MovieChat Forums > Friends with Money (2006) Discussion > Fat guy pissed me off!

Fat guy pissed me off!

posted 16 years ago by HonestMan1977
28 replies | jump to latest

Can someone please try to explain to me,

WHY would he haggle with the price for Jennifer's maid character when he is supposidly loaded!?! He told her at the end of her questioning him about this that he has "issues." ISSUES as in being a cheap bastard I must say... This does not make any sense to me, someone please chip in your 2 cents...

Also his house was a pigsty and he should have paid extra, not haggled over 15 BUCKS!!!

Also, I find it hard to believe he is that "loaded", his house was not very nice nor was his clothes. Yeah I realize maybe he's just not materalistic but his wealth revelation was not very believable to me AT ALL~!

Also, if he's such a down to earth good and honest guy he basically lied at dinner out of embarrasement about dabbling in investments, bs, bs, I realize he was embarrased but wtf.

I dont get why people on these boards seem to defend him as this "nice" guy. I see an fat, CHEAP, loser who feels sorry for himself and is obviously LAZY.

[–] fentress 15 years ago

I didn't catch that he inherited his money. I guess I missed that.

Here's another possible explanation for the haggling: Part of how some people with money come to have money is precisely because of that mindset, i.e. they're always out to get the most value for the money they spend. Granted, being frugal over $15 on a cleaning job is not itself going to make you rich. But this small act of haggling signifies what was probably a daily practice in large matters as well as small ones for this character. You keep the practice of thrift astute by remembering to practice it in small ways. Then it will pay off in more expensive transactions.

Also, there's the simple fact that $15 here and $15 there eventually adds up to a significant amount. The character may have a strong conviction about that, and that's part of how he (or his parents) became rich.

That being said though, I suppose you could argue that a really frugal guy would do his own housework instead of paying someone. But people are funny that way.

Even if the guy inherited his money, maybe part of his parents acquiring wealth was in part due to these practices, and he learned it from them.

Understand though, I'm not condoning it as the appropriate thing or the nice thing to do in this particular case. I'm not saying that it wasn't stingy.

On another topic though, personally I found the fact that this guy turned out to have money anyway really a clichéd development in the film. We're supposed to be all impressed that someone as cute as Jennifer Aniston would enter a relationship with an overweight guy who at first looked to be a loser, mainly because of his sensitiveness. (I found that hard to believe in the first place; girls that cute generally wouldn't give a guy like that the time of day.) And then her virtue in this regard pays off for her since he turns out to be rich. Oh, please!

[–] scarlettbees 15 years ago

I was pretty unsatisfied with the ending of a movie that was otherwise an interesting character piece.

Jennifer Anniston hops into bed on the first date with a very odd man because they made a minor connection. It would have been FAR better had she perhaps had a bit too much to drink and had to sleep on his couch or something, but why sex? I get tired of Hollywood treating sex like it's no big deal, whatsoever.

The next morning she talks about re-decorating his house as though they are now an official couple and she's moved in. This seems a little audacious for a woman who had been a doormat throughout the whole movie.

As the OP said, his weak, WEAK explanation of haggling over the price of maid service was unacceptable. "I have issues." If Anniston's character had been an IDIOT, rather than a lost soul, I would have been fine with her answer of "I have those, too." But she was a smart woman, and what smart woman wouldn't AT LEAST ask, rather impatiently, "Really? What kind of issues?"

[–] fentress 15 years ago

Amen. I agree with everything you said, most especially about the sex. It's the lazy Hollywood way of showing the viewer that the two characters formed a close connection. They don't want to do the hard work of writing engrossing conversations between people, or other situations that bring characters together in a meaningful way that might resonate with real people like you or me. So they just write that a couple of people bump into each other and have sex. It's an easy way out.

