I'm not talking about films about 'the PUA scene' i.e Tao of Steve/Hitch/Crazy, Stupid Love etc.

I'm talking about when you are watching a film/Tv show and you think:

'Wow. The guy that wrote this movie understands women/sexuality/attraction/seduction pretty well and (he) probably has some decent game.'

vs times when you are watching a movie/show and you think:

'Wow. The dude that wrote this has no fucking idea'.

I think Inbetweeners is a major offender. The blokes that write that clearly have no idea how real women think, talk and behave or why. All the interactions between Will and Charlotte are especially awful in this regard imo.The way the James Bonds (that aren't Sean Connery) pick up women wouldn't work 9/10 either. Direct and punny, like a randy drunken uncle at a family BBQ? Not a good look. (gotta love Austin Powers for sending it up though ). Oh and Appatow movies also tend to misrepresent women and female sexuality/attraction. Although that bit with the 'freaky girl' from 40Year Old virgin who accidentally thinks Andy is 'a badass' when he's complaining about being set up with a tranny is a cool exception imo.

On the other hand:
Body Heat has some good back and forth banter flirty. Jerry Maguire is a good one too. It's Complicated. Stealing Beauty. Lolita (the 1990s one). Basic Instinct (girl on boy/s seduction). Oh and ANYTHING by Woody Allen (Match Point/Vicky Cristina etc).

Those are some movies that I think are written by people with a solid grasp of social dynamics/seduction and female sexuality.

What do you reckon? Agree? Disagree? Thoughts? Suggested movies/shows?

Can't wait to hear everyone's take on this. No wrong answers it's all good. Go.

Seriously...no body knows what I'm on about here? You guys MUST watch tv/films?

ye, but, films get to write the pre determined response

all these pua gurus appear the same.... to know women inside out

but canned shit dont work. But their RESPONSES they assume sound good

Not sure I follow.

I'm not talking about recycling and re using canned shit from films or anything like that if that's what you are getting at?

What I'm getting as is that:

If you watch something like Inbetweeners, say the scene where Will pulls Charlotte at a house party, his banter is just so awkward and so awful yet her RESPONSES to him are posetive for no apparent reason. She responses in a way no girl on earth ever would do to THAT GUY saying THAT SHIT in THAT CONTEXT...

His character isn't famous or rich or anything else in the context of the scene that might cause her character to tolerate his awful banter or be attracted to him despite it, right? He hasn't demonstrated any Higher value in any sense or whatever, in that scene he's just the new (slightly nerdy) boy, she's the popular girl and he just comes on to her in a really leery needy desperate pathetic way, then he puts down his similarly pathetic leery mate (Jay) when he does that awful crazy frog impression...and yet somehow she just BUYS it?

The only reason the scene plays out like that is because it's written by a guy that's clearly never actually hit on a girl in real life and so has literally no idea how or why a girl might be attracted to one bloke over another. The scene just reinforces the idea of 'getting lucky'. It's as if Charlotte was just 'paying out' when Will came to the table and no matter what he said or did he'd hit 'the jackpot' anyway.

It's like the writer doesn't understand on any level how attraction or seduction or social interaction in general might actually work in real life...and that is something that's apparent in the way the characters interact with each other.

Make any sense?

Joker, you have to think of it like this, out there is a girl who likes puns and crap jokes! Out there is a girl who finds Will's humour funny.

People make movies about events, coincidences and stacked odds as it sells when written half-decently (i didn't say well). Not all girls do act like that and yes movie writers ham up the usual social conditioning that we all believe, it doesn't make it all tosh.

Plus if people showed how seduction and attraction actually worked, everybody would do it and social dynamics would change again!

Before I got into PU, realized it was bullshit and organized the way that I thought/behaved, I was like Will (though not quite as bad) the 10 girls I'd slept with just happened to like my crap humour or were really drunk and horny.
I'd managed to find 3 ltr girlfriends who just happened to find me attractive even though I could be socially awkward. Take the girl below, 2 years older than me HB8, just happened to find me funny, but i wasn't pulling girls like that constantly.
Me n claire.jpg

Now however I am. Stuff in the movies does happen, just few and far between - they just make people believe it happens more regularly than it does

A happy ending is a story that hasn't finished yet...

coz otherwise it wouldnt be funny. films & programs aim are not realise, but to inspire the type of audience who watch it.

i think they just understand what works to grab attention.

