- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Let's Talk About Villains: Reluctance to Act Evil
Posted on 2/17/14 at 12:40 am to fr33manator
Posted on 2/17/14 at 12:40 am to fr33manator
quote:
What advances me must bring down someone else. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Good and bad are just the sides of the coin you find yourselves on.
No this is complete nonsense, but especially the first statement. Life is not a zero sum game, that mentality is extremely destructive.
2
Posted on 2/17/14 at 12:55 am to H-Town Tiger
On the surface, sure, but deep down, everything is drawn from something else. We paint in colors of good and bad because seeing the plight of those who are on the other side of the guns makes us stay our hand. Nothing is simple.
Empires are built on the backs of the downtrodden. The enemy has hopes and dreams just like the hero.
The world is never as black and white as we wish it to be.
Empires are built on the backs of the downtrodden. The enemy has hopes and dreams just like the hero.
The world is never as black and white as we wish it to be.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 1:52 am to Freauxzen
quote:
In the first Godfather the main characters never really hurt anyone who isn't a horrible person, so regardless of moral code it actually makes a difference in many ways.
I would disagree profusely. But simply put, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because he only takes action against those who are evil, doesn't mean those actions undetaken are not evil in and of themselves.
You are such a hopeless romantic.
Can you stand to pick up a newspaper? Read about international politics?
The greatest moral lesson people should have extracted from the first Godfather (and was impossible to extract from the second) was to question their own moral compass. The direction the characters took in the second Godfather is one of the weakest and most terrible choices a writer and director could have ever taken.
In making the evil in the sequel cartoonishly evil Coppola robbed the film of its true moral compass - the ability to make the audience eventually question themselves and their own emotions instead of insisting upon a manichean reality.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 7:57 am to Freauxzen
People like anti heroes (not just villains- Batman, Punisher, et al fit this bill too) because it is masturbatory wish fulfillment in many ways. “I make my own rules" etc.
Breaking Bad is an interesting example. It tricked us into rooting for Walt for at least a little while. He has cancer! He has a baby on the way! He is a teacher with no money! Those are intentional feints to set us up for the moment we realize Walt is a full on sociopath. The great thing about that show is that the moment can be different for everyone. They keep sprinkling terrible things until all but the most adolescent viewer realize Walt is scum.
I'm not sure how you find Sopranos to be in the grey moral area. It is always honest about who Tony is. Tony himself knows who he is. He tries to change many times, but he can't. Very similar to Don Draper.
To me, House of Cards (only watched S1) doesnt doesnt truly work because there is no soul. I understand why Draper, White, Soprano are awful people and why they do what they do. The show runners spent considerable time delving into their motivations. Not so in HOC. Much of it feels like unearned plot machinations (outside of Russo, who's arc sadly was a ultimately a waste of time subsumed by the greater plot). By far my two favorite episodes were the two in SC. The only two that gave us any insight into who Frank is
Breaking Bad is an interesting example. It tricked us into rooting for Walt for at least a little while. He has cancer! He has a baby on the way! He is a teacher with no money! Those are intentional feints to set us up for the moment we realize Walt is a full on sociopath. The great thing about that show is that the moment can be different for everyone. They keep sprinkling terrible things until all but the most adolescent viewer realize Walt is scum.
I'm not sure how you find Sopranos to be in the grey moral area. It is always honest about who Tony is. Tony himself knows who he is. He tries to change many times, but he can't. Very similar to Don Draper.
To me, House of Cards (only watched S1) doesnt doesnt truly work because there is no soul. I understand why Draper, White, Soprano are awful people and why they do what they do. The show runners spent considerable time delving into their motivations. Not so in HOC. Much of it feels like unearned plot machinations (outside of Russo, who's arc sadly was a ultimately a waste of time subsumed by the greater plot). By far my two favorite episodes were the two in SC. The only two that gave us any insight into who Frank is
Posted on 2/17/14 at 9:06 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
This is the problem with seeing things only in extreme black and white terms, the options don't have to be cheering for the villain or hero.
I never said that the world should be black and white though.
quote:
I find Tony Stark more interesting than Cap, not because he's the villain but because he more human.
Why isn't Cap human?
Posted on 2/17/14 at 9:08 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Ra's Al Ghul (both of them in BB) may beg to differ. He also shot explosives out of the BatMobile that wrecked the police cars chasing him when he was racing to get Rachel back to the Bat cave after Scarecrow poisoned her.
