The Snapper

bebostalker · 10-11-2011 11:40AM

Intermission was the best Irish film ever, man.

Mickeroo · 10-11-2011 11:42AM

bebostalker wrote: »

Intermission was the best Irish film ever, man.

Ara now....

bebostalker · 10-11-2011 11:52AM

Mickeroo wrote: »

Ara now....

You just don't have the requisite Celtic soul, man.

Mellor · 10-11-2011 01:09PM

I always took it that that was a very intentional joke from fr ted writers

Mellor · 10-11-2011 01:33PM

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.

ziedth · 10-11-2011 01:41PM

I don't think that Meaney in The Van and the Snapper are actually the same character Mellor. So I would take it that the snapper takes place just after Italy '90 too.

Edit: actually ignore that. I see the different names are a copyright issue.

Further edt: I just watched it with the wife and it shows the sons DOB as on the crib as '93

bebostalker · 10-11-2011 02:46PM

Mellor wrote: »

I always took it that that was a very intentional joke from fr ted writers

Sorry Sheep...I'm gonna' have to put you down man.

Is Meaney also meant to be same character in Intermission

Dodge · 10-11-2011 02:56PM

Mellor wrote: »

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.

Its not a mistake. its just artistic license

The 3 films were seperately made and have little/no overlap at all. Colm Meaney plays the same charachter in each film but they're called Jimmy rabbitte, Dessie Curley and Larry rabbitte for example

The "world cup line" was added into the screenplay (ie its not in the book) and it works well

Draupnir · 11-11-2011 12:15AM

That's exactly what I meant, they had already been forced to change the family name and lead characters name due to copyright issues. I think the movie timelines are a bit different to the literary version. I've read the trilogy and am aware that the timeline there is clear.

Mellor · 11-11-2011 06:08AM

Dodge wrote: »

Its not a mistake. its just artistic license

The 3 films were seperately made and have little/no overlap at all. Colm Meaney plays the same charachter in each film but they're called Jimmy rabbitte, Dessie Curley and Larry rabbitte for example

The "world cup line" was added into the screenplay (ie its not in the book) and it works well

Mistake was the wrong word. After all Roddy Doyle did the screen play.
Anachronism is more fitting. .

And as a stand alone film, the line works well I agree. But I think of them a trilogy. and the line is out of place in that sense. Maybe due to the convoluted profuction, Doyle didn't think there ever would be a trilogy of movies. or that they'd be linked due to name changes.

Draupnir wrote: »

That's exactly what I meant, they had already been forced to change the family name and lead characters name due to copyright issues. I think the movie timelines are a bit different to the literary version. I've read the trilogy and am aware that the timeline there is clear.

I get what you were saying, but imo you are mistaken.

Think about it, Sharon (renamed) is in the van, with her newborn baby. Remember the nappy scene. Therefore its has to take place in the same timeline as the books, immediately after the snapper.
The world cup comment is an anachronsim, but was intentional.
There are a dew other things out of place too I remember.

Arianna_26 · 11-11-2011 06:11AM

I'm kicking myself that I missed this the last night

ziedth · 11-11-2011 12:08PM

Mellor wrote: »

Think about it, Sharon (renamed) is in the van, with her newborn baby. Remember the nappy scene. Therefore its has to take place in the same timeline as the books, immediately after the snapper.
The world cup comment is an anachronsim, but was intentional.
There are a dew other things out of place too I remember.

I honestly don't think (in the film) it's suppose to be Sharon. Like I said earlier in the snapper when the baby is born it has his date of birth on the cot and it says 1993. I agree with you though that they obviously didn't know that they would get a chance to film the van then they would have changed the date and possibly even have left out the world cup joke. Although it's a great line.

Dodge · 11-11-2011 12:12PM

ziedth wrote: »

I honestly don't think (in the film) it's suppose to be Sharon.

Its the same charachter alright. Just different name etc

Like I said earlier in the snapper when the baby is born it has his date of birth on the cot and it says 1993. I agree with you though that they obviously didn't know that they would get a chance to film the van then they would have changed the date and possibly even have left out the world cup joke. Although it's a great line.

There's no 'they'. its 3 seperate films/production companies

the purple tin · 11-11-2011 12:26PM

cython wrote: »

Somewhat neither here nor there, but I always get a bit of a laugh out of the fact that Georgie Burgess (the father of the titular baby) is played by Pat Laffan, the very same as went on to play Pat Mustard in Father Ted - typecasting anyone? :pac:

I am aware he has played plenty of other different roles too

Georgie bleedin Burgess!:D

Rodger_Muir · 11-11-2011 02:18PM

I caught it for the first time the other night and thought it was pants.

johnny_ultimate · 11-11-2011 02:25PM

I also think it's ho-hum. And that's being generous to counter arguments of begrudgery!

There are some funny moments - a handful - and there's a hint of darkness that never quite fully kicks in. But for a film made in the 1990s it's hopelessly dated already, and the characters are a hugely unlikeable bunch.

Having been forced to sit through many apparently stellar examples of Irish cinema as part of college (this included), the only one that stands out as anything above average is The Butcher Boy. I haven't seen I Went Down, but have been led believe that is a fine piece of work too.

JP Liz V1 · 11-11-2011 05:49PM

cython wrote: »

Somewhat neither here nor there, but I always get a bit of a laugh out of the fact that Georgie Burgess (the father of the titular baby) is played by Pat Laffan, the very same as went on to play Pat Mustard in Father Ted - typecasting anyone? :pac:

I am aware he has played plenty of other different roles too

No matter what I see him I always shout thats Georgie Burgess

Dodge · 11-11-2011 06:04PM

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

No matter what I see him I always shout thats Georgie Burgess

And I bet he thinks you're so original and funny

JP Liz V1 · 11-11-2011 06:05PM

Dodge wrote: »

And I bet he thinks you're so original and funny

Yes I'm sure he can hear me through the screen

Draupnir · 12-11-2011 01:43AM

Mellor wrote: »

Mistake was the wrong word. After all Roddy Doyle did the screen play.
Anachronism is more fitting. .

And as a stand alone film, the line works well I agree. But I think of them a trilogy. and the line is out of place in that sense. Maybe due to the convoluted profuction, Doyle didn't think there ever would be a trilogy of movies. or that they'd be linked due to name changes.

I get what you were saying, but imo you are mistaken.

Think about it, Sharon (renamed) is in the van, with her newborn baby. Remember the nappy scene. Therefore its has to take place in the same timeline as the books, immediately after the snapper.
The world cup comment is an anachronsim, but was intentional.
There are a dew other things out of place too I remember.

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.

ceegee · 16-11-2011 12:43AM

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 · 16-11-2011 04:17AM

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 · 17-11-2011 05:53AM

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 · 17-11-2011 06:59AM

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 · 17-11-2011 07:15AM

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 · 17-11-2011 08:39AM

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 · 17-11-2011 04:15PM

Good Girl Sharon

ssaye · 18-12-2012 04:28PM

Its on TV3 9PM Tonight

roanoke · 18-12-2012 06:22PM

"That was A1 Sharon"

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

jpm4 · 18-12-2012 06:56PM

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.

The Snapper

Comments