Posted by JewElmo at spider-tn014.proxy.aol.com on February 08, 2000 at 23:27:20:
In Reply to: Nice thought, but take a gander at This posted by JewElmo on February 08, 2000 at 23:22:09:
: 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.