11 years old back in 1984 and I LOVED M&M. Absolutely sweet kid. I remember how he was described as a "carbon copy" of Cathy and all the kids had black hair, his was long, and he wore a peace symbol on a rawhide string around his neck and wore an old Army jacket. He was such an innocent character, totally giving. Like when he had his little sibling sitting on him and pulling his hair when he was reading on the floor of the living room. In the film, they have him mouthing off to his father at the table. Why oh WHY did they call him "HOWARD" in the film? They never say his name in the book. And the whole thing where he is nasty to that girl in the bowling alley, throws all the M&M's on the floor, and later when he gets sassy to Mark (and was he reading NEWSWEEK like he was supposed to? I don't think so!) at the newsstand. He asks for interest back on the loan, which is NOT something M&M would ever do.

I'm trying to remember what the druggies called him when Bryan and Cathy were looking for him...they called him "baby" something...what was it? I have the book but it's in my keepsake trunk locked away.

I hate how this film destroyed M&M. It was sooo badly written. I mean what was with Curly Shepherd telling M&M to sing Jingle Bells when it wasn't Christmas, anyway? Sooo stupid. The film turned into one big Emilio Estevez wankfest. He didn't get one character right.

Frank Howard was pretty cute and he could have worked out if they had written him properly and had him grow his hair out and dyed it dark to match Cathy's. He wasn't a bad choice overall, they just didn't do it right.

Also, wasn't Bryan being a jerk to M&M in the bowling alley as well? He wasn't like that in the book. He didn't tell M&M that there "wasn't anything particularly fascinating about a bag of candy" and stick an M&M up his nose then blow it back into the bag. Both Mark and Bryan in that scene were so abusive to M&M, you just wondered why on earth he even talked to them at all. The very first time you even SEE M&M (which is important because it's a first impression of the character), he is making fun of the overweight girl. Which again, isn't something he'd do.

Don't threaten ME with a dead fish!
reg: 4/4/00 | posts: 1979

[–] ReelsOfTape 14 years ago

We have a lot in common! I was 11 when I first read it as well, and M&M was my favorite.

I was disgusted, the whole movie was just blah. Bryon was the closest thing to accurate, Mark was a clown, and Cathy was a quiet someone-bitchy girl. But, M&M? The sweet, innocent, simple hippie? Turned into a pissed off, rebellious, bratty punk.

By the way, it was Baby Freak.

This film needs to be remade. I want to see M&M, Mark, and Cathy done right. I really like discussing this, you should PM me sometime.

P.S., what was up with him waggling his tongue at the girls in the car

"You girls wanna be tied down and whipped?"

Soo NOT M&M!

Things have never been so swell, I have never failed to fail.

[–] polexia 14 years ago

Baby freak! Yeah!

"P.S., what was up with him waggling his tongue at the girls in the car

"You girls wanna be tied down and whipped?"

Soo NOT M&M! "

I KNOW! That drove me nuts, too. So Emilio may have set it in the 80's but why was M&M such a douche??? He was such a brat that he probably deserved a good ass kicking by Curly. And it doen't make ANY sense to see Bryan and Mark being so mean to M&M only to run after him and save him from said ass kicking.

Not to mention we can't figure out why Curly wants to kick his ass anyway. In the book he was a hippie so you could see how he'd get jumped.

I am wondering what M&M would look like on film if the film were ever done properly. Trying to think who would play him. I can't honestly remember how old he was in the book now -- about 13 or so?

I'll PM ya!

There is only light, my light, my naked light, my gift to you all. Experience my bliss.

[–] shellyturtle1981 11 years ago

Keep in mind that the book takes place in 1970 and the movie takes place in 1985. Having MandM be a hippie in the movie set in the mid 80's wouldn't make any sense. instead they showed him as a rebellious mean spirited youth of the 80's.

[–] polexia 11 years ago

He could have been a throwback hippie kid, or at the very least just a shy, thoughtful boy. They didn't have to make him so nasty and vile. The whole spirit of the character was destroyed with that personality. You definitely don't get the profundity of what happens at the end -- how he trips out and says how he probably can't ever have kids (he had wanted a big family). it is more serious when you have him go from this sweet boy to completely damaged. When you take a snotty kid and he trips out, it's more like well, he was an ass to begin with and you can't really feel as sorry for him. That's my opinion. I think SE Hinton wrote him with a specific personality on purpose and to show an arc and illustrate examples of innocence and kindness and how those are "rewarded" in this world. The movie loses that whole message by just making him a random punk who was no better than the guys beating on him (except being physically smaller.)

I am in a thousand winds that blow,
I am the softly falling snow.