[–] VeronicaMarzz 15 years ago

If Anniston's character had been an IDIOT, rather than a lost soul, I would have been fine with her answer of "I have those, too." But she was a smart woman, and what smart woman wouldn't AT LEAST ask, rather impatiently, "Really? What kind of issues?"

I thought Aniston's character was an idiot!

1.The way she allowed the Scott Caan character to take advantage of her.
2.How she was calling and hanging up on the wife of her ex lover.

[–] WarpedRecord 14 years ago

I'm not sure I would call Jennifer Aniston's character an idiot, but I think Jennifer was miscast and her role was thinly written.

The way she allows the trainer to control her seems typical of women who will stop at nothing to hold a man, and the way she stalks her ex seems typical of women who will stop at nothing to keep him. Frankly, I don't buy Jennifer in either scenario. This is the type of role that Jennifer Jason Leigh has played to perfection in the past, and her character would have been much more believable and even sympathetic to a point.

Having Jennifer in the role does give hope to the chunky, dweeby guys out there who dream of scoring with a Hollywood beauty -- which is another reason I don't buy her in that role.

This type of character certainly exists in real life, but they rarely look like Jennifer Aniston in my experience. Of course, Jennifer Lopez played a lonely maid in another film, so I guess that's Hollywood for you.

[–] MicheleWilliams 12 years ago

"Having Jennifer in the role does give hope to the chunky, dweeby guys out there who dream of scoring with a Hollywood beauty -- which is another reason I don't buy her in that role."

I think Anuston fit in the role precisely because she is not a "Hollywood beauty," but more of what an average chick walking down the street would look like. I'd hardly call her appearance beautiful. That image was created by years of brainwashing from her relentless "P.R. Machine."
Angelina Jolie, who IS strikingly beautiful and glamorous, however, would never be believable as someone who couldn't find a date, boyfriend, or husband. And I'd never imagine Jolie putting up with a big, fat dude who tried to haggle with her--no matter how much money he had.
Or with that Scott Caan's nonsense, either...
Lopez, IMO, is not as stunning as Jolie, but, I think, JL leans more toward being too attractive for this role, too.

"C'mon, Oscar! Let's you and me get drunk!"

[–] are_you_strange666 12 years ago

This type of character certainly exists in real life, but they rarely look like Jennifer Aniston in my experience. Of course, Jennifer Lopez played a lonely maid in another film, so I guess that's Hollywood for you.

And there is where you went from talking *beep* to completely full of *beep*

[–] DemoChristian 13 years ago

Fat! Lazy! Cheap! Loser!!!

The quite normal sized man did not haggle. He said that he had expected to pay $50.00 foor the cleaning. Without another word from the man she lowered the price. Because she felt sorry for him.

I've known plenty of rich and very rich people. Some are preternaturally disposed to pay as little as possible for services and think living well is only for people they like.

Other rich people I know are almost undercover. They live in middle-class (or lower) homes, give anonymously and enloy beer and burgers more than cavier and champagne.

Whatever else he may have been, this character was not a loser.

[–] zziiyy 12 years ago

While it may not be nice to call him fat, he was definitely overweight. His weight was not normal. It may be becoming average, but it's not normal. And, whether you think someone is a loser or not is totally subjective.

When he asked her to drop her price, it wasn't a confident person stating they expect to pay $50. He seemed embarrassed and uncomfortable. And, when someone gives you their price, and you come back with a counter-offer ... that's haggling.

[–] AxeMarc 13 years ago

He most likely had a psychologic desease of some sort. Like OCD perhaps.

[–] naveron 12 years ago

I see an fat, CHEAP, loser who feels sorry for himself and is obviously LAZY.

Well Jennifer Aniston's character was a skinny, cheap loser who feels sorry for herself and is obviously mentally LAZY -- they make a good match.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] butaneggbert 9 years ago

You use the word "fat" as though it means "bad person". As though it carries the same judgment as "cheap loser".

You might be missing out on meeting some wonderful people, if that's your standard.