Batman doesn't kill, he allows people to find their own death. Is that immoral? Good question.
quote:
Then the same can be said for the KGB or other agents working for a foreign power. Now I realize a lot of Bond villains are not working for a foreign gov't. But in general in a spy movie, we view the American or other Western agents as the good guys and the Russians or whoever as the bad guys, and that clearly depends on who's side you are on.
Agreed.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 9:08 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:quote:
What advances me must bring down someone else. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Good and bad are just the sides of the coin you find yourselves on.
No this is complete nonsense, but especially the first statement. Life is not a zero sum game, that mentality is extremely destructive.
This.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 9:17 am to molsusports
[
Hopeful is the better term but I won't disagree. I never said that the world isn't black and white and I never said that those things MAYBE can't be justified. I'm simply implying that that maybe we should strive for more.
Every day.
Agreed.
And see I don't think the first one succeeded at that either. It walks a fine line for sure, but it left enough on the table to glorify mob life, much more than other films on the same subject. And I still feel Michael was extremely problematic on that end.
I think for both Michael and WW, to bring this back around to villains, are capable men who resort to acts of immorality reluctantly, but forcefully at the same time. That's the best way I can put it, and it probably isn't accurate, hence the thread. Their morals, even from the outset, take drastic, unrealistic turns, very quickly and they justify their own actions almost immediately. This could also be because we don't have an anchor for the morality, just Walt's relation to the science company and Michael's military service.
It makes them unconvincing and uninteresting, IMO.
quote:quote:
In the first Godfather the main characters never really hurt anyone who isn't a horrible person, so regardless of moral code it actually makes a difference in many ways.
I would disagree profusely. But simply put, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because he only takes action against those who are evil, doesn't mean those actions undetaken are not evil in and of themselves.
quote:
You are such a hopeless romantic.
Hopeful is the better term but I won't disagree. I never said that the world isn't black and white and I never said that those things MAYBE can't be justified. I'm simply implying that that maybe we should strive for more.
quote:
Can you stand to pick up a newspaper? Read about international politics?
Every day.
quote:
The greatest moral lesson people should have extracted from the first Godfather (and was impossible to extract from the second) was to question their own moral compass. The direction the characters took in the second Godfather is one of the weakest and most terrible choices a writer and director could have ever taken.
Agreed.
quote:
In making the evil in the sequel cartoonishly evil Coppola robbed the film of its true moral compass - the ability to make the audience eventually question themselves and their own emotions instead of insisting upon a manichean reality.
And see I don't think the first one succeeded at that either. It walks a fine line for sure, but it left enough on the table to glorify mob life, much more than other films on the same subject. And I still feel Michael was extremely problematic on that end.
I think for both Michael and WW, to bring this back around to villains, are capable men who resort to acts of immorality reluctantly, but forcefully at the same time. That's the best way I can put it, and it probably isn't accurate, hence the thread. Their morals, even from the outset, take drastic, unrealistic turns, very quickly and they justify their own actions almost immediately. This could also be because we don't have an anchor for the morality, just Walt's relation to the science company and Michael's military service.
It makes them unconvincing and uninteresting, IMO.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 9:34 am to Freauxzen
quote:
And see I don't think the first one succeeded at that either. It walks a fine line for sure, but it left enough on the table to glorify mob life, much more than other films on the same subject. And I still feel Michael was extremely problematic on that end.
I feel that Michael is just as evil in Part I as he is in Part II. Breaking Bad is actually a decent comp. It's not a slow decent into evil -- he was ALWAYS evil, and he kept making choices to further damn his soul. We like to watch the descent, but the die has already been cast and it's not until the end that we realize that there has been no real change in the character -- this is just the relevation of his true nature.
In Michael's case, it was his willingness to go where no one else would right away (killing the cop) and how quickly he adapted to it's just business. The Godfather does not glorify Michael, he is a rotten person right from the start, despite his denials. Vito, at least, actually is doing it for his family. when he says Family, he means it. Michael means Family as code for Business. Godfather II presents Vito's moral case.
As for the comics issue, Superman is boring because he is practically invincible, not because he is good. Captain America has the same sort of moral code, but is interesting because he's got an Everyman quality to him. I find him more interesting than Batman, who has unlimited resources, but I understand the "badass" argument. It is not that people like his questionable morality, it is that Batman is wish fulfillment. We know we can't live up to Captain America, but we could be Batman if we had unlimited resources.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 2:07 pm to Baloo
quote:
I feel that Michael is just as evil in Part I as he is in Part II. Breaking Bad is actually a decent comp. It's not a slow decent into evil -- he was ALWAYS evil, and he kept making choices to further damn his soul. We like to watch the descent, but the die has already been cast and it's not until the end that we realize that there has been no real change in the character -- this is just the relevation of his true nature.
