Why Rainman sucks

Post Reply New Topic

movies always over glamourise stuff, how many films have you seen where a point is made Clearly and obviously to make sure every viewer notices what point it tries to be put across, it can be annoying

and anyway, when it comes to rain man & Aspergers whatever, Aspergers has many Variables and Rain man is simply a model of a common aspie i guess

...and I buy my underwear at K-Mart. Raymond Babbit's savant skills in the film were a conglomeration of several autistics' skills, not just Mr. Peek's.

The worst thing about "Rain Man" was Tom Cruise. Both Tom and the character he played are unempathetic cretins.

well the movie was made in 1988. aspergers syndrome hadnt even been officially reconized yet.

I don't like rainman because it makes us seem like we're all that servere. House also had an episode with an autistic in it, except it was a nonverbal child. I think that it was worse than rainman except for when he said he envied the kid.

In 1988, when most hadn't even really heard about autism, it was a good movie. You have to remember that the internet (as we know it today) did not exist back then, so someone would have to have heard the term and then either asked a doctor about it, or borrowed a book from the library to have possibly questioned its authenticity. We also know that back then doctors didn't know as much about autism as they know today (and many of them are still clueless ).

Enjoy it for what it is, even with all of its flaws. The intentions were good, and it provides fun quotes for my husband and I to throw at each other when we've made a social goof, or our sensory is feeling particularly off.

I'll leave on a humorous note.
Q: What does Rain Man eat for lunch?
A: A Whopper at 4

Don't confuse Autism with Asperger's, they're two different disorders, and they're around the same in prevalence (PDD-NOS is the most prevalent).

It's an accurate depiction of someone with Autism, not Asperger's.

Orwell's Animal Farm points out how easy it is to be corrupted by power, very rarely the next government changes anything for the better

but how exactly would one thing be able to show many levels of autism? its impossible.
it would also be as unfair to have only a HFA/mild autie or aspie in that thinking,because that would only show one side of it.
a programme with an LFA/obvious autie is different to milder hf auties and aspies in a lot of ways,but the same goes the other way,am dont relate well to programmes that are only about HF ways/life either.
though rainman at least was not chosen randomly to have a more obvious autist-as it was about stereotypical autistic savantism,so it isnt there to make all look a stronger form,as it is about a specific type.
if it was a programme about the spectrum and they only featured one autist,that would be bad.

Agrees with Danielismyname.

Even so, people with the Asperger dx can be significantly affected (and I myself, diagnostically, would be right on the border between Aspergers and Autism). So it unnerves me that people are so readily disturbed at the images of the Rain Mans of the world, because they think it would make them 'look bad' or something. The answer to there being too few images of autism is to have more images of autism out there, not to cover up those that aren't like "your autism".

Besides, keep in mind that the character lived most his life in an institution. I still have to remind myself every time at a crosswalk when the Don't Walk sign goes up that I have to keep walking even though I've been doing it all my life; I could easily see myself in many of those situations that the character experienced, and while yes ideas about autism have been changing and updating over the years, and will continue to do so, that's no reason to disparage the movie or the character (unless the character is the character that is Raymond's brother, the jerk, who well deserves to be disparaged at least during most of the movie).

Amen.

Yep.

In filmed [fictional] media, one can find people of all levels of "functioning"; it's just that since people don't identify with one character from one piece of fiction, they discount his or her portrayal, even though there's most likely someone who identifies with it, just as that person identified with someone else.

I don't really identify with Mr. Bean, other than a few small things, but Lorna Wing says he's a perfect example of someone with Asperger's (HFA and AS being more alike than unlike to her), but I won't discount his character as an accurate depiction of someone with such, just because he isn't like me.

Rainman sucks because they say that he have asperger's but really he have a much "worse" case of autism. Anyway if we are going to overthrow the goverment we are gonna need some serious planning

And which goverment first. if we start with a little country we can build from there

Everyone in focusing on Raymond and Hoffman's portrayal- the movie is about the brother's transformation, brought about by his involement and interactions with 'Rainman'. He went from being a basic jerk who put money above all else, who could not love anyone (not girlfriend or father), to finding that love through acceptance of having an autisic brother.

No, it doesn't say that he has Asperger's; it's said that he's an Autistic Savant, albeit "high-functioning". It fits HFA with associated special skills like calendar calculation. His speech is a little poor for HFA, but that's easily explained away due to his Savant abilities (his verbal ability took a hit).

Rain Man is just a movie, not a documentary on autism. It's meant to "entertain," so of course some things are exaggerated.

Oh, and anarchy is just stupid. Not many of you would last very long without the protection of a society. Plus, we wouldn't have things like computers or the internet.