MovieChat Forums > The 'Burbs (1989) Discussion > Weird to have a son who plays no part in...

Weird to have a son who plays no part in this

posted 3 years ago by [deleted]
20 replies | jump to latest

As a kid, I always looked out for fellow kids in movies. Sort of like "representation" and wanting to be involved in the story, or see things from a kids point of view.

But the boy has no connection to his dad, leaves for a holiday and then plays no role in the story unfolding...what?!?!

Why write in a non-event son?

If they wanted to establish him as a suburban dad and have no kid involved, write it as a teenage daughter who takes off for the weekend.

There, dad status achieved.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7401) 3 years ago

It's been a long time since I saw this but you are right. Another pointless character is Corey Feldman's character. He doesn't do much either.

[–] sslssg (27640) 3 years ago

I think he was there only to broaden the scope of the audience to include teenage girls.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

He does help create the sense of neighborhood, but plays no active role in the pursuit of the bad guys.

Maybe he represents the viewer.

[–] sslssg (27640) 3 years ago

Perhaps you are correct as they do order pizza to watch what's going on.

[–] Kowalski (57914) 2 years ago

AS A TEEN...FELDMAN WAS A HIGHLIGHT OF THE FILM.

[–] Mulletor (520) 3 years ago

The son and Ricky Butler (Feldman) discuss in the kitchen that they saw the neighbors digging graves in the backyard.

[–] DodoPatak (118) 2 years ago

They don't discuss it, Ricky Butler wasn't in the kitchen. Dave (the son) said "Ricky Butler says they're nocturnal feeders".

[–] Mulletor (520) 2 years ago

Hence they discussed it at some point

[–] DodoPatak (118) 2 years ago

Yes, but you wrote that they "discuss it in the kitchen", I was referring to that.

[–] Mulletor (520) 2 years ago

Hmm yes, it was he and Art instead.

[–] ChipDouglas (1602) 2 years ago

This post is a troll

[–] Burk48917 (10975) a year ago

lol, it's not.

[–] ChipDouglas (1602) a year ago

so is yours... keep making more "hilarious" and "quality" posts

[–] Burk48917 (10975) a year ago

Oh, I see now. You're an idiot that doesn't understand what a troll is. Got it. No need to reply, I don't waste time on idiots, but I appreciate you so quickly identifying yourself as such. It helps to prevent that very thing.

[–] riraho (97) 2 years ago

Dave certainly gets Art on the case when he tells him he saw them digging in the backyard.

[–] Bloodworth79 (5565) a year ago

The son and Feldman had good parts.
The stoner Feldman's character was a funny comic relief.

The way the stoner and son interacted was subtle but lots of context. The way the son look embarrased of his father.
Lots of small moments that make the movie.

[–] Kowalski (57914) a year ago

STORY WASN'T ABOUT THE SON...IT WAS A MIDDLE AGED SUBURBAN NIGHTMARE...ALSO MAKING THE SON INTO A DAUGHTER DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING...UNLESS YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE WHO DOESN'T LOVE YOUR DAUGHTER.

[–] Kowalski (57914) 8 months ago

I FORGOT I SAID THIS...I AGREE.

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) a year ago

As a kid, I always looked out for fellow kids in movies. Sort of like "representation" and wanting to be involved in the story, or see things from a kids point of view.

when i was kid i do not want to see other kid in movie. kids are boring!! adults do all cool thing in movies.

[–] Druff (1447) 8 months ago

Just read some trivia that might apply here - supposedly Hanks didn't want to take this role because he thought he was too young to be playing a dad and was afraid it would poison his casting opportunities going forward. He tried to get them to re-write the script to get rid of the son entirely. Guessing maybe there was a compromise which resulted in the son barely appearing in the story at all.