Post by Lord Death Man on Mar 16, 2021 23:27:42 GMT 1
This is a thread about NOT having fan theories, right?
Great article from Indiewire on Fan Theories in general; Theory: Your' Fan Theory' Is Wrong.
www.indiewire.com/2015/06/theory-your-fan-theory-is-wrong-130867/
Andy's mom is Jessie's owner. Ferris Bueller only exists in Cameron's mind. Tom Hardy's character in "Max Max: Fury Road" is the feral boy from "The Road Warrior." The sisters in "My Neighbor Totoro" are dead. All the Pixar movies take place in a single universe where humanity is eventually replaced by sentient cars.
You've doubtless come across some of these so-called "fan theories," the most recent of which surmises that Chris Pratt's character in "Jurassic World" is the grown-up version of the boy Sam Neill insults in "Jurassic Park." They all have one thing in common: They're wrong. By this, I don't mean that they're factually inaccurate, that they can be disproven — or, failing that, that they can and should be Occam's Razored out of existence. I mean that they should not exist, and that promulgating or even bothering to refute them is a profound waste of time.
In Canada’s National Post, Calum Marsh takes on one of the more persistent fan theories: that the actual day off in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” was June 5, 1985 — 30 years ago last week, which explains why you saw a flurry of posts celebrating this non-anniversary and even wrongly claiming it was the 30th anniversary of the film’s theatrical release. (That’s exactly a year from today, and it’s not a theory.) The reasoning is that the baseball game Ferris and his friends attend took place on June 5, ergo so must the rest of the movie. Never mind that, as Marsh points out, the Von Steuben Day parade depicted in the film takes place in September. The Internet has spoken: June 5 it is.
What this theory actual reveals is something far more banal. As Marsh writes:
Ferris Bueller’s day off, like any movie day, was a composite. It isn’t real. Its apparent contradictions don’t need to be reconciled. And yet here we are: people insist that they be reconciled anyway. This is just one among innumerable “fan theories” — those self-willed, often faintly ludicrous efforts to imagine that a movie contains depths of hidden meaning it plainly does not. Advancing a fan theory doesn’t have anything to do with “reading” a film, in the academic sense. Instead it has to do with seizing upon stray details as covert evidence and redefining coincidence as argument-clinching fact.
You've doubtless come across some of these so-called "fan theories," the most recent of which surmises that Chris Pratt's character in "Jurassic World" is the grown-up version of the boy Sam Neill insults in "Jurassic Park." They all have one thing in common: They're wrong. By this, I don't mean that they're factually inaccurate, that they can be disproven — or, failing that, that they can and should be Occam's Razored out of existence. I mean that they should not exist, and that promulgating or even bothering to refute them is a profound waste of time.
In Canada’s National Post, Calum Marsh takes on one of the more persistent fan theories: that the actual day off in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” was June 5, 1985 — 30 years ago last week, which explains why you saw a flurry of posts celebrating this non-anniversary and even wrongly claiming it was the 30th anniversary of the film’s theatrical release. (That’s exactly a year from today, and it’s not a theory.) The reasoning is that the baseball game Ferris and his friends attend took place on June 5, ergo so must the rest of the movie. Never mind that, as Marsh points out, the Von Steuben Day parade depicted in the film takes place in September. The Internet has spoken: June 5 it is.
What this theory actual reveals is something far more banal. As Marsh writes:
Ferris Bueller’s day off, like any movie day, was a composite. It isn’t real. Its apparent contradictions don’t need to be reconciled. And yet here we are: people insist that they be reconciled anyway. This is just one among innumerable “fan theories” — those self-willed, often faintly ludicrous efforts to imagine that a movie contains depths of hidden meaning it plainly does not. Advancing a fan theory doesn’t have anything to do with “reading” a film, in the academic sense. Instead it has to do with seizing upon stray details as covert evidence and redefining coincidence as argument-clinching fact.