MovieChat Forums > Uncle Buck (1989) Discussion > Why did Buck despise Bug?

Why did Buck despise Bug?

posted 3 years ago by Drooch (5333)
76 replies | jump to latest

Bug is a horny teenage guy and in his private moments with Tia was too pushy, but how did Buck know this?

Buck seemed to instantly ‘know’ Bug was predatory, but how?

He wants to get into Tia’s pants, like most teenage guys, and she seems to want him in her pants... just maybe not going all the way. She’s 15 and it’s normal to get up to stuff without having sex.

Wouldn’t a word with Tia telling her stand firm if she doesn’t want to have sex with Bug have been more appropriate, than threatening and intimidating Bug as if he was some kind of serial rapist..? Buck’s reaction seemed really disproportionate.

Adding to the weirdness is that we never actually find out what he ‘did’ to Tia, she says ‘everything you said would happen happened’. What did Buck say would happen? Deleted scene??

[–] earl237 (1106) 3 years ago

Buck could just sense that Bug was a loser, it's hard to explain, but you know it when you see it.

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

It just needed a scene where he spots Bug demeaning Tia to his dickhead friends and boasting about ‘I’m gonna lay that pipe at the party haha!’ or something.

[–] HelpMeRhonda (1157) 3 years ago

Maybe the viewer isn't supposed to know if Buck is right about Bug until the end. If memory serves, Bug does kind of seem like your typical guy. And even though Tia is a royal bitch, I can see where she's coming from about her mom and Buck.

It's an interesting thought, the viewer not knowing who was right about Bug until the end.

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

I don’t think so, the film works hard to make us sympathise with and even pity Buck, having him be so aggressive to Bug before he has any apparent reason to be so smacks of the weird incongruities that appear in Planes Trains & Automobiles - both Hughes films were much longer and heavily edited down to 90mins.

[–] HelpMeRhonda (1157) 3 years ago

Well I wonder if I need to check out the Uncle Buck deleted scenes.

[–] HelpMeRhonda (1157) 3 years ago

After watching a YouTube video on the scenes that were cut-out, I can definitely see that Hughes wrote Buck to be a bit more gross and abrasive.

[–] Heisenberg (6466) 3 years ago

Drooch, you wrote a legit post. I don't know why you got so much hate.
Buck is too sure of Bug's evil intentions, I found it unfair and disproportionate.
He's the virgin alarm from Spaceballs, he goes off before anything happens just because.
It's just old fashioned, repressive and preachy, but the story shows that his intuition was correct, so it's ok that he does all this.
Maybe Buck overdid it because he also felt that Tia was taking more liberties since her parents left, so it was his job to be extra repressive even if Bug was a great guy. Which he was not anyway, but that was quite probable just by taking a look at that deuche.

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

Thank. You.

The reaction has been bizarre. I really like the film and am a John Candy fan so I’m not even attacking the piece, just highlighting a moment that seemed odd in an otherwise coherent story.

I guess some simpler folk equate such questions with besmirching a beloved film and they get defensive. Then there’s the trolls, and then there are stalkers who follow you over from Reddit with a hate boner.

Meh, it’s the internet 🤷🏻‍♂️

[–] Boromir (9717) 2 years ago

Although his first response to him was over the top, I am totally understand Buck overall negative reaction to Bug, the first thing Bug said to him was "Ever hear of a tune-up?", most honorable young man don't talk like that to family members of his girlfriend even if it's only her uncle.

I think his responsibility to look after his brother's children make him be more strict with them. Buck wanted to prove to Cindy and Bob that they can trust him and the fact that he is a 'outsider' just made him be more protected toward his nephews.

Second, Buck said that something about Bug remind him of himself as a young teenager - maybe it's the way Bug speaking, the inordinate confidence, the walk, his hair, probably all together. So the intuitiveness and life experience play important role here.

Third, buck is a old fashioned man and even less conservatives men (and women) didn't love to see someone kiss passionately their young nephew. The desire to protect her is instinctive.

And I must agree with the other person who emphasized the bad mode of Tia at home. Buck apparently realized that her relationship with Bug didn't make her happy. His concern was that Bug taking advantage of the sensitive emotional state she was in. And from her point of view, she is looking for any intimate relationship to fill the lack of love she feels at home. A healthy relationship would be reflected at home and Buck understand that.

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

Buck was scowling at Bug before he’d even said anything, he detested him for the ‘crime’ of kissing Tia.