I think, given the premise of my OP, that I'm not sure i like to watch the decent into evil. Especially a somewhat reluctant one.
That's why I brought up Frank Underwood. Michael and WW were faux villains, made to be villains and protagonists. But i never really bought it. Maybe that's just a personal thing. They weren't really.....committed.
quote:
In Michael's case, it was his willingness to go where no one else would right away (killing the cop) and how quickly he adapted to it's just business. The Godfather does not glorify Michael, he is a rotten person right from the start, despite his denials. Vito, at least, actually is doing it for his family. when he says Family, he means it. Michael means Family as code for Business. Godfather II presents Vito's moral case.
Good view. It's been a year or so, probably time to break out the Godfather again.
quote:
As for the comics issue, Superman is boring because he is practically invincible, not because he is good. Captain America has the same sort of moral code, but is interesting because he's got an Everyman quality to him. I find him more interesting than Batman, who has unlimited resources, but I understand the "badass" argument. It is not that people like his questionable morality, it is that Batman is wish fulfillment. We know we can't live up to Captain America, but we could be Batman if we had unlimited resources.
While true, we still see a lot of "boy scout" comments, whether or not that's misplaced understanding of one's own reaction to Superman I guess is up for debate. But look at the reception to Captain America, the film. It's not about arguing whether or not it's a good film, but most people either completely ignored or didn't like the tone of the film. And then they compare it to Batman. With the idea of Cap not being complex (which is brought up again in the Avengers), which I think plays to the argument.
Interesting-ness is found in shadier moral areas.
Maybe I'm the only one who has a problem with that
Posted on 2/17/14 at 2:13 pm to auyushu
quote:
I think it's more of an ability to relate thing. People can't relate at all to someone who has unstoppable abilities and is near perfect on a moral scale. I like a hero with some flaws in my movies to make them somewhat interesting. I mean, I enjoy Captain America and Superman a decent bit when done well, just not nearly as much as other characters.
it also presents characters who essentially cannot change. they are good...no great. they are better than me. they always will be.
that's just not interesting
quote:
People like villains, which, simply put, is kind of scary. So it goes with two very popular properties that I don't have much affection for: Breaking Bad and The Godfather.
i don't see why it's scary
one of the main points of BB is how turning heel ends up bad. it's a reinforcement of the superman archetype, but just more interesting b/c it's in reverse. besides, the anti-hero is a great example of the American narrative of failure/evil and redemption
Posted on 2/17/14 at 2:24 pm to Freauxzen
.
Well, there is no character arc. I mean, Cap will always make the good, noble choice, no matter how difficult. That's admirable, but very few of us can live that ideal. He also doesn't have the arc of Tony Stark who is, let's not mince words, a degenerate a-hole. That's actually the point of the character - whether people would read a comic about a guy who was awful.
The comic was mildly successful but Iron Man has always been a second tier hero in the Marvel universe... until the movie. The reason the movie has rocketed Iron Man's popularity is Robert Downey Jr is incredibly charismatic, and he turns some of Tony's flaws into virtues, while ignoring the really dark parts of Tony's personality (like the alcoholism and abuse of women). The timing is also perfect, politically, as we are at the height of worshipping selfish assholes as virtuous. Tony Stark gives them a fictional stand in.
quote:
With the idea of Cap not being complex (which is brought up again in the Avengers), which I think plays to the argument.
Well, there is no character arc. I mean, Cap will always make the good, noble choice, no matter how difficult. That's admirable, but very few of us can live that ideal. He also doesn't have the arc of Tony Stark who is, let's not mince words, a degenerate a-hole. That's actually the point of the character - whether people would read a comic about a guy who was awful.
The comic was mildly successful but Iron Man has always been a second tier hero in the Marvel universe... until the movie. The reason the movie has rocketed Iron Man's popularity is Robert Downey Jr is incredibly charismatic, and he turns some of Tony's flaws into virtues, while ignoring the really dark parts of Tony's personality (like the alcoholism and abuse of women). The timing is also perfect, politically, as we are at the height of worshipping selfish assholes as virtuous. Tony Stark gives them a fictional stand in.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 2:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it also presents characters who essentially cannot change. they are good...no great. they are better than me. they always will be.
that's just not interesting
So they are not interesting because you can never be that morally good?
quote:
i don't see why it's scary
If you see movies and TV shows as entertainment, and entertainment only, sure. That isn't scary. But that also isn't interesting or likely.
