Well, I looked, but there does not seem to be a thread for this film, so in order to post the following, I guess I have to break yet another self-imposed ban on my current iteration of A&F participation (Ken, thou shalt not start new threads since they cannot be deleted.)
Anyway, my recent post about Pirates got me to get off my posterior and update my web page to include Deuce Factor ratings for current trailers along with a link to the explanation of Deuce Factor rating (now in it's 7th? year).
Peace.
Ken
P.S. Feel free to use this thread to post your own Deuce Factor ratings or disagree with mine; somehow I think there will be room between all the analysis of the film to allow the other posts to not get lost.
Full Version: Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo
What would the Deuce Factor of Deuce Bigalow be?
QUOTE(Darrel Manson @ Jul 13 2006, 07:38 PM) [snapback]117853[/snapback]
What would the Deuce Factor of Deuce Bigalow be?
Darrel:
I think by definition it would have to be a push.
(Though technically speaking what is rated is the trailer, not the film)
Peace.
Ken
Err, ken - don't you mean "D.B.: American Gigolo"? O.o
QUOTE(nardis @ Jul 13 2006, 10:33 PM) [snapback]117886[/snapback]
Err, ken - don't you mean "D.B.: American Gigolo"? O.o
Not sure. The IMDB title says "Male" not "American.
Peace.
Ken
Then I guess whoever titled it was meaning to be redundant! (Also that I'm getting the title confused with that movie that Gere starred in years ago...)
Edit: ah, turns out I was thinking of the sequel.
Ken, I'm not sure you ever answered my question as to how you rated "European Gigolo" (or whatever the most recent sequel was called) on the Deuce Biglow scale.
Matt
Matt
Matt:
The correct handling of the sequel is one of the more debated points in Deuce Studies. The three most commonly held positions are:
1) It has to be a Deuce Push by its nature, since it is virtually the same film. (This position is the most commonly held one, though, oddly, it is not a favorite amongst serious Deucologists.
2) I consulted the oracle about this matter and he gave me a cryptic reply--hey that's what oracles do. Steve (Perlstein not Greydanus) suggested the second film can be added to the first to recalibrate all Deuce Factor ratings--would I rather see this franchise or the Deuce Franchise? This answer caused a Freud-Jung like tension between Perlstein and Morefield, the latter pointing out that not all trailers are for franchises and that following this practice turns each individual LOTR rings movie (+1, +1, +1) into an aggregate Deuce Franchise Factor -1 on the basis of sheer time commitment. Steve and Ken are still friends, they just disagree on this important matter.
3) In his seminal lecture "The Effects of Inferred Running Time on Deuce Factor as 'X' and "Y" Both Approach Zero," the oracle pointed out long ago that a little understood contributor to Deuce Factor was running time. A number of more prestigious films can become Pushes or Deuce -1 by virtue of their running time. A Thin Red Line, for instance, clocks in at a staggering 170 minutes, a full 82 minutes longer than Deuce Bigalow. Whatever marginal improvement the Malick film has to offer over the Schneider film must be measured against having those additional 82 minutes of your life back to do something better than both. Applying that line of reasoning to the sequel, some have suggested that Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo is actuallly a +1 by virtue of its 83 minutes run time in comparison to the original's 88. This is the position that I currently subscribe to. After all, nobody ever got to the end of their life, I think, and said, "You know, I wish I had spent five more minutes watching Deuce Bigalow."
Peace.
Ken
The correct handling of the sequel is one of the more debated points in Deuce Studies. The three most commonly held positions are:
1) It has to be a Deuce Push by its nature, since it is virtually the same film. (This position is the most commonly held one, though, oddly, it is not a favorite amongst serious Deucologists.
2) I consulted the oracle about this matter and he gave me a cryptic reply--hey that's what oracles do. Steve (Perlstein not Greydanus) suggested the second film can be added to the first to recalibrate all Deuce Factor ratings--would I rather see this franchise or the Deuce Franchise? This answer caused a Freud-Jung like tension between Perlstein and Morefield, the latter pointing out that not all trailers are for franchises and that following this practice turns each individual LOTR rings movie (+1, +1, +1) into an aggregate Deuce Franchise Factor -1 on the basis of sheer time commitment. Steve and Ken are still friends, they just disagree on this important matter.
3) In his seminal lecture "The Effects of Inferred Running Time on Deuce Factor as 'X' and "Y" Both Approach Zero," the oracle pointed out long ago that a little understood contributor to Deuce Factor was running time. A number of more prestigious films can become Pushes or Deuce -1 by virtue of their running time. A Thin Red Line, for instance, clocks in at a staggering 170 minutes, a full 82 minutes longer than Deuce Bigalow. Whatever marginal improvement the Malick film has to offer over the Schneider film must be measured against having those additional 82 minutes of your life back to do something better than both. Applying that line of reasoning to the sequel, some have suggested that Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo is actuallly a +1 by virtue of its 83 minutes run time in comparison to the original's 88. This is the position that I currently subscribe to. After all, nobody ever got to the end of their life, I think, and said, "You know, I wish I had spent five more minutes watching Deuce Bigalow."
Peace.
Ken
So if you are in a movie theater and you hear somebody saying, "It's a -1..." during one of the previews, you know what they are talking about. Why not lean over and surprise them by saying, "You mean you would seriously rather see Deuce Bigalow than that?"Assuming, of course, that there are no other, unrelated systems out there that use "-1" as a rating.
QUOTE(SDG @ Jul 14 2006, 09:31 AM) [snapback]117934[/snapback]
So if you are in a movie theater and you hear somebody saying, "It's a -1..." during one of the previews, you know what they are talking about. Why not lean over and surprise them by saying, "You mean you would seriously rather see Deuce Bigalow than that?"Assuming, of course, that there are no other, unrelated systems out there that use "-1" as a rating.
Steven:
I'm assuming that the Decent Films ratings and Deuce Factor probably calibrate pretty closely if the the former have any validity.
Peace.
Ken
QUOTE(kenmorefield @ Jul 14 2006, 09:34 AM) [snapback]117935[/snapback]
I'm assuming that the Decent Films ratings and Deuce Factor probably calibrate pretty closely if the the former have any validity.
I dunno, maybe it's just a sign of my moral degeneracy, but I bet there are a lot of -2/DecentFilms (morally problematic) films out there that I would rate +2/DeuceFactor or even higher.
QUOTE(SDG @ Jul 14 2006, 10:31 AM) [snapback]117939[/snapback]
QUOTE(kenmorefield @ Jul 14 2006, 09:34 AM) [snapback]117935[/snapback]
I'm assuming that the Decent Films ratings and Deuce Factor probably calibrate pretty closely if the the former have any validity.
I dunno, maybe it's just a sign of my moral degeneracy, but I bet there are a lot of -2/DecentFilms (morally problematic) films out there that I would rate +2/DeuceFactor or even higher.Steven:
It also occurs to me that I hope the average Decent Films reader would not assign a film a moral rating on the basis of the preview alone and without your review!
Is there any significance to the fact that Deuce Factor and DecentFilms both have the initials DF? (Hmmm and "D" and "F" are the two lowest ratings on college papers and can also stand for "Dear Friends").
The truth is out there...or in there...or somewhere...
Peace.
Ken
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.