The Snapper

ceegee

Mellor wrote: »

Draupnir wrote: »

Mellor wrote: »

If you had to date it, its set around 1989. Basing this on the van being based around Italia'90

Well there is a scene when Sharon mentions that Dessie cried during the World Cup. So it probably starts in late 1989, passing the World Cup and finishing in around August/September 1990.

If the films were like the books, The Van could probably sit between the The Commitments and The Snapper chronologically.

it wouldn't make sense for it to overlap the world cup, simply because that's when Colm Meeney had the chip van, plus Sharon has already had her baby by the van.
Chronologically, the order is the commitments, the snapper and the van.
I know the line you are referring to, and unless it refers to '86 or a different sport it's a mistake from the writers.

Sharon has a picture from bill and teds bogus journey on her wall so the film is definitly set after the van

Mellor

Draupnir wrote: »

The family in the Van only has 4 members, granted some could never be on screen but I think that would be a stretch since some of the girls in The Snapper are younger than the youngest boy, you'd assume they haven't moved out by the time The Van roles around.

They were 3 differnet studios, so they each edit the story is different ways. That's complete

ceegee wrote: »

Sharon has a picture from bill and teds bogus journey on her wall so the film is definitly set after the van

Thats just bad set design, like 98fm appearing in the background in The Van. It's not something to base a timeline.


How do people not understand that due to the that 3 studios made the films, there are minor inconsistancies.
If you read everything as absolute, then its 3 different families. :rolleyes:

ceegee

Mellor wrote: »

Draupnir wrote: »

The family in the Van only has 4 members, granted some could never be on screen but I think that would be a stretch since some of the girls in The Snapper are younger than the youngest boy, you'd assume they haven't moved out by the time The Van roles around.

They were 3 differnet studios, so they each edit the story is different ways. That's complete

ceegee wrote: »

Sharon has a picture from bill and teds bogus journey on her wall so the film is definitly set after the van

Thats just bad set design, like 98fm appearing in the background in The Van. It's not something to base a timeline.


How do people not understand that due to the that 3 studios made the films, there are minor inconsistancies.
If you read everything as absolute, then its 3 different families. :rolleyes:

They may not be 3 different families but the 3 films are certainly not played out on one timeline.
Each film is a stand alone piece, and as such there is no problem with the van being set earlier than the snapper, consider it a reboot if you will. There are simply too many 90s reference points to suggest theyre all mistakes and its actually set in the 80s

Mellor

I not really talking about what year the film is set. The van is 1990, obviously. The snapper may well have been filmed with a vague early 90s setting.
They are two separate films, so the time lines don't meet up. Some of the references might be intentional, some are 100% mistakes.

Im talking about the idea that somebody had that the events in the van happen, then afterwards sharon had the baby. That makes no sense.
There its just two separate series of events. If you are putting them in order, then the proper order is the only one that makes sense to the story, even the the individual years are off.

Arianna_26

Bowlardo wrote: »

it was aired on TV will ruled it out from the oscars..

hypothetically speaking how many oscars nominations and wins would The Snapper have got and what categories?

Yeah, The Snapper has to be one of the funniest films I have ever seen. I laughed myself silly!

But oscars material - hardly. I appreciate it for what it is, a home produced film for a home audience. I think that's all it intended to be.

I love it.

Dodge

Arianna_26 wrote: »

I appreciate it for what it is, a home produced film for a home audience.

It was a British produced TV film. Which then evolved into a worldwide cinema release

Auvers

Good Girl Sharon

ssaye

Its on TV3 9PM Tonight

roanoke

"That was A1 Sharon"

"Here's a tenner, go and buy yourself some sweets"

jpm4

roanoke wrote: »

"That was A1 Sharon"

"Here's a tenner, go and buy yourself some sweets"

My fav scenes are the ones with Colm Meany and his barflies.....

(Georgie Burgees comes round trying to flog a teddy bear for a raffle) "Ohhhhh.....Give a little, helps a lot!"

"I can get you some first class baby clothes....."

"....and a hefty langer on him. Hawhawhaw"

And many more I can't remember. You can say it wasn't well acted and has aged poorly all you like, but look at the number of quotes popping up here it's simply a very funny film.

big_joe_joyce

dublin looks like an entirely different city , not a whisker of a celtic tiger

sporina

If this movie was made now.. in these times, would it be regarded as rape?

Glaceon

sporina wrote: »

If this movie was made now.. in these times, would it be regarded as rape?

They didn’t mention it in the film but they did in the book.

sporina

Glaceon wrote: »

They didn’t mention it in the film but they did in the book.

interesting what did it say? just wondering, in relation to consent etc.. that wasn't discussed back in the 90's..

the_pen_turner

It an interesting one.

I dont see rape . I presume his action implied that gave consent. He didn't remove consent at any point so he wasnt raped .
She never removed consent either so neither was she.

If you go down the drink route then he couldn't consent and the onus is on the person initiating the sex then .

