MovieChat Forums > Heathers (1989) Discussion > Remaking Heathers was always a bad idea:...

Remaking Heathers was always a bad idea: It was a movie of its time


https://screenrant.com/heathers-tv-show-bad/

"It’s a deliberate subversion of its own generation and the output of teen comedies that saturated the pop culture landscape of the era," says Kayleigh Donaldson. "In those movies, everyone is obsessed with sex or grades or status but in Heathers, the endless hunt for popularity is turned into a sickly deadly game that exposes the true hollowness of high school fame. The high school of Heathers, which screenwriter Daniel Waters deliberately paralleled with the barracks in Full Metal Jacket, is a stifling hellscape that stands as a metaphor for the social brutalities of the Reagan era as well as a training ground for the smothering limitations of adult life. Everyone in that school knows that things aren't going to get any better for them, and in that twisted context, the fantasy of literally blowing everything up holds a lot of sway. Everyone does what the cool girls do and here, it's suicide. Heathers is bleak but hilariously so, and it only works in the context it created for itself. In 2018, that kind of violent fantasy isn’t a harmless pipe-dream: It’s a fear that millions of American kids live with every day that could easily become a reality."

reply

It's sad how Heathers was, in 1989, seen as a subversive left-wing fantasy in which the outcasts stood up against the bullies, the misogynists, the racists, and the privileged snobs of society, whereas in 2019 it's almost seen as a call-to-arms for the gun-toting anti-Brad and Becky incel/alt-right crowd.

Damn! I really hate the way our culture has 'progressed'. Back in the day, being an outcast was a badge-of-honour and integrity. Now it is the jocks, the preppies and the homecoming queens who are see as the progressive 'heroes'.

What a crock of sh*t.

reply

"Now it is the jocks, the preppies and the homecoming queens who are see as the progressive 'heroes'."

Wait, what?

reply

I've seen it argued by people who presumably consider themselves to be progressives, that anyone who uses terms like 'Chad and Becky' is an 'incel', and as we all know, incels are the MOST EVIL PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. Even more evil than rapists and child abusers (you know, the people actually committing sexual offences rather than simply moaning about their lack of sex online) apparently.

reply

I have, in the past, said something similar, in the context of discussing a psychotic Incel who committed mass murders and who considered the "Chads and Beckys" to be his mortal enemies. Because ANYONE is a better person than a mass murderer, even people I normally dislike or disagree with.

Now speaking in general terms to anyone on the forum who reads this, the online "Incel" community is massively toxic, and any decent person who has mental issues or social skills that interfere with their sex lives needs to avoid them like the plague. There's no advice on worthwhile coping skills or improving one's life there, just a bottomless pit of anger and self-hatred, and toxic ideas that will ruin one's life if taken too seriously. Those forums are not filled with people who want to learn how to improve their lives, they're filled with people who are angry that everything they want isn't being provided, and who will tear down anyone who actually tries to learn good coping or interpersonal skills. There are no answers there, anyone who wants to improve their life needs to go elsewhere.

reply

There's a lot of hypocrisy going on when it comes to the term 'incels' (not form you I hasten to add).

Firstly, here's the opening of the Wikipedia entry on the origin of 'incel' (I'm sure you already know this, but it's worth reminding everyone for the purpose of this discussion):

'The first online community to use the term "incel" was started in 1993 when a Canadian university student known only by her first name, Alana, created a website in order to discuss her sexual inactivity with others. The website, titled "Alana's Involuntary Celibacy Project", was used by people of all genders to share their thoughts and experiences. In 1997, she started a mailing list on the topic that used the abbreviation INVCEL, which was later shortened to "incel", where it was defined as "anybody of any gender who was lonely, had never had sex or who hadn't had a relationship in a long time". During her college career and after, she realized she was queer, and became more comfortable with her identity. She later gave the site to a stranger. When speaking about the website in 2018, Alana said, "It definitely wasn't a bunch of guys blaming women for their problems. That's a pretty sad version of this phenomenon that's happening today. Things have changed in the last 20 years."

The message board love-shy.com was founded in 2003 as a place for people who were perpetually rejected or extremely shy of potential partners to discuss their situations.'

Now, maybe I've got it wrong, but Alana, both before and after she discovered she was queer, doesn't sound like a bad or problematic person to me, and, although maybe I've got it wrong again, it seems to be that what she was trying to do is very commendable and even something that is worth reviving.

reply

Secondly, are you aware of this YouGov stat: 'When it came to asking a woman out for a drink, about one in four young males and about 12.5% of young females said it would "always" or "usually" be a form of sexual harassment'.

Now, I'm not criticising these young men and young women because despite being about a generation older (I'm in my thirties) I share these anxieties and doubts (maybe more than most because of my Anxiety Disorder and OCD). I can 100% understand guys who are fearful of being perceived to have sexually harassed a woman simply by asking them out for a drink (what if the woman they approach turns out to be one of the 12.5% of young women who think it 'would "always" or "usually" be a form of sexual harassment' to ask a woman out for a drink?)

Consequently, it logically stands to reason that many of these, no doubt progressive, no doubt feminist, no doubt well-meaning, young men will literally be 'incels' (i.e. people who are celibate but not through choice, as defined by Alana above). How can they not be? So, when I see progressive organisations like the Southern Poverty Law Center and others define 'incels' as among the most dangerous and right-wing groups in the US right now, I can't help but smack my forehead and think "here we go again. More self-hating liberals".

Well, speaking as a self-hating liberal, I'm frankly fed-up. Constantly feeling suicidal and depressed is no fun. So, why the hell do we liberals and progressives keep beating ourselves up and telling ourselves how terrible we are?!?

PS: For what it's worth, I do ask women out and I do occasionally have sex, but I am still very anxious and sheepish about causing offence, a state of mind that can no doubt lead to 'involuntary celibacy'.

reply

Hey, I was generally addressing the Star Wars nerds!

But in general, I do advise anyone who wants a better life to avoid the online Incel community. If a person want their life to get better, spend your time with people who have learned to get at least some of what they want out of life, not people who are united by their failure to do so. You can learn nothing useful from such people.

reply

If a person want their life to get better, spend your time with people who have learned to get at least some of what they want out of life
Oh God. That's literally the worst thing one of these so-called incels can do (i.e. follow a professional misogynist like Neil 'The Game' Strauss or a Tom Cruise in Magnolia type dickwad teaching young, dispirited men to treat women like shit, or at the very minimum nothing more than notches on the bed post).

By the way, as far as I'm concerned the most dangerous men in the world, are not a bunch of pathetic losers sitting in their moms' basements whining about how they'll never get a girlfriend.

The most dangerous men in the world are the likes of New York Military Academy's class of 64 'ladies man', three times married, and porn-star-humping Donald J Trump, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and R Kelly. Men who are, or at least were, having plenty of sex. Over-sexed men are far more dangerous than under-sexed ones.

The most damage an under-sexed man can do is say hateful things on the internet (no, I don't approve but I'm speaking in relative terms here). The most damage an over-sexed man can do is commit multiple rape.

reply

"The most damage an under-sexed man can do is say hateful things on the internet"

No, the most dangerous thing an undersexed man can do is become the next Elliot Rodgers or Alek Minassian. THAT is why people regard "incels" as potentially dangerous, and worry about them getting together to express their rage and unrealistic expectations online. Just because none of them will ever kill as many people as someone who starts a war, doesn't mean there isn't cause for concern.

And once again, we're veering into things that you ought to be discussing with your therapist, not online strangers. So I'm going to quit the discussion with general advice that applies to anyone who is struggling:

If a person need to learn better coping or social skills, they will not learn them from people who cannot cope and have no social skills.

Nobody can learn how to get what they want from life, from people who are not getting what they want from life.

Do not conflate sex (or being "oversexed") with the abuse of power, sex is supposed to be about intimacy, sharing, and the acceptance of another person. If there is anyone out there who wants more intimacy, sharing, and acceptance in their life, they won't learn it from online incels, they need to learn it from people who practice sharing and acceptance in real life.

reply

Didn't Elliot Rodgers mostly, if not entirely, kill other men?

By contrast, who were Weinstein, Cosby and R Kelly's victims? Women.

As a staunch feminist, I am more fearful of the likes of men like Weinstein, Cosby and R Kelly, and other rapists, who target women, than I am of incels like Elliot Rodgers who are more likely to kill someone like me than they are a woman/girl.

And you're talking about what sex should be, not what it actually is for millions of women who are being brutalised by misogynist monsters.

No offence Otter, but I don't understand why you think incels and asexuals (I note you contemptuously described Patrick Bateman as an 'asexual' in American Psycho, even though he specifically targeted prostitutes and members of the sex trade) are worse than serial rapists and child sex abusers.

