MovieChat Forums > Breakfast with Scot (2007) Discussion > What a shame....

What a shame....

posted 17 years ago by tom-1443
37 replies | jump to latest

After reading the synopsis of this Tom Cavanaugh film I have to say it's really a shame what the entertainment business can do to a book. Not to mention the casting. Tom Cavanaugh is completely wrong for this. Anyone who has read the book will know that. The two male characters have been changed to an ex-hockey player and a sports lawyer, which is NOT what they are in the book. The other HUGE change is the fact that they are calling the 11 year old they adopt gay! This is NOT the case in the book. Yes, you may draw that conclusion while you are reading it, but NO WHERE does it state that this child is GAY. He's different, and does some pretty odd things, but he is NEVER labeled.

While this film has yet to be completed, actually it hasn't even started filming, I will reserve my final comments once the film is done. But I unfortunately don't hold much hope.

Do yourself a favor, go online, find a cheap used copy of the book, settle down with it a few times before you go to bed and enjoy one of the best, and funniest, books about the incredible nature of children and how they can effect the lives of adults...in many ways. It's a laugh out loud at times book that deserves better than what this project can give it.

[–] cool_dude0327 17 years ago

Oh God, my friend is gonna be in this movie. He's gonna play Scott's best friend. Alex Franks, damn you. (his real name)

[–] base-sg 17 years ago

I have the book at home and I have loved every minute reading it.

In the synopsis isn't explicitly stated Scot is gay (just more out of the closet than Ed and Sam are).

Most stories will often be changed to suit the minds of the average movieaudience. I think this is the case here too... I think the writers thought that moviegoers would find it easier to connect with an overt gay boy rather than a boy who has no clue about gender-roles and just wears (and does) what he likes.

I will go and see it when it comes out. Also I will read the book again.

[–] deac0n_fr0st 17 years ago

i honestly find it farcical to make the boy gay. not that it couldn't' happen, but the odds are pretty strong against it. think about it, homosexuality may be chosen by some, but it's definitely something you can be born with. just like you can be born with a stronger affinity to vanilla rather than chocolate. that isn't taught to a kid, the kid makes up their own mind. the odds that a gay couple adopts a child that has been pre-determined to have a stronger desire for same sex relationships is not exactly like the horse racing odds.

then there's those who choose it out of social situations they are exposed to. many of these people chose the lifestyle because jilting by the opposite sex or molestation as a child. few do it because, "my parents taught me". believe it or not, most gay couples don't do or say anything to try and control that part of their child's life. many adopted or had artificial insemination because they wanted to right a wrong that their parents did to them, and they openly and honestly communicate with their child about sex and sexual relationships. they don't push for them to choose homosexuality or heterosexuality. they just try to teach them how to have good relationship experiences. you know, what a parent is supposed to do.

as a Christian i believe the homosexual lifestyle goes against the Bible's teachings. but i also believe that many homosexual couples raising kids have a better idea of what it means to be a good parent than those who are in a traditional heterosexual marriage. having this boy be gay is probably the main reason why some Christian activists are up in arms against it, because they see a threat in the sense that homosexuals might try to basically "reproduce" by raising children to be homosexuals. this just shows the total lack of understanding most people have about homosexuality.

[–] base-sg 17 years ago

I don't think people can choose their sexuality, but that people choose roles in which they feel comfortable. One of these roles can be a lifestyle that may perceived to be homosexual.

Yes, it's sad that people think a sexuality can be taught. The Christians that have a hard time thinking it's wrong for a gay couple to have children should be doing some soulsearching or perhaps not take the Bible so literally.

The reason why Scot is seen as a gay boy is because he is shy, sensitive and a girly... When I read the book I was also under the assumption he was gay and I was happy for him that he could be whatever he felt was good for him. When later the truth was revealed I felt sad for him as he hadn't tried to be himself, but someone else instead.

[–] missalabamanobody 17 years ago

The boy is the nephew of one of the adopting fathers - his mother died and his uncle promised her he'd take care of her son.

[–] j_post85 16 years ago

It's a film. They can have whatever plot line they want to have. It doesn't have to be common. That's why it's a film.

[–] pogostiks 16 years ago

To deac0n_fr0st:
I know your heart is pretty much in the right place, but you make one major error that a lot of strzights do about being gay;

The only CHOICE there is in it is whether to be OUT or not; NO-ONE CHOOSES to be gay. Why would they? For centuries it has been illegal, it has been seen as perverse, immoral, unacceptable - and people who were openly gay were rejected not only by society but almost as often by their families.
No-one outside of a total masochist would ever CHOOSE to find himslef in such a poorly rated position.

Although many people block their feeling s and don't "discover" they are gay until later in life, I am almost certain that it is fixed in teh psyche, if not at birth, then pretty soon afterwards; I can still remember the fascination I had with other boys (if they were cute) starting when I was four or five years old. I KNEW I was different, and I KNEW intuitively that I shouldn't let people see how strong my interest was in other boys - but the feelings were tehre WAY before I was capable of consciously making a choice.