That’s fine if the film portrays Buck as absurdly overprotective and needing to chill out, but instead the film portrays him as a chilled out funcle with no commitments - the kind of guy who would be happy to see Tia in love.

Doesn’t add up.

[–] Boromir (9717) 2 years ago

"That’s fine if the film portrays Buck as absurdly overprotective and needing to chill out, but instead the film portrays him as a chilled out funcle with who no commitments - the kind of guy who would be happy to see Tia in love."

I do not agree with your personality analysis at all, or to be more precise, with your connection between his chill out persona to him protect his niece. First, from the start of the movie we find out that he's conservative, for example, he didn't want to work for his girlfriend. Second, you assume that person who is chilled out can't be overprotective about his family members. These two attributes really don't have to contradict each other. I myself have known quite a few people with both traits. From your words interpreted that only pure liberals can be relaxed.

Second, you completely ignore the fact that humans 'play' a different role depending on the scenario they are in. A person behaves differently in front of co-workers, his children and his wife (I recommend reading Goffman about The Presentation of Self). It's clear he loved his nieces and there is no prior indication that he not (or is) a protective person. Considering the above, the start of the movie can't teach us anything about this particular trait of Buck.

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

Nah, Buck just isn’t portrayed as a man who would bare his teeth to a young man for the ‘crime’ of kissing his girlfriend. It’s totally incongruous and smacks of deleted scenes.

We know Hughes edits his movies down drastically, the assembly cut of Planes, Trains and Automobiles is rumoured to have been roughly 4 hours. The deleted scenes have started to be released, and the script reveals tons of dialogue not in the finished film.

Uncle Buck has a similar history, and as I mentioned in the OP we never actually find out what Bug ‘did’ to Tia, she says ‘everything you said would happen happened’. What did Buck say would happen? Clearly there are deleted moments surrounding the Tia/Bug subplot that would explain why Buck is so enraged at seeing Tia kiss her boyfriend.

[–] Boromir (9717) 2 years ago

I don't think it's fair to said that "Buck just isn’t portrayed as a man who would bare his teeth" when the first scene with Buck and Bug start after 30 min and from here on we seen enormous scenes of him as protective, tough and little crazy guy (for example, the clown, the principal, the washing machine). 70% of the movie we seen Buck dark side as overprotective family member. The director established this aspect of his character very well.

You can hypothesize that in the first 30 min we didn't seen hints of this behavior in him but he definitely portrayed as emotional and crazy during most of the movie. So your 'right' argument need to be "Buck just isn’t portrayed as a man who be so clam down" it's make more sense, although I didn't agree with either arguments. I explain earlier why the first half didn't contradict his later behavior.

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

You’ve misquoted me and distorted my meaning to make an argument against a point I never made. Complete the sentence and you’ll find I said ‘Buck just isn’t portrayed as a man who would bare his teeth to a young man for the ‘crime’ of kissing his girlfriend’ and that’s absolutely true.

You're also ignoring the point I made about the mysterious ‘everything you said would happen happened’ line and how all of this relates to Hughes’ penchant for brutally editing down his films.

PTA had a similar problem - Neal’s wife’s reaction to seeing him arrive home a couple days late is inexplicably overblown… until you realise Hughes deleted an entire subplot of her believing Del Griffith was a made up person and that Neal was having an affair.

The result in the finished film is as incongruous as Buck’s initial reaction to Bug.

[–] Boromir (9717) 2 years ago

You're also ignoring the point I made about the mysterious ‘everything you said would happen happened’ line and how all of this relates to Hughes’ penchant for brutally editing down his films.

You dismiss all my arguments with the word "Nah" and you come with complaints to me? I am actuality don't find this scene relevant to this discussion. We all ready know Buck have a evil side so who care about his exact reason for attacking Bug. One thing we know for sure, Bug tried to convince/force girlfriend to have sex with him in a very inappropriate way - so we can fill some of the gap here. Personality, I wouldn't kidnap anyone in that case, but there is definitely a reasonable chance that I would slap or punch him myself.

You’ve misquoted me and distorted my meaning to make an argument against a point I never made. Complete the sentence and you’ll find I said ‘Buck just isn’t portrayed as a man who would bare his teeth to a young man for the ‘crime’ of kissing his girlfriend’ and that’s absolutely true.

I didn't distorted your meaning. I explain it's well establishment later on and their is no contradiction between certain traits in his personality. You ignore all the psychological reasons people give you.