Also, don't assume I have or need a therapist (anymore than anyone else needs a therapist - really I think everyone could benefit from a therapist), but just suppose I did have a therapist, I think you're intelligent enough to know they're not a 24/7 emergency service.

Anyway, I'm not getting personal here. I'm speaking as a mostly objective observer and commentator, albeit one with strong opinions. And I'm not defending incels. I'm just baffled why a small handful of messed-up men loners like Rodgers and Minassian are considered more dangerous than the millions of, often enabled and normalised, rapists who are abusing women and girls on a daily basis.

#MeToo

reply

I didn't even realize there was a remake. Nothing funny about school shootings in present time.

reply

So, school shootings were funny in 1989 but not now?!?

That makes no sense.

There were 40 recorded school shootings in the US during the 1980s. Why is the topic any more offensive now than it was then? Didn't those victims count?

Besides, watch Heather again. No-one, apart from JD, the would-be school terrorist, gets shot on school grounds in that film. And only three other deaths occur, one of which is via poisoning, not via a bullet.

reply

I just thought the movie was lighthearted and would not get made today. This was well before Columbine which occurred in 1999.

reply

It was a dark movie in 1989 as it still is today.

reply

I disagree.

reply

Please elaborate.

Are you denying it was a dark movie in 1989 or that it is a dark movie now?

reply

I see it as a comedy back then and now.

reply

Oh, my bad.

Fair enough. In that case I agree.

reply

Because school shootings wasn't something that happened every years before 1989, dumbass! That's why it was funny. It was a fantasy.

reply

Calling the movie, Heathers, a product of its time is absolutely ridiculous.

It was the product of studio executives and the filmmakers. I know it sounds as if I'm stating the obvious, but I guess what I mean to say is that people with a very specific mindset and attitude created this movie. It wasn't a reflection of the times but of the people who made it.

reply

Except it definitely was a reflection of the time. This was a time when the "teen movie" genre was dominated by the likes of The Breakfast Club and Sixteen Candles - lighthearted movies that, if they ever came into contact with the darkness of growing up, skirted around it rather than confronted it. In The Breakfast Club, even though we can all work out that Brian brought a gun to school to kill himself, they still can't bring themselves to just say so and 5 minutes after the subject is brought up, they're all laughing like nothing happened. Heathers was written as a direct response to these movies which were everywhere by 1989, so of course it's a product of its time. Not to mention the sheer amount of "80s"ness about it from the costumes to the dialogue to the simple fact that a trenchcoat-wearing JD would absolutely not get away with merely being suspended for pulling out a real gun and shooting blanks at point-blank range directly at two people in the middle of a crowded cafeteria. And that particular incident certainly couldn't just be laughed off either in-universe or out of it. Yes, mass shootings were a thing in 80s' America but pre-Columbine was still a very different time with regards to what could be played as "funny" or even "quirky". A comedy, even a black comedy, about someone shooting guns at people in a school, the protagonist murdering their classmates and staging the murders as suicides while still laughing about it, and a plan to blow up a highschool with all the students and teachers inside wasn't an easy sell in the 80s (the ending went through at least 4 variations and the one we got is the only variation where Veronica survives and there's even a hope for a happy ending) and it's an even harder one today.

Even the 2018 series remake kept having to postpone its American release date since it was deemed inappropriate to be shown following a number of mass shootings.

reply

Heathers (1988) was a lot of fun.. I rewatched it recently... Hard not to feel for the innocent jocks and the other wannabe heathers who were victims... They did get it right that the danger to society was as much (moreso?) from the anti-social elements (although in 80s fashion, Slater's chararcter wasn't incel, he got laid) as it was from the dominance of the beautiful, the monied and the popular...

Fun movie. Very of it's time, in the best ways possible... Looking at it now, it's the pragmatic attitude and humanism of the central character (Ryder's) that stands out... So lost in cinema and popular culture today, yet still exists as part of the American culture... It was central in previous eras movies. Even in the 80s.

A fitting avatar for the ever-hopefull, yet grounded American youth of the 80s... A world apart from the ideological cynicism of central characters in recent Hollywood movies.

reply

It wasn't written by robots following an algorithm, idiot

reply

So basically they remade this with the Martha (fat girl) chacter as the main one? lol

reply