So please;.. stop telling people that it is a choice for some, just because tehir girlfriend left them or whatever. Not true.

PS. Lesbians, on the other hand, are a bit different (I think - but since I am not a lesbian or a woman, I should be careful of what I say here...) I have known a few women in my life who have had lesbian affairs (one lasted 5 years) where the women were convinced they were lesbians and they were also militant about it. Five or ten years later they were with men in strong long-lasting relationships. What happened? I don't know. I think that perhaps women's sexuality is in a greater sense of flux than men's. I'd be interested in hearing from some lesbians about this.
But as far as men are concerned, I really do not think it is a choice, and I have never met a single gay person who would say so.

[–] BrightRainbowLight 16 years ago

I'm not a lesbian, but rather a bisexual who (currently) prefers other women, and I think I might be able to offer a slight sense of insight to the topic.

Maybe a woman's sexuality is in a greater sense of flux, however I personally think the few women you've known were not lesbians but bisexual, who at one point in their lives may have prefered women, and men at another. That's how it works for me. Sometime I like men better, sometimes women.

Or they could've trully been completly lesbian at one point, and are heterosexual now. Sexuality isn't a set thing, it changes and adapts to your personality, and to the events in your life. Who knows, maybe one day you'll have an affair with a woman.

I've known a man who had been happily married to his wife for 23 years and they had a son, which was 17 at the time. He had never even thought about another man as a possible lover before, not one fantasy. He ended up meeting his husband by accident, fell in love, divorced his wife, and married the man (this is in Canada, and same-sex marriage is legal here). He is not attracted to any other male other then his husband, and is still very attracted to women. Now tell me, is he gay, bisxual, staright, or what? He is purely in love. That is the point. So maybe your lesbian friends were only attracted to those particular woman as this man is only attracted to this particular man.

It's impossible to set guidelines for sexuality in stone. I just won't happen, and if it did, it wouldn't be accurate.

Hope those (rather jumbled) thoughts helped you in some ways!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] joemuso 15 years ago

No. Just plain no.

Maverickxl7

[–] handoverfist38 15 years ago

I really get tired of heteros talking like they're experts on homosexuality. If you're not gay what do you know about it? Nothing that's what.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shjamieson 17 years ago

It's always the book that's better ;)
But I'm interested in seeing the Canadian twists and changes they've made. I'm especially interested in their decision to align the couple in a masculinity-focused world (sports, hockey) and their experiences as gay men with this child, who's effeminate, and would undoubtedly be eaten alive in a world like that. He represents a personality that they are not - I think it'll make an interesting story.

[–] lavashop 17 years ago

Why are you so worked up that the kid is labelled gay.
Gay is good.
I don't see what the problem is.
I think you are the one with the labeling and the problems associated with teh word gay.

[–] tam358 17 years ago

To the original poster - I haven't read the book but I have seen the movie. Are there any specific questions I can answer for you? The movie was quite cute. Not epic, but sweet.

What were the characters original careers? In the movie Eric is an ex-hockey player now sportscaster and Sam is a lawyer who Eric hired when he was injured. Neither Sam or Eric are all that butch, especially Sam. Eric comes off as a big sports nut but not overly macho.

It's somewhat ambivalent by the end whether Scot is gay.

[–] canmark 17 years ago

In the book (I haven't read it, but I've read about it) the men were a chiropractor and an editor at an art magazine, living in Cambridge Mass. But working in the art world and as a chiropractor (who owns his own business, I believe), it would be easier for the men to be "out." What the creators of the film did was raise the stakes and Canadian-ize the story by putting Eric into the world of hockey (where to this day, no player past or present has come out as gay... although we've heard of former gay players in the NFL, MLB and NBA).

I agree that it is never made clear that Scot is gay (he's only 11, after all).. but it's Eric's fear that he might be gay, and might face harassment because if it, that drives the story. Eric has to deal with his own internalized homophobia. And he transforms throughout the film to someone who is more comfortable with himself and with others.

[–] dantekinkade 16 years ago

I have to agree, not to mention they rarely make any movies that have gay boys in it for some reason. So even if it is a change from the book it is a good one.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Blackwolfie 15 years ago

To Tomtrueman:

I was hooked on the debate between you and rockwater, I have to admit it. I read all the posts between the both of you with a critical eye. This might be a bit late to post, but I had to say bravo!

I'm a hetero female, but I was still getting peeved at the psychological theories that the other was witting about. To me, it sounded a lot like he was saying that it was a sub-conscious choice that could be "cured" or solved, and that ones who are depressed and unsure of themselves would rather be "cured" than live with who they are. I find it really saddening that it wasn't blatantly obvious to the other poster that feeling like something is "wrong" with you, deep down inside, and feeling like you are "different" and "don't fit in with society" is because so many people have to grow up hearing the *beep* about gay being wrong, or sinful, or disgusting. Obviously you would feel like something is "wrong" because half the damn population says so! I believe it's only stupid to say that people aren't influenced by society.

