Mr. Mom, Part Duh. Hogan -- my contact on the West Coast, where such decisions get made -- tells me that New Line Cinema is considering a "Mr. Mom" remake titled "Stay at Home Tom." Seriously. The writer, Adam Gibgot, apparently received six figures for his script. But beyond this: "Script concerns a father who has to learn to take care of his two young children when his wife goes back to work," I haven't seen any details on the plot.
The whole thing is a bit puzzling. "Mr. Mom" has not aged particularly well. Twenty-five years ago, when the movie was first pitched, it must have all seemed ridiculously novel -- a classic fish-out-of-water story ("Get this," the writer must have said to the studio a quarter-century ago, "there's this guy who ... you won't believe this ... stays at home ... and raises *his own kids*! Crazy!"). But today, when everyone knows an at-home dad, we're just not that unique, and there is nothing particularly amusing about a father raising his children. Heck, when Eddie Murphy did "Daddy Daycare", they had to saddle him with a dozen kids to get any humor. And even then, that movie had a relatively low percentage of Michael Keaton-esque bumbling.
That's not to say that the movie can't be funny or well-written just because it's about a stay-at-home dad. I'm figuring that the film version of "Little Children" could be interesting in a way that bears little resemblance to "Mr. Mom." "Stay At Home Tom" can't rely -- as "Mr. Mom" did -- on a single joke: dads suck at being home. (Yes, the movie ended in the right place and proved that guys are good caregivers, etc. etc. etc., but nearly every single joke in the movie was based on the fact that Jack Butler was an utter domestic moron.) So I wish Gibgot the best of luck, but I'm curious to see what of "Mr. Mom" is worth salvaging. I can't think of anything ...
FullTimeFather, Media Star: long-dormant blogger Mike Paranzino (of Full Time Father fame) received one heck of a Father's Day profile in USA Today today (and was featured in the sidebar). It's a nice, hour-by-hour slice of life, and I may have to get in touch with Mike to find his trick to getting rid of training wheels by age four. Pretty impressive.
The sidebar is worth a read, too, if only because reporter Sharon Jayson catches up with Yale's Kyle Pruett, who is really a treasure and who really ought to get quoted more.
Just one nitpick (and I've ranted on this before): the real number of at-home dads is not what the Census Bureau says it is (98,000). Jayson references that number twice, calling at-home dads "a rare breed, indeed" and "a small group." But that figure excludes a great number of men -- including, quite explicitly, Mike! -- for a great number of stupid reasons. I'm sure I'll see the 98,000 number a lot in the days to come, so take this post as a blanket condemnation.
Father's Day is still four days away, and I'm already falling behind. Keep sending me stories you see that reference at-home dads, and I'll be sure to post them. Eventually.
The whole thing is a bit puzzling. "Mr. Mom" has not aged particularly well. Twenty-five years ago, when the movie was first pitched, it must have all seemed ridiculously novel -- a classic fish-out-of-water story ("Get this," the writer must have said to the studio a quarter-century ago, "there's this guy who ... you won't believe this ... stays at home ... and raises *his own kids*! Crazy!"). But today, when everyone knows an at-home dad, we're just not that unique, and there is nothing particularly amusing about a father raising his children. Heck, when Eddie Murphy did "Daddy Daycare", they had to saddle him with a dozen kids to get any humor. And even then, that movie had a relatively low percentage of Michael Keaton-esque bumbling.
That's not to say that the movie can't be funny or well-written just because it's about a stay-at-home dad. I'm figuring that the film version of "Little Children" could be interesting in a way that bears little resemblance to "Mr. Mom." "Stay At Home Tom" can't rely -- as "Mr. Mom" did -- on a single joke: dads suck at being home. (Yes, the movie ended in the right place and proved that guys are good caregivers, etc. etc. etc., but nearly every single joke in the movie was based on the fact that Jack Butler was an utter domestic moron.) So I wish Gibgot the best of luck, but I'm curious to see what of "Mr. Mom" is worth salvaging. I can't think of anything ...
FullTimeFather, Media Star: long-dormant blogger Mike Paranzino (of Full Time Father fame) received one heck of a Father's Day profile in USA Today today (and was featured in the sidebar). It's a nice, hour-by-hour slice of life, and I may have to get in touch with Mike to find his trick to getting rid of training wheels by age four. Pretty impressive.
The sidebar is worth a read, too, if only because reporter Sharon Jayson catches up with Yale's Kyle Pruett, who is really a treasure and who really ought to get quoted more.
Just one nitpick (and I've ranted on this before): the real number of at-home dads is not what the Census Bureau says it is (98,000). Jayson references that number twice, calling at-home dads "a rare breed, indeed" and "a small group." But that figure excludes a great number of men -- including, quite explicitly, Mike! -- for a great number of stupid reasons. I'm sure I'll see the 98,000 number a lot in the days to come, so take this post as a blanket condemnation.
Father's Day is still four days away, and I'm already falling behind. Keep sending me stories you see that reference at-home dads, and I'll be sure to post them. Eventually.
posted by Rebel Dad at
5:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home