"You've Got Reality"

[Krumbeard]

The title of this thread is a play on the movie "You've Got Mail".

I've always liked that movie. From the first time I saw it I liked it. But this morning I was thinking about it. And I'm not so sure I like it so much now. There is an old version of it...that might be a better version. I only saw it once.

Anyway, I was thinking about the storyline of it and it's actually kind of sad, but that is something that is kind of ignored in the movie.

Both Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks are in a relationship, not with each other. They each have a partner. (living together type of relationship) But both of them meet in a chatroom. (why are they there?) Then they start to email one another. They talk to each other more and more. They have lost or are losing interest in their current partner and looking for something new. It is sad. They can't wait till that person leaves home so they can check their email.

So eventually they both leave their partners to free themselves for each other. Now here they are walking this path of finding someone new and it is exciting and fun with a few wrinkles to iron out till they finally meet. This is the part that gets the spotlight.

In the shadows...What happened to the current boyfriend or girlfriend? Why do they think that ending that and getting into the next thing will be better? Is it just a high of emotions that will surely wear off? Do they not think that this next venture will last any longer?

Now I know this was made to sell and all those things are underplayed and you're not supposed to think about that but it's there just the same. They even make the current boyfriend and girlfriend with annoying traits so it's easier to dismiss them and get them off the screen.

At the end Meg and Tom meet up while "Somewhere over the Rainbow" is playing. And they walk off together...into reality...

This is where they should begin the sequel. "You've Got Reality". How long till they get bored with each other and head to the chat room again and start over. How will they deal with one of them being a person that doesn't clean up after themselves, or the opposite and is a hyper clean freak, or is lousy with finances, or has a temper, or puts the toilet paper roll on the wrong way, or wants to sit and watch tv instead of with you, or ___________(fill in the blank)?

How should a sequel go? Would it be another bird of the same flock? Or should it show some commitment and pushing through those things that annoy and can be bad for a relationship to do what is good for the other even though it might not bring any "nice" feelings, at least not at the moment?

What does anyone else think?

And as of today, my liking of that movie has decreased signifigantly.

 

[Lanolin]

Was it a remake of an old movie called Shop around the corner. I think. I havent seen that one.

But then there was a remake of that one set further back called In the good old summertime. IN that one Judy Garland plays the girl and Van Heflin plays the love interest. I dont recall they were seeing other people at the time.

In the 'you got mail' movie isnt that the same plot as Sleepless in Seattle or am I confusing those two movies with the same actors?

Most hollywood movies dont make much sense.

 

[Lynx]

If it were not for the syntax and phrasing being significantly different, I would think seoulsearch had hacked krumbeard's account.

 

[Lanolin]

My proposed sequel to this movie

The girl and boy that both got bumped off find each other and start going out. The movie is about them finding out their partners are seeing each other so they plot some revenge but end up liking each other instead. They then realise they shouldnt have moved in together without marrying because the other person just ends up leaving so they decide they will get married to make it offical, and pledge that even if the other is being annoying, they cant leave each other until either one of them dies.

 

[Lanolin]

It will be called You've got to get married.

 

[Lanolin]

Also, the song they have at the end will be a remake of the judy Garland song 'the man that got away' but instead it will be renamed 'the one that got away' so either one of them could sing it. Or they could sing it together.

 

[Lanolin]

I havent thought about casting this movie yet. Any ideas?

Possibly Jennifer Anniston and Ben Stiller. It depends on how annoying they can play the characters. Or that guy who played Ross in friends.

 

[seoulsearch]

If it were not for the syntax and phrasing being significantly different, I would think seoulsearch had hacked krumbeard's account.

Thanks for the nod, Lynx, but I'm pretty sure Krumbeard has me beat.

Awesome thread topic, Krum. I often think about the fact that many people seem to start a relationship or get married because of their current emotional high, hoping it will last forever, but then find themselves looking for a way out as soon as they decide they're "not happy" anymore. I say this as more of an observation and not as a criticism, because I think many people can relate to those feelings.

I remember when the movie "Titanic" took the world by storm and women everywhere were devastated that "Jack" and "Rose" did not wind up together forever in a happily ever after.

Fast forward about 10 years later and the lead actors, Leo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, once again starred as a romantic couple in another movie, "Revolutionary Road."

I saw a YouTube video entitled, "What Would Have Happened If Jack Had Survived," which juxtaposed scenes from both movies together as if Jack had survived from the Titanic nd he and Rose had gotten married.

In the second film, the couple's marital bond dissolves amidst the husband's dissatisfaction with his job (and their growing family that keeps him feeling trapped with it), and the wife's longing for adventure (they try to plan to move to Paris for a fresh start, but this is quickly halted when they find out their second child is on the way.) The husband believes he has no choice but to take a promotion and be stuck in his self-perceived miserable rut forever in order to support his family; the wife is resentful that her dreams of being an actress will never come to fruition.

Both choose to have affairs with other people, and the wife eventually makes a decision that leads to her death and the husband being left alone to raise their two children by himself.

Although it was two completely different movies, I thought the editing was very well-done and gave a very realistic picture of what Jack and Rose's marriage might have looked like if it had actually happened.

To be completely honest, the whole video played out very similarly to stories I've heard and read about the ups and down of relationships, including some of those in the Family Forum right here on CC.

It's times like these that I start to think being single isn't quite so bad, because I have no idea how I'd cope with these issues if I were currently in the midst of them.

