I just watched "Boys and Girls" and it is a very similar movie to "She's All That". Of course it's not nearly as good because there's no Rachael, but B&G is actually a pretty decent movie for what it is.
B&G stars Freddy Prinze, Jr., who of course was in SAT. B&G and SAT were both directed by the same person, Robert Isgrove.
Isgrove uses the same flashback method in B&G as SAT--letting the character narrate from within the flashback scene. In SAT, it was fresh and inventive and I'd never seen anything like it before. When it happened in B&G, I thought it was a total rip-off of SAT, but then I looked at the director and realized it was the same guy and he reused that cinematic element.
The story has a character transformation (Freddy's Ryan, just like Rachael's Laney) that makes him/her more desirable to the other character.
B&G is set over many years, focusing on college. SAT is set in a few months in high school. Both include a graduation scene.
Both have 3 word titles.
I can't think of anymore right now, but I know they are there.
EDIT: I forgot a really obvious one! Both feature choreographed dance scenes that take up a good 3-4 minutes of the film.
yeah after the sucess of Shes All That as a lower budget sleeper hit there were bound to be rip offs and films that try to build on sats sucess.
(that said SAT isnt 100% original taking story ideas from my fair lady to name just one (and particurly fitting considering choice of actresses, hepburn and RLC. According to one study i saw there are only 7 original plots in existance. Other stories are just versions of these)
Intresting that Prinze choose to do the film, i remember rachael said in an interview that she go tons of film scripts after SAT that she felt were just too similar and stayed the hell away from them, and its only to her credit and her careers credit that she has done that and hasnt recieved a prom queen status like say J.Love Hewitt and others.
Whilst she may not be as big a name as hewitt or holmes if she avoides cashing in on roles such as those she will end up beiung recognized as the great actress she is(and thus getting better roles in the future)and not just as another pretty face for high school boys to lust after.
Posts: 185 | Location: Canberra Australia | Registered: May 03, 2001
I read in an interview that Freddy Prinze, Jr. purposely did three similar-themed movies purposely as a type of trilogy people his age could identify with. SAT was the first, Down to You was the second, and Boys and Girls completed it. I can see how SAT and B&G show the transition from high school to college. I haven't seen Down to You, so I can't comment on it. (I'm his age and I don't identify with either. The reason I like them is because they are idealistic, romantic fantasy and nothing more.)
Now that I think of it, I don't really see B&G as a rip-off of SAT. Given what Freddy Prinze, Jr. set out to do and given that the director is the same, I think it's more appropriate to call it a follow-up than a label it a rip-off.
quote:Originally posted by Dodge This: I haven't seen Down to You, so I can't comment on it.
I bought it on DVD. It's very good. Julia Stiles is very good in it, as is Freddy. It has a lot more romance/relationship stuff in it than the others, sort of a little more grown up, if you know what I mean. A good movie, also uses the narration by main characters quite a bit. I recommend it highly if you liked the other two.
-Nate
Posts: 428 | Location: Somerville, MA USA | Registered: May 09, 2001
Boys & Girls and Down To You were good films but She's All That still better, much better! Uhmm.. for me Julie Stiles, Kirsten Dunst and Melissa Joan Hart were OK, just OK.
Posts: 1756 | Location: Somewhere | Registered: April 04, 2001
I never had a problem with Melissa Joan Hart. I usta really like her. Anyone remember "Clarissa Explains it All"? I used to love that show. I'm sure if I saw it now, I might wonder what I was thinking back then. LOL I find that a lot when I see things that I loved as a kid when I got older. Anyway, I watched the first season of "Sabrina" and just kinda fell away from it, I guess. Now I just see it sometimes. Salem was the real reason to watch the show anyway. I want to adopt him. LOL
-TR
Posts: 4389 | Location: Somewhere in the USA. | Registered: November 24, 2000
I actually have some of Claire's wardrobe from "Antitrust" too. Don't ask how I got it. It was basically a goof that I got it. I'm not complaining, though. I think it's pretty cool.
-TR
Posts: 4389 | Location: Somewhere in the USA. | Registered: November 24, 2000
OMG! "Unhappily Ever After" has got to be the worst show on television. It's like a total (and inferior) rip-off of "Married With Children." You really watch that?
-TR
Posts: 4389 | Location: Somewhere in the USA. | Registered: November 24, 2000
BOTH shows are complete crap. However, I must agree that ripping off something like Married With Children is much worse than ripping off something like The Simpsons. Why? Because at least if you rip off The Simpsons, you're copying something that was good. Ripping off something as terrible as Married With Children is just perpetuating and magnifying the stupidity that permeated the show.
-Nate
Posts: 428 | Location: Somerville, MA USA | Registered: May 09, 2001
NOOOOO!