MovieChat Forums > The Stöned Age (1994) Discussion > The difference between the two

The difference between the two


One is a spoof movie (Stoned Age) the other is an actual film about growing up in the 70s (Dazed and Confused). One is a blatant lets cash in by making a stoner movie (Stoned Age), the other is a film about the country at a crossroads in the year of its 200th birthday (Dazed and Confused). One is a B movie, one is an award winner - which one do you think is which?

reply

Why do you ask if you put the answers in brackets? And what's your point anyway? I think the only reason people keep comparing these two is that stupid tagline (which was probably the studio's idea). If you knew anything about The Stoned Age and the people who made it, you wouldn't say it was an attempt to cash in. Especially since it's a low-budget film (as you pointed out) with little mainstream appeal and a very limited theatrical release. No matter which one you prefer, there's no denying that D&C is way more commercial and has that "big Hollywood movie for the whole family" feel (which is not bad per se, but if you enjoy more offbeat films with a quirky sense of humour, there's a lot to dislike about D&C). And still it was a huge box office bomb a year before The Stoned Age came out, so the point you're trying to make is pure nonsense. Also, lots of people who were in their teens in the 70's say that The Stoned Age is a much more accurate portrayal of what their youth looked like than D&C. Others may disagree, probably depends on where you lived and what type of person you were. I have a pretty diverse taste and theoretically, I could love both movies. But somehow D&C never really worked for me, it's neither bad nor good. I wish they had just left out the humor more or less completely (I don't think I laughed once during the whole film) and made the whole thing more serious. Maybe then it wouldn't be so forgettable. For me, Over The Edge (1979) is basically everything that D&C only hopes and tries to be. This movie really clicked with me when I was 17 or 18 and has stayed with me ever since.
As for awards, I don't really care about them. I think B movies, just like award winners, can be great or bad, entertaining or boring, unique or exchangeable. To me, TSA is very unique and special.

reply

I respect your comment, but let me explain what I wrote. Please read the whole thing it makes sense.

1.Cash in = the movie was made quickly to ride the coattails of Dazed and Confused success. D&C came out in 93, TSA was written, produced, and released in 94 - 95 . The theme being presented is obviously not an original idea, and would not have been made if D&C did not come out first. Low budget movies do this all the time (look up Pacific Rim and its cash in - the low budget Atlantic Rim).

But it does have its place - Read on, I promise some positives:

2.Its a spoof = There are no real characters in TSA, they are all caricatures - one dimensional buffoons - or as the only critic on Rotten Tomatoes wrote "a typical Hollywood melange of stereotypes, lame jokes, and tired clichés". The only depth we find in these shallow caricatures, are that they are mind numbingly, inhumanly shallow themselves. You know when you go to the fair, and they have the guy who draws you in two minutes, and its not a representative likeness to you, but you have a big head on a little body, your hands are blown up to an extreme measure = caricature. That is the characters in this movie.

Tropefest USA!

But I promised a positive, so here it is:

Unlike D&C, TSA does not actually reflect any era, the only thing that ties the movie to the 70s are the generic references - you trade in the 8 track tapes for cassettes and this movie could be placed in 1985 - or you give them flannel shirts and it could be placed in present day 1994.

The reason is because its not about the 70s, its a parody movie about party films (the kind of films that were mostly released in the 80s - you know the decade when the writer/director grew up). Therefore it is in a whole different genre of movies than D&C, and cannot be compared to such.

The positive is that TSA fulfills what it was supposed to do, be a stupid parody of 80s party films, with a tie in to the success of Dazed and Confused.

I will watch Over the Edge thanks for the recommendation.

reply

Thanks for your reply, however I see TSA in a completely different light and don't agree with your parody of 80's teen movies idea at all. Also, the guys behind TSA grew up in the 70's, most characters in the movie are taken straight out of their youth. You know what a parody of 80's teen movies is? Not Another Teen Movie. And that's a completely different story than TSA. The caricatures you're talking about, that's exactly what they did in this film, not in TSA.
Maybe there is this one opinion on Rotten Tomatoes, but believe me, I've read many opinions here on the board, on Amazon and elsewhere. And lots of people who grew up in the 70's say it's absolutely spot-on, even some characters remind them of characters from their youth. But I agree that most of the events depicted might as well take place today.

I think you might not have seen my updated post before publishing yours. But as I added, the revenue of D&C barely covered its budget. And the budget was not very big, just $7 million. So stick to the facts.

reply

Although this could be called a teen movie, what I said was party movie,like "Spring Break" (1983), "The Wild Life" (1984)"Hot Dog" and all those other 80s movies with guys cruising for chicks and then hijinks ensue. Add Porkeys to the mix and rip off the 80s movie Fast Times at Ridgemont High and you got The Stoned Age. That is what I meant by parody of an 80s party movie, because it looks and acts just like one, and it does it in an obvious and possibly unintentional mocking way.

