Huh? Whaaa? Um.. I don't understand the q. NT

Subject:

Comments:
: : : tuff like this that makes Kevin want to close up the world he has created. : : : Like how in Monty Python's Life of Bryan, where the "disciples" get into debates about following the sandal. Too much continuity makes martinets out of "fans." That's why I bowed out of the world of comics; staring into the abysss of the Marvel Zombies and DC Fanboys began to stare into me as well... : : : You miss my point entirely.(Ugh.don't want to rehash, but...) I'm not saying CLERKS was a fictional comic-book story within the "reality" of CHASING AMY, I'm saying that I thought MALLRATS was "explained away" as a being somehow a comic-book "version" of events that ostensibly took place. Stress on "SOMEHOW." Between the lines. Not EXPLICITLY written in stone to appease the flowchart-minded. Thus the cartoony, not-real-way the world "worked" in MALLRATS was left open to be dismissed as only "Rashamon" level reality. : : : Saying "Who talks like that anyway?", making explicit reference to MALLRATS dialogue, I assumed that this meant that MALLRATS was, in some way (again, left intentionally vague, so's not to cause too many bean-counters to cite paradoxes) a cartoon-version of the events... : : : : : : In the end, I actually don't care, all that much, if all the "strings tie up," and I think that that is the downfall of too much attention paid to minutia, and cross-referenced timelines. They are, by their nature, exclusionary and usually set up unintended "glitches" that over-zealous fans are too eager to find and discuss ad nauseum. : : : The term "fanboy" springs from the comic book world- they are the ones who make it all un-fun; un-fun for the creator, and ulitmately, un-fun for the other fans. They are the Nit-pickers Guild of the Star Trek Crowd.. The ones devoting WAY TOO MUCH time to asking needling "why and whens" when the answer is actually, "Dude. It is just a story." : : : "Fanboy" is not a term of endearment. At least, when I was doing the comic circut, it wasn't. : : : Look- don't get me wrong. I'm not getting down on you for being an Askew Otaku. All of this is coming from the same guy who, as an obsessive 4th grader, needed to tell himself that Soundwave must transport his "overflow" of mass into a pocket-dimension, in order to transform from a 40 foot tall robot into a tape recorder capable of being carried by a human. I know all too well the route of the obsessive continuity-buff. But as one who left that path, I can tell you, mi amigo, that that way lies madness. Here there be Dragons. Abandon All hope (of geting any) Ye Who Enter There. : : : Relax. Breathe. Chill. I said that "when I first saw CHASING AMY"... That was years ago. And, fan of Kev's work though I am, I cannot quote the litany of all the comic books and their inter-connectedness with the movies. Back then, I was only passingly a fan. I saw CLERKS on video, which made me see MALLRATS in the theater. When I cought wind that "that funny dude" had made another movie, I made a point to see it. So I did not have the background of watching everything 28 billion times. I find that that ruins many movies. (Except for Star Wars. And King Kong.) : : : Being right, and "winning" an arguement on this issue is like being crowned "The World's Tallest Midget." : : : But if it makes you happy, you win. : : : Shorty. : : : : : : : : : 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.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: