Posted by JewElmo at spider-tn014.proxy.aol.com on February 08, 2000 at 23:22:09:
In Reply to: Maybe I'm a dipwad but I thought..... posted by Darth Dobbin2 on February 08, 2000 at 21:56:06:
Well, where do I begin?
The CHASING AMY intro shows Jay and Silent Bob like characters who are, in actuality, Bluntman & Chronic. I distinctly got that impression from the intro, especially when they showed the various covers. Trust me, I'm right. Check the comic gallery at the CHASING AMY subsite of ViewAskew.
Furthermore, the scene in the diner, with Holden, Jay and Silent Bob, it seems that that line about "baby talk" was a JOKE, and one of the funniest ones in the flick, as it's totally unexpected. It's obviously, at least the way I interpreted it, a reference to MALLRATS' bombing at the box office, and how Kev et. all were trying to forget about the supposed "disaster".
Even further proof: Holden asks if Jay and Silent Bob were still hanging out at malls, to which Jay and Silent Bob answered that they didn't do that anymore(another reason why a MALLRATS sequel wouldn't work?).
Besides, Holden didn't seem to know all the name of Julie Dwyer, but in both Mallrats and Clerks she is referenced by name.
And another thing, Alyssa Jones references Clerks. She talks about being friends with Caitlin Bree, who died in the bathroom.
Holden didn't know Caitlin's name either. "YOU KNEW THAT GIRL?!"
The comics make reference to MALLRATS taking place the day before CLERKS.
The Bluntman and Chronic Comic book lists its artists, writers etc. as Holden Mcneil, and Banky Edwards. The others, which fall into the continuity of the Askewniverse, do not.
That's all I can think of off hand, but I'm sure there's more. For more information, go to the HISTORY ASKEW link at the top of the board. Thanks.
I think you're wrong.
-JewElmo
: ...that the "Chasing Amy" intro, and the restaraunt scene, established that the events of MALLRATS were really just Holden's comic book interpretations of the twice-told tales of Jay & Silent Bob. That Holden was paying for their "stories," which were, although wrapped around some kernel of truth, that by the very nature of the re-telling via Jay, exaggerated and cartoony. Thus did the two conflicting "worlds" that the two flicks take place in suddenly jibe.
: When I saw Chasing Amy in the theater (Yale Square Cinema, the ONLY place in CT that was showing it) during intro, with the comic covers, I assumed that the exploits of J & SB were, in the true "reality" of that flick, only comic book characters. Then when they showed up, & revealed that they sold their exploits to Holden, and Jay was pissed at the "baby talk," that was Kevin's Neil-Gaimen-insta-backward-re-continuity-move to establish that MALLRATS was a comic-bookization of "whatever really happened" that day.
: That, for me, handily tied up why the whole MALLRATS thing was handled as a comic book (The movie poster, the opening credits, etc.), in a cool re-constructionist way.
: At the time, I counted that as a really clever way to make a more "serious" film (still laugh-out loud funny, though) in a less cartoony vein, while still being connected to the previous film.
: Yet from the subtext of a lot of the posts, it seems that people feel the events, attitudes & actions of Jay & Silent Bob in MALLRATS are part of the sacred cannon, "happening" explicitly as the movie portrays. Who's wrong?
: AND YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE TITLE OF MY POST WILL ILLICIT MANY A CHEAP JAB. LET ME SOUND THEN, A PRE-EMPTIVE "Bite me."
: Much love to all.