To go along with that, that is why I said caricature "A caricature is a rendered image showing the features of its subject in a simplified or exaggerated way". When people say "that is spot on" its because they are referring to a type of person, a simplification resulting in the character being known for one exaggerated feature. I knew a ton of Bevis and Butthead's, that does not make them realistic characters.

The easy thing about caricatures rather than more flushed out characters, is they can be fit into anywhere you want with just a little adjustment. That is why, outside of the tired 70s references this movie could have been set in any modern time period. Yes, don't confuse references with depth of setting!

Therefore, the characters in TSA live more in a vacuum, than they do in real life. That is a common thing found in these goofball comedies, as real depth would bog down the brainless fun.

D&A on the other hand attempts at what writers call "verisimilitude". Whether you agree or not that they achieve it is up to you, most critics agree they do. Its like when you are reading a book, and part of you forgets that it is just ink on a page. Most good films try to create verisimilitude, though others like Quentin Tarantino, make good use of you knowing its a film (which is ironic because the immersive D&A is on Tarantino's top ten films of all time). TSA, is the type that makes you recognize you are just watching a movie, but it does it in all the wrong ways.

So D&A is a movie and anthropological expression about the 70s, through the eyes, thoughts and feelings of High School and Junior High students on the last day of school in the bicentennial year of 1976. It compares the exciting but apprehensive transition from early to late 70s American culture on the 200th birthday of the United States, with the equal personal uncertainty of graduation from school. The film uses -for brief example- characters like Matthew McConaughey's Wooderson to show the resistance of change, comparing Adam Goldberg's Mike as the proponent of the paradigm shift in power structure. It uses fully fleshed out settings, believable characters, and nostalgic tones to create verisimilitude.

TSA is a movie, not about the 70s,but set in the 70s, using an 80s party movie as a vehicle. Saying more than that gives the movie too much credit - here are two user reviews from Rotten Tomatoes as no critics but one even bothered to review the thing.

John Serrano - positive review

They are actually significantly different films however. The Stoned Age is a more cartoonish and comic rendering of the 70s while Dazed is much more visceral. On its own, The Stoned Age is a decent good time with a few laughs here and there, but its hindered by terribly drawn and annoying characters and frustrating and awkward sequences.

David S - negative review

Horrible movie, you would have to be VERY stoned to give this movie more then one star. People comparing to dazed and confused? Please that's like comparing steak to well ... vomit, which this movie had under a chair cushion ..really?

reply

You don't need to explain basic terms like "caricature." Even though I love TSA, I'm not dumb, you know? I don't know where TSA rips off Fast Times, I could just as well say that D&C rips off American Graffiti or that Tarantino rips off anything he can get his hands on (I love Tarantino, by the way, but I don’t have to love all his favorite movies).
You can take a scientific approach to evaluating movies, but, thankfully, movies are not science. You can't add up 1+1+1 and always get 3. Personal emotions are an important factor. Therefore, I don't give a beep about what critics say or if a movie has a high artistic value or if it's more popular (come on, this is really a lame point; do I have to love Star Wars now?). I know damn well that TSA is not a movie for the masses or for serious critics to rave about. But...I just love it. I must have seen it about 80 times and I kept discovering new things even after 20 or 30 viewings. It has a hilarious sense of humor, but I won't waste my time trying to explain it to you, because you simply don't get or don't "feel" this movie, and what I like about it can't be explained scientifically anyway. When I read what you have to say about it, this is so far away from my perception, I have the impression you're talking about a completely different film. But it's okay. It’s not the only film in my personal Top 20 that wouldn’t be rated high by most critics. Neither is e. g. Body Double, which is also one of Tarantinos all time faves.

By the way, here is just one user opinion from this board, by far not the only one in this vein:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111293/board/thread/10295758?p=5&d=52435195#52435195
And in the same thread, a few words I wrote on D&C:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111293/board/thread/10295758?p=5&d=70954374#70954374
I don't really have a lot to say about it. It's a genre I normally enjoy, but I think the film is just as overrated as Almost Famous. I don't care for this whole paddling crap, and of course you have clichés like laughing goofily while smoking pot and all the stuff you see in every similar Hollywood flick. Even if it’s trying to say something more than TSA, I don't see any particular depth or complexity in the characters.

reply

TSA was made in 93.

reply

And based on a short film made in 1991.

reply