Agh! I'm getting frazzled,the debate could go on for days couldn't it? :P

All I really wanted to say was that I think you're a very intelligent person, and I'm glad I stumbled upon this conversation so that I could add some points to my argument, and help any one of my friends when they get stuck with the "gay is a choice, and you chose who you are!" type accusations, as if it should be something accused in the first place, oie vey.

[–] the_frog_princess 14 years ago

I wish Tomtrueman's posts were still up so I could have read his arguments. I'm a hetero female, but I can still see the flaw in rockwater's argument about the parental relationship with the child causing the "deviation" in sexual preference. Even IF there is a perceived flaw in the relationship between parent and infant which correlates with homosexuality (and I have heard no evidence of that) there is also no evidence of whether the irregularity of the relationship is the CAUSE of homosexuality or an EFFECT of the baby's inborn programming. I've had five kids, and have no doubt whatsoever that each of them has had profound inborn differences in temperament which have had nothing to do with how I've treated them, but instead have caused them each to be treated differently. Children are no tablua rasa. Even when you take into account that many children who were abused by pedophiles grew up to be homosexual, you can't take that as hard evidence of a causal relationship. It could easily reflect that pedophiles are naturally attracted to little boys who throw off innocent signals of their sexual preference.

Furthermore, there HAS been ample evidence of homosexual behavior in many animals other than humans, suggesting that it is a purely natural state.

It's like watching grass grow, except there's an explosion at the end

[–] wardbeattie 16 years ago

I may be wrong, but I don't think Scot is ever really labeled gay by his "dads". Sure, they speculate, since he's a very effeminate kid when he moves in with them ... much more effeminate than they would ever permit themselves to act. The labeling happens at school and on the hockey team, and this is surely true to life.
The film deftly realizes that awareness of sexuality is a gradual thing, sometimes with unexpected outcomes. As adults, we may claim to have been gay since the age of 10 (or whatever), but the truth is this was not so clear when we actually were 10.
Scot's final victory is to win over his "dads" (and all the others, too) to a more inclusive view of himself and themselves.

[–] reade82 16 years ago

I've just come back from a screening at the local theatre where both the director and the producer were available afterward for a short question and answer period. Hopefully I can address some of the concerns about the plot changes from the novel to the film. I haven't read the book, so this is just going on what the director & producer told us.

In the novel the characters are more openly gay than in the film, and much of the character development goes on inside their heads. When translating that to film, Lynd & Brown decided to have the characters be more conservative in their behaviour in order to better show their development. Sam went from being a masseuse to a lawyer, and Ed/Eric went from something I forget to a former professional hockey player (Ed's name was changed to Eric because the actor playing him, Tom Cavanagh, starred in a television show called Ed, and they didn't want to draw an association between the two characters). The location was also transplanted from Boston to Toronto.

While I think almost everyone in the film calls Scot gay or assumes him to be so, I don't remember the film ever definitely stating that fact, and I think that it is left up to the individual viewer to come to their own conclusion on the subject. I also don't think that Tom Cavanagh was miscast for the role he played. Perhaps if the film character was more akin to the novel character, but in the film he was excellent. He was also intrumental in getting Ben Shenkman signed onto the project, who also did a wonderful (fabulous?) job.

[–] iwantmyeddvd 16 years ago

I haven't read the book, but watching the movie in an isolated context I thought Tom Cavanagh was great in the role.

[–] lifestruedreams 16 years ago

I want to see this movie now. I love Tom Cavanagh, I also think it will be an interesting movie. I haven't read the book either but I have to agree that I always like the books better than the movies.

[–] bradford-5 16 years ago

I read the book many years ago and loved it.

I think this is one of the best examples of a book to film translation I have seen. They made good choices, to bring out the characters internal conflicts.

Cavanaugh, and all the actors, are excellent.

Steven Bradford
Seattle WA
http://www.seanet.com/~bradford/

[–] Chops-4 14 years ago

The movie in its own context works well, however different from the book. When authors sell the rights to their books for films they usually have no idea what the results will become.

[–] chloe-doe 14 years ago

Truth is, I honestly don't think I could fake my way through enjoying the book that this movie was adapted from...
I have a feeling that this is one piece of literature I needed to see acted out to thoroughly enjoy, and I did! I'm glad they changed the storyline, and I don't see it as they labeled Scot, but more they allowed him to be who he was. Eric was the only one who said Scot was gay, and no one agreed with his opinion, but no one disagreed either.. he was just calling it as he saw it! Who's to blame him?

Sure, Scot was strange, but he was full of love and life, and he just needed someone to accept and NOTICE him.
Eric and Sam did.
The perfect family.