ShareThis Page

For '21 & Older' creators, life is a character-driven comedy

| Sunday, March 3, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Three guys, one night, drunken debauchery.

Jon Lucas and Scott Moore realized that, on paper, their screenplay, “21 & Over,” looked very derivative of “The Hangover.”

Then again, they were the guys who wrote “The Hangover,” which spawned the most successful R-rated comedy franchise of all time and heralded their arrival as successful Hollywood writers in 2009. And they wanted to direct a movie. So they decided to go with what they knew.

“We were definitely conscious that the angle people would take on the movie is that it was a ‘Hangover' retread,” said Lucas, sitting next to his writing partner in a Hollywood sports bar a few weeks ago.

“But on a very practical level,” Moore chimed in, “we wanted to get another movie made and direct it ourselves. If we went in and were like, ‘It's a drama, it's not funny, and it's about a teenage girl in Alaska,' it'd be a harder sell. ... If you just killed it doing a superhero movie, doing another superhero movie makes sense to a studio.”

Relativity Media agreed the idea made sense and bankrolled the $12-million “21 & Over.” The film follows three college students (played by Miles Teller, Skylar Astin and Justin Chon) celebrating a milestone birthday during an evening that includes beer pong, scantily clad sorority girls and car chases.

Though the movie is likely to only confirm the duo's reputation as gurus of the party movie, Lucas, 37, and Moore, 45, are hardly party animals themselves. The two, who toiled for years in feature-film rewrite work to pay the bills, resemble soccer dads more than former beer-guzzling frat bros.

While filming “21” on the University of Washington campus in Seattle in 2011, they feared that they were often being mistaken for professors or even narcs. Over lunch, they fretted over whether this article would mention that they ordered french fries — their wives, they worried, would give them grief for eating unhealthfully.

“People often meet us and are very underwhelmed,” Lucas said with a smile. “We both have little kids, and we don't live those lives anymore. We write from a place of nostalgia.”

Even in college — Lucas at Yale University, Moore at the University of Colorado, Boulder — neither said they performed too many keg stands.

“I don't know that I was ever the cool kid,” Moore admitted. “I would look at the world around me and think, ‘Oh, that party looks like a lot of fun. I wish I was there.' ”

What seemed so romantic about the party scene, both said, was the notion that a single night had the power to transform one's life. As an example, they cited the 1998 high-school comedy “Can't Hardly Wait” — the movie is set at a graduation night party where seniors are all secretly hoping to emerge with changed reputations.

“What made that movie great was not actually the party,” said Moore. “Watching people drink and have a good time and do keg stands isn't actually the good part. It's about the characters, and how you can relate to their quest for something to change their life.”

Tucker Tooley, the executive producer of the movie and president of Relativity Media, said it was that attitude that sold him on the film.

“Jon and Scott are able to take very commercial one-liner ideas — someone's 21st birthday, a bachelor party — and make them specific and character-driven,” he explained.

Allowing the first-timers to direct the movie, however, wasn't a no-brainer: “It wasn't a snap decision. It took us a while to actually come to the conclusion, but frankly, they earned it. They were really compelling in their arguments, and even tagged along with a director on another movie to see how things worked.”

“We totally Dick Cheney-ed ourselves in,” Lucas said jokingly. “It felt sort of arrogant, but we felt really comfortable in this world.”

Amy Kaufman is a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.