Posted by MadKow at proxy-387.public.rwc.webtv.net on February 08, 2000 at 22:24:14:
In Reply to: Maybe I'm a dipwad but I thought..... posted by Darth Dobbin2 on February 08, 2000 at 21:56:06:
Interesting point, but if Holden did write Mallrats why would he make himself the butt-loving bad guy?
-Kow
: ...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.