People pull like that all the time, Joker. Also, Apatow films are often written by Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg who obviously do know about attraction and it shows in their films.


Peace,

kowalski

Well you'll have to forgive me from disagreeing. I think guys Rogan and Goldberg actually DON'T have any idea how attraction/social dynamics/women work and THAT'S what shows in their films (to me atleast).

And btw, I realise that yes right now/today Seth Rogan couldn't spend five seconds out doors anywhere in america without tripping into some supermodel's pussy but that doesn't mean the guy (as a writer) actually has the faintest clue about what makes women or attraction tick any more than any other famous bloke does.

Not the way that writers like Woody Allen or Darren Aronovsky (The Wrestler/Black Swan) do...

Movies like Knocked Up and Superbad are about how some sad pathetic nerdy socially awkward pot smoking loser ends up getting his nuts wet with some stunner not because he grows a pair and stops acting like such a dork gets himself down the gym and sorts his negative attitude out and learns some basic social graces...but because the stunner characters in those stories 'MUST' end up coming round to seeing the fat lazy pot smoking no hoper the way he sees himself.

These are clearly fantasies written by blokes that understand the world/people in a certain way.That's what I'm getting at.

Right. But how much of the time is it written that way on purpose/because it's funny/to inspire and pander to a type of audience etc...

...and how many times is it written that way because the bloke that wrote it CAN'T write it any better or more complex?

Compare Inbetweeners to Peep Show. The way Jez in Peep Show interacts with and seduces women is also really funny. But the social dynamics and the way the interactions and the relationships work in Peep Show is clearly smarter and more complex and more REALISTIC than the kinda stuff in Inbetweeners. To me it's pretty clear that the Peep Show writers know a darn sight more about getting stinky fingers (in real life) than any of the writers on Inbetweeners.

Know what I mean?

They tend to have a 'coming of age'-esque theme to them and have the basic narrative that the central character grows and changes and learns to deal with his situation better.

In Superbad the boys think girls won't be in to them because they don't have a six-pack aren't a jock or whatever. But this isn't true.

Evan's girl just likes him, no explanation.(except maybe she is insecure too and sees Evan as safe, which he proves he is) she just does and he can't see it. Classic. Eventually they end up in a situation where she becomes the aggressor, I've been there many times.

Seth's girl thinks he is fun and funny, whenever she is with him she feels good. He thinks 'I need to be pimp and bring the booze and I need to get her drunk because I am not worthy and aren't aesthetically ideal in my culture', four-times-wrong. The two scenes where she shows that she is into him are the two scenes where he is freely expressing (cooking class and the scene where he has arrived at the party and is telling everyone about the adventure). Her explanation is key to his learning and, whatever goes on between them, he has grown.

Fogel, I can't believe this needs explaining! He thinks he is a nerd, he speaks to himself (inner dialogue) like he is a nerd, he behaves like a nerd, he kind of knows that he understands what cool is but has never received enough encouraging response to step into himself - the opposite in fact, even the other nerds bully him for letting his natural cool out. Then the cops gave him the love no one else ever did and he felt safe enough, for long enough, to step into himself and was there long enough to have some experiences (two-pump sex) which will hopefully enable him to step into himself in many more situations. The bit where they purposely create mystique around him by fake arresting him shows the writers' awareness too.

The vibe is - People are attracted to people for all sorts of reasons. You can't control that. You could betray yourself and try to play the game according to the nonsense aesthetic of your community and probably fail and betray yourself for nothing but hate of self, or you could be true to yourself, and freely express that authentic self, and guess what ... when you do that you instantly become more attractive.


Knocked Up - Again, I wonder have we watched the same film?


Peace,

kowalski