Art and Morality. Aesthetics and Beauty. Depending on HOW you view art, can certainly make that scary.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 2:53 pm to Baloo
quote:
Well, there is no character arc. I mean, Cap will always make the good, noble choice, no matter how difficult.
But just because he makes the good, moral choice, doesn't mean he isn't interesting right?
quote:
The comic was mildly successful but Iron Man has always been a second tier hero in the Marvel universe... until the movie. The reason the movie has rocketed Iron Man's popularity is Robert Downey Jr is incredibly charismatic, and he turns some of Tony's flaws into virtues, while ignoring the really dark parts of Tony's personality (like the alcoholism and abuse of women). The timing is also perfect, politically, as we are at the height of worshipping selfish assholes as virtuous. Tony Stark gives them a fictional stand in.
True, and we're not only admiring the selfish a-hole who can redeem himself from time to time, we also worship (probably a strong word) the morally depraved as well. Or would you not agree?
Posted on 2/17/14 at 2:54 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
So they are not interesting because you can never be that morally good?
they're not interesting b/c they do the same thing every time (the good/right thing).
i can't relate to them b/c i am human. i can relate to an antihero much more closely
quote:
Art and Morality. Aesthetics and Beauty. Depending on HOW you view art, can certainly make that scary.
very few times do the evil people who are centerpieces of works succeed (outside of black comedies, obviously)
michael corleone is corrupted, isolated, and seen as a complete piece of shite (b/c he is one). he's one of the few who doesn't die (and i'm just talking GF 1 and 2). most of them die. walter white died after losing his family. he didn't"win"
Posted on 2/17/14 at 2:56 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
But just because he makes the good, moral choice, doesn't mean he isn't interesting right?
if i always know what he's going to do, then it's not interesting.
quote:
we also worship (probably a strong word) the morally depraved as well. Or would you not agree?
i don't think a person has to be morally depraved
i do think great people often are morally depraved, especially popular figures
there aren't any captain americas out there...except for mitt romney
Posted on 2/17/14 at 3:07 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
I fully recognize it as a great film, I just despise the movie internally.
Is it because it insists upon itself?
Posted on 2/17/14 at 3:12 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
In making the evil in the sequel cartoonishly evil Coppola robbed the film of its true moral compass - the ability to make the audience eventually question themselves and their own emotions instead of insisting upon a manichean reality.
And see I don't think the first one succeeded at that either. It walks a fine line for sure, but it left enough on the table to glorify mob life, much more than other films on the same subject. And I still feel Michael was extremely problematic on that end.
Baloo has already stolen part of my retort but I can't restrain myself from so I'll just respond to the notion that the first Godfather was bad because it glorified mob life. I categorically disagree.
You couldn't really film a good and balanced movie about drug addiction (e.g. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas) without running the risk of "glorifying" drug use. There are reasons that people enjoy drugs and become addicts. Similarly you can't film a movie about the mafia without laying bare the motivations, costs, and benefits of the family business. I think on that score the first Godfather does this while restraining itself from beating the viewer vigorously about the eyeballs with this point. If the viewer walks away from that experience concluding the filmmaker wished to promote an immoral lifestyle they have simply missed the point because of their own moral shortcomings - and that, not a ham-handed fairy tale, is the appropriate moral bearing of the film on the adult viewer.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 4:11 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
True, and we're not only admiring the selfish a-hole who can redeem himself from time to time, we also worship (probably a strong word) the morally depraved as well. Or would you not agree?
I don't agree with that. I think, if anything, we're a pretty moralistic culture. We're never so happy as we are when passing judgment on others for failing to live up to our own moral standards. I do think we worship selfishness, as we have redefined it as not a moral failing, but moral depravity is loudly and widely criticized.
Let's put it like this: what are the odds a non-church-going single guy could ever be elected president right now? BTW - it's happened in our history. Twice. Neither in the past 100 years.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 4:28 pm to Freauxzen
can you bump your godfather thread? i searched and couldn't find it. i'd like to read it
i'd search your post history, but you have a shitload of posts
i'd search your post history, but you have a shitload of posts
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News