Vanessa is portrayed as a cold, manipulating ballbreaker from the word go and then we are expected to swing to her side simply because she suddenly displays an overtly maternal side of her character. Great! Just because she goes all gooey over babies doesn't mean the controlling and dominant side of her personality is washed away – I can already picture the over-achieving parental hell that poor adopted kid is going to suffer…

Maybe I'm just too empathic with Mark's predicament? I'm of a similar age and have suffered through relationships where my 'laddish' trappings have been passively but forcefully shoved to a quiet part of the house and where all the small sacrifices in the name of compromise, on reflection, always seemed to please her rather than me. I would always end these relationships before talk of children got beyond talk and honestly believe that any pain suffered at the time was better than infinite misery down the line had I carried on regardless.

So you try again and again until you hit the right girl, where the sacrifices don't hurt too much and the jumble of personalities fits together nicely in the home, where the partnership really is a partnership. And I'm glad I waited for it.

So yeah – why are we meant to see Mark as the immature fool, deserting his poor wife as she blossoms with expected motherhood? She has bounced up and down on his dreams and done her best to eradicate his personality from 'her' home; this treatment isn't going to improve when the kid finally arrives.

The interview with director Reitman is telling. "The difference between me and Mark is that I stepped up" says Jason, clearly proud that his ability to reproduce and not run for the hills has been validated. But does Reitman's wife de-construct all of his dreams and place them into a small corner of the household? I figure no otherwise he wouldn't be making movies for a living.

Mark is a dreamer and probably more than a little immature, but at least he has the conviction to try and see those dreams a reality and the compassion not to live a lie that will ultimately effect his child as well as his partner.

mattmaui said: What I believe you are missing is that Mark and Vanessa are treating each other’s dreams in the exact same way. Vanessa’s dream of having a child matches that of Mark’s dream of being a musician.

See, I don't really look at it like that. I don't the dream of having a baby is the same as dreaming of being a musician. I don't think Mark's problem is necessarily being a father in as much as he doesn't want to be a father before he does other things, the things he hasn't really been allowed to do while married to Vanessa. Had Vanessa loosened the reins I think he would be more open to moving into making a family.

All that said, I'm having a gigantic blast reading all this back and forth between you two. I'd add something to the conversation except Andre keeps making pretty much all of my points for me. Keep it up! It's much easier to read your thoughts then craft a coherent one of my own at the moment. It's a whole New Year after all and my brain is still pretty fried from the last one. :) :popcorn: :)

And you're not being fair by saying she expected him to stop loving music. That's overstating things a bit. She knew what music meant to him. Thats why he had his own room for that stuff. The whole house didn't need to be spread with led zeppelin posters for him to love music did it? Im not sure what she actually *did* to hurt him so badly.

And by the way, he WASN'T hurt badly by her. I just knew they didnt belong together and he was scared to move out of his situation until Juno came around. And again, we don't know why he quit the band. He probably quit because he had this hot chick he wanted to take care of and he went the route of making music for commercials (this is sort of my impression).

Also, I guess I am just weird but why would you ever assume someone would want to grow out of enjoying music and being in a band? Why is that something someone would grow out of?

People grow out of eating paste, partying like drunkard and skirting responsibility… People don't grow out of loving and enjoying music and even though I am not in a band or play an instrument I know people that do and they love it, they don't grow out of it. Mark is a successful businessman, he just wants to enjoy playing and listening to music. Yeah, he better grow out of that quick… Sooooo irresponsible and immature.

When she told him his dreams werent going to happen, yeah, that was mean. But she was retaliating, lest we forget.

andre said: You said "she's not a nice person". Looking at things through her eyes – and I'm not saying she's right – she's in love. She believes her husband is on the same page (and maybe she just really wants to believe it). He's successful making commercial music. She supports him in that venture. She figures the whole band thing is something he would grow out of and this is not a shockingly evil thing to believe. It's reality. Most people do. You can't fault the chick for that. I get it.

So she's a little uptight, big deal. Her only crime is falling in love with this guy whom – in the end – has nothing in common with her. Bateman could have spoke up to her a lot sooner. Instead, he was playing silent and nodding his head. That isn't her fault. And again, I'm not saying Bateman is the villain. My view is these are two good people who just didnt belong together and the best thing that happened to them – and the baby – is that they didnt stay together.

Sorry, gotta disagree, controlling anyone's life because you thought they would grow out of it is not nice. She was controlling and rude. By your logic she fell in love with someone for who she thought he would grow up to be and not who he was. I agree they weren't a good match, but that doesn't make her any nicer.

As for zaphod's comment I can see a mild comparison. However, most of the hatred thrown Rudd's way was a crazed wife (not exactly sure she was a "nutter") and a hormonal Heigl. I never got the impression he was being slammed by the film itself the way Bateman is being slammed by Reitman in Juno.

So she's a little uptight, big deal. Her only crime is falling in love with this guy whom – in the end – has nothing in common with her. Bateman could have spoke up to her a lot sooner. Instead, he was playing silent and nodding his head. That isn't her fault. And again, I'm not saying Bateman is the villain. My view is these are two good people who just didnt belong together and the best thing that happened to them – and the baby – is that they didnt stay together.

Which brings me to Brad's point: Like you, I identified with Bateman's character. I understood where the guy was coming from, despite his immaturity (Juno recognition needed et all … nobody should defined by a single weak moment like that though). I also agree that Garner's character becomes more likable as the film progresses. This was tougher to pull off than I think people will give the makers credit for (though at the same time I think Brad is being way too hard on her character).

Having said all that, I disagree 100% with Reitman on his take of Bateman. I don't pity him at all. I was actually HAPPY to see Garner and him break up. They clearly didn't belong together. He clearly wasn't ready to stop dreaming. Nobody can tell somebody else when it's time. It's a shame Reitman feels that way about the character. It was obvious the love was gone. If it wasn't, maybe I would have felt differently. Maybe then I would have thought Bateman's character a coward. But the love never really felt like it was still there so I don't. And I will also add that despite Reitman's personal feelings, as a audience member, I didn't feel pity for him so whatever directorial leanings he had … they didn't register. I think the last scene between Garner and Bateman is fair to both sides and I don't feel like he was demonized. It just kind of leaves it to the audience to decide how they feel about the two and their situation.