I would put it down on both sides as sexual assault

Greyfox

The snapper is the best Irish film ever and 2nd would be Michael Collins

Mellor

the_pen_turner wrote: »

It an interesting one.

I dont see rape . I presume his action implied that gave consent. He didn't remove consent at any point so he wasnt raped .

Nobody is claiming Georgie Burgess was raped.

She never removed consent either so neither was she.

At which did she consent in the first place??

I would put it down on both sides as sexual assault

How could is be sexual assault but not rape? She got pregnant, there's no question they had sex.
Bizarre comments tbh.

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

Nobody is claiming Georgie Burgess was raped.



At which did she consent in the first place??


How could is be sexual assault but not rape? She got pregnant, there's no question they had sex.
Bizarre comments tbh.

Did you miss the part where she grabs him and initiates things?

Mellor

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Did you miss the part where she grabs him and initiates things?

She initiates a kiss then passes out drunk on the bonnet of a car.

It's a ten year old thread. So it's been a while and can't recalled the precise editing. But I though it was pretty clear that she was drunk/passed out and he took advantage of her.
If the intention of the movie was for it to be a drunken consensual mistake, I think that would have been clear.

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

She initiates a kiss then passes out drunk on the bonnet of a car.

"A man ... ", then as above

the_pen_turner

Mellor wrote: »

Nobody is claiming Georgie Burgess was raped.



At which did she consent in the first place??


How could is be sexual assault but not rape? She got pregnant, there's no question they had sex.
Bizarre comments tbh.

the poster asked was it rape. that question applies to both parties equally

she initiated the sex . it is her that needs to ask consent

i dont see rape . regret afterwards is not rape.
they had consentual sex


my comments are not bizarre. they are based on the facts of the film.

the_pen_turner

Mellor wrote: »

She initiates a kiss then passes out drunk on the bonnet of a car.

It's a ten year old thread. So it's been a while and can't recalled the precise editing. But I though it was pretty clear that she was drunk/passed out and he took advantage of her.
If the intention of the movie was for it to be a drunken consensual mistake, I think that would have been clear.

she is not passed out on the bonnet. she is very much aware of the situation

go back and watch the scene. its clear you dont remember it.
i re watched it before making my comment

B.A._Baracus

It's not rape.
The story as portrayed is that Sharon was drunk, wanted sex and went with anything. She was that drunk. As she says to Burgess "a man..." - then afterwards she even says "who was that?"

She was young and she made a drunken mistake. She was only meant to be 20. Legally an adult but life-inexperienced. Burgess shouldn't have taken advantage of Sharon in that drunken state. But she gave consent.

homerun_homer

I've never watched The Snapper or The Van, but love The Commitments. I saw up to the first ad break for this at the weekend and the production quality is so far below The Commitments. The acting is a bit stagey, like the young lads in the pub.

I'll give it a go another time when I'm in the mood.

flasher0030

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

It's not rape.
The story as portrayed is that Sharon was drunk, wanted sex and went with anything. She was that drunk. As she says to Burgess "a man..." - then afterwards she even says "who was that?"

She was young and she made a drunken mistake. She was only meant to be 20. Legally an adult but life-inexperienced. Burgess shouldn't have taken advantage of Sharon in that drunken state. But she gave consent.

I don't think the law works like that. I could be wrong on the preciseness of the following - you can look it up if you want more details.

I was reading up on one of those cases of high profile soccer players being accused of rape. I think one of them got found guilty of rape even though everything was consensual at the time. It came down to the point - that the girl was too drunk to be in a fit state to give consent. And that the man should have taken that into account. i.e. 1. Would you like to have consent, and then follow up with 2. Are you in a sober enough condition to make that consent valid.

I know it sounds ridiculas but I'm pretty sure that's the gist of it. Makes you think next time you approach a sozzled chick in Coppers (if we ever get back to those good auld days).

the_pen_turner

flasher0030 wrote: »

I don't think the law works like that. I could be wrong on the preciseness of the following - you can look it up if you want more details.

I was reading up on one of those cases of high profile soccer players being accused of rape. I think one of them got found guilty of rape even though everything was consensual at the time. It came down to the point - that the girl was too drunk to be in a fit state to give consent. And that the man should have taken that into account. i.e. 1. Would you like to have consent, and then follow up with 2. Are you in a sober enough condition to make that consent valid.

I know it sounds ridiculas but I'm pretty sure that's the gist of it. Makes you think next time you approach a sozzled chick in Coppers (if we ever get back to those good auld days).

he was drunk too so that rule make her a rapist if it make him one

marklazarcovic

and she was heavily pregnant necking shots too ,wouldnt see that now either.

AMKC

the_pen_turner wrote: »

he was drunk too so that rule make her a rapist if it make him one

I doubt it. She was too drunk to know what was going on. Just because she said the"A Man" bit those not mean she wanted sex , had given consent or that he should have sex with her. He knew what he was doing she did not that's why he was basically rape.