 

[Pipp]

My mama always told me the most fulfilling desire is the desire unfulfilled....

I know that sounds weird, but it makes sense. Most of the time the things we fantasize about, when we get them, rarely meet up to the expectations we had in mind.

 

[morefaithrequired]

Krumbeard
youve done it again. we need your incisive wisdom on here.
i never took meg ryan seriously so never took the movie seriously. but they are selling lies to people. But it seems there is a demand for lies. fantasy feelgood. always will be. marriage is learning to tolerate and I can proudly say Ive lasted 28 years. Though my partner is the one who deserves the gold medal.

 

[Susanna]

I’m too much of a retard for this thread🤗.

 

[Krumbeard]

Was it a remake of an old movie called Shop around the corner. I think. I havent seen that one.

But then there was a remake of that one set further back called In the good old summertime. IN that one Judy Garland plays the girl and Van Heflin plays the love interest. I dont recall they were seeing other people at the time.

In the 'you got mail' movie isnt that the same plot as Sleepless in Seattle or am I confusing those two movies with the same actors?

Most hollywood movies dont make much sense.

Yes. I think it was a remake of "A shop around the corner".

I'll have to see if my mom has that one.
I might watch that one instead.

 

[Lanolin]

Second thought I dont think I ever saw this movie I think it was the other one sleepless in seattle. Not really something I would willingly watch.

Also, rival book store owners are such cliche. But at least they both like books. It sounds like they will have business partnership together rather than a romantic relationship. Maybe you reading too much into it. They could be walking together and heading toward the library. Thats just pure hollywood.

Maye the movie people just wanted to make them have other live in partners to seem trendy. Or to employ more actors. In reality it would have made more sense if they were single and been a better story.

Also in reality, the mega bookstore would have closed down and become a subsidary of amazon. Sometimes businesses overeach themselves which is what happened to Borders. It imported huge numbers of books but wasnt able to compete with cheaper, online orders and free delivery.

 

[Lanolin]

The other bookstore movies you could watch.

NOttinghill
FUnny Face
The Bookshop. That one was most recent but there didnt seem to be any romance in that one.

 

[morefaithrequired]

I’m too much of a retard for this thread🤗.

I thought we had to be careful using that word these days. not sure I like it anyway.

 

[Susanna]

I thought we had to be careful using that word these days. not sure I like it anyway.

I’m sorry, but life has made my language colorful.

 

[Lynx]

You can make anything work out in movies. In real life...

That's why I never have bothered going out to look for a woman. If I try to find someone just for the sake of being married, not being alone... If I find one, what happens when we get old and she doesn't fill the role as well as she used to? Worse yet (for me) what about when I can't fill the role as well as I used to? And if I go out to try to find a lady, that is all I will find - somebody to fill a role. That's not love, that's applying for a job.

Or if I start a relationship just for the thrill, what happens when the thrill dies down? I can't imagine I can sustain excitement indefinitely. I just don't have the energy for it.

My grandmother used to watch a lot of rom-coms (thank the Lord she doesn't any more) and they always followed a set pattern that became predictable after the first few. But they never showed anything after the couple deciding to become a couple. Sure they always had the obligatory difficulty to overcome, the trouble that almost tears the newly-forged couple apart, but it's resolved almost before it begins. All these rom-coms never show anything about life together as a couple. It's all about the excitement of forming a couple.

Forget it. Any relationship I can start based on excitement, providing somebody's need or just for the sake of not being alone, that will be a relationship doomed to eventually fail because there will always be somebody else who is more exciting or fills the need better. I don't want to have to look over my shoulder and worry that (the hypothetical) she will find somebody who is better than I am, and I don't want to worry about what I will do if I find somebody better than she is.

 

[Krumbeard]

If it were not for the syntax and phrasing being significantly different, I would think seoulsearch had hacked krumbeard's account.

Syntax...makes me think of some computer error I used to get a long time ago. Never understood what it meant.

But I'm sure you do.

 

[Mii]

Really like the way you are thinking on this.

It is certainly worthwhile to bring to attention the "sweeping it under the rug" and what follows after.

When hey guess what...maybe just one of the people do it this time and if it were the female...things would be said about her
and if it were the male...things would be said. You've got reality. Do you want to open? No...end credits after 5 minutes. States enough.

Really a lose lose, but satire can sometimes open up the discussion in people's mind in a forcefully productive way.

 

[Subhumanoidal]

The notion of every RomCom is meeting "the one". That person that stands out among others. To take such a literal interpretation defeats the notion of "fiction" that is at its basis. It's fiction.

If we are going to insist on taking this fictional story to the level of reality...
"They made the ex's have annoying traits to it's easier to dismiss them". Sometimes that happens in real life too.
Sometimes the grass IS greener on the other side.

People do get bored or unhappy in their relationships. And this causes them to wander. It doesn't automatically mean that the person or people are just always bored and dissatisfied. In fact similar situations have actually worked out. Look at Amy Grant. She was married to a good man and had kids, yet gave it all up for another man. And last I heard that relationship lasted.

The problem with all your points is that they are framed to be interpreted in this limited view. And to lump all motives and reasons into one purely negative, as if that is the only option.

A person unhappy in a relationship should leave it. Or take steps to improve it, not stay with it till they find someone else.
But to fill in the blanks of peoples motives, presuming all negative motives, is not exactly a sign of a reasonable outlook, either.