Hero Fails: Supposedly Heroic Characters Who Are Actually Awful

[andromeda331]

3 hours ago, festivus said:

I've only seen the first movie but I think they got the casting just right. Bella is like a joyless dirge in the books too.

That's how I saw her in the books too. She was so joyless I couldn't figure out why everyone wanted her or to be friends with her. She wasn't fun, she wasn't exciting, she wasn't really nice to anyone, how she treated everyone and her thoughts on everyone. She had no real interests or talents. She didn't seem to like anything. What drew people to her? I didn't get what was so great about Edward who came off abusive ass and Jacob wasn't that much better. Beyond them there really wasn't anyone likeable in the books except Leah. Some of the vampire back stories were more interesting then Bella-Edward-Jacob stuff I wish we had gotten to read that instead. Especially Rosalie hunting down everyone who raped and killed her. 

[festivus]

Yeah, Bella actually reached through the pages and sucked the energy out of me. I really hope that we weren't supposed to see her as heroic because, no.

[HunterHunted]

1 hour ago, andromeda331 said:

That's how I saw her in the books too. She was so joyless I couldn't figure out why everyone wanted her or to be friends with her. She wasn't fun, she wasn't exciting, she wasn't really nice to anyone, how she treated everyone and her thoughts on everyone. She had no real interests or talents. She didn't seem to like anything. What drew people to her?

I think textually the character is terrible, but I think the right actress, someone like Zoe Kazan, could bring layers to the character where there were none.I think there were probably a couple of actresses that might added some nuance. We'd get the sense that Bella is joyless because she's a little bit scared, lonely, depressed, and also kind of fucking with you. I think there's a way to play it that Bella's ennui is a bit performative because she thinks that's what is expected of her when her life is up ended.

Kristen Ritter has played two textually awful characters, Chloe in Don't Trust the Bitch in Apartment 23 and Jessica Jones. Both characters were written by creators with more skill than Stephanie Meyer. Ritter has always taken a beat to sometimes let the character's mask slip a bit and show that she does feel compassion even if the character goes and does the same terrible thing again.

[methodwriter85]

1 hour ago, festivus said:

Yeah, Bella actually reached through the pages and sucked the energy out of me. I really hope that we weren't supposed to see her as heroic because, no.

I tried reading the books but I couldn't get through them because Bella seemed like such a stuck-up bitch. At least 50 Shades of Grey had the "so bad it's good" aspect to it.

[Snow Apple]

5 hours ago, festivus said:

I've only seen the first movie but I think they got the casting just right. Bella is like a joyless dirge in the books too.

True but maybe an actress who has range could have changed that and added some spunk for the movie. When Edward stopped a car with his bare hands, Kristin had her usual bland annoyed expression. Another actress might have managed shocked astonishment. 

[festivus]

I did say that I'd only seen the first movie and I haven't seen anything else Kristin has done except for Joan Jett in The Runaways movie so I don't know, maybe another actress would have been better. Maybe she read the books and played Bella like the lump she is. I don't know that much about her acting tbh.

[Mabinogia]

4 minutes ago, festivus said:

I did say that I'd only seen the first movie and I haven't seen anything else Kristin has done except for Joan Jett in The Runaways movie so I don't know

I've only seen her in commercials for Twilight (seeing her in them made me not want to see the movie because her performance actually looked painful, like it was physically hurting her to be Bella for whatever reason) but she blew me away as Joan Jett, which shocked me since I got the impression the girl just couldn't act. So maybe she either understood that Bella is a lifeless shell and purposely played her that way, or she really wasn't into being in the Twilight movies and checked out before filming even began. 

[HunterHunted]

1 hour ago, Mabinogia said:

I've only seen her in commercials for Twilight (seeing her in them made me not want to see the movie because her performance actually looked painful, like it was physically hurting her to be Bella for whatever reason) but she blew me away as Joan Jett, which shocked me since I got the impression the girl just couldn't act. So maybe she either understood that Bella is a lifeless shell and purposely played her that way, or she really wasn't into being in the Twilight movies and checked out before filming even began. 

The writing is bad, the directing is bad, the editing is bad, and the acting is bad.

The car accident scene is just so terrible. 

The real problem is that it's framed as something romantic, which gives Bella little to do except give moony lovestruck looks in the aftermath. If they hadn't done the back and forth close shots of their faces the characters could actually have gone in a slightly different direction.

If it had been the wide shot of the accident happening, a low shot from between the cars from Bella's perspective trying to figure out how she was saved, she pans up to Edward's face, but never stops on it. Her gaze continues to move until she sees his hand and the dent in the van. Her gaze lingers there puzzling how he was able to do that. The scene cuts to Edward looking at Bella while she's still staring at the dent. By the time she thinks to look back at Edward, he's gone. It reframes her interest in him as actual curiosity. That's a way to add more to the character without even requiring Kristen to do more. 

Bella's mid-fight freak out comes across as weird and stilted because the director chose the weird decision of making this pretty terribly choreographed fight soundless and slow motion. Bella's quivering and screaming is the thing that brings the film back to regular speed, but it feels weird because the slow motion undercuts any emotion Kristen might have been building as Bella.

Bella is a really dull character who only ever seems to make proactive choices when it comes to saving her man, being with her man, or saving her monster baby. But the filmmakers almost always make the actual worst directing and editing choices in all of the films. They could have added subtextual curiosity in the car accident scene by just editing it in a slightly different way. The could have added a little self-preservation in the conclusion of the first film by having her attempt to crawl away even with her injuries, while James and Edward were fighting. They also could have let her croak out any direction about what she wanted as she was possibly dying. Instead she just moans and writhes as Edward makes decisions for her. Like they literally never ask her what she wants or have a throwaway line that she's too far gone to make the choice on her own.

The problem is that Stephanie Meyer doesn't trust a woman's judgement about anything except for marriage and family. Those were the only times Bella ever had anything to say.

The films still would have been bad, but some slight line tweaks and editing changes and Bella would have a lot more agency. She'd be boring as Forks, but she'd be an actual person instead a husk that is amazing and desirable unknown reasons.

Plus they could have someone could have added layers to Bella actually get the part. I never saw any of the 50 Shades movies, but a lot of reviews said that Dakota Johnson was able to a subtle level of bemusement in the sequels, which suggested that her character was only willing to tolerate so much of Christian's ridiculousness.

Edited October 11, 2018 by HunterHunted

[Wiendish Fitch]

Re: Bella Swan

Olivia de Havilland played Maid Marian, one of literature's premier "damsels in distress" in 1938's The Adventures of Robin Hood, but still gave the character a personality, inner strength, and best of all? Marian saves Robin at some point. I'd also like to mention that Marian needs to be rescued exactly once. Even if she needed to be rescued more than once, she's at least worth it.

That was a movie written by a bunch of dudes 80 years ago, this is now. There is no excuse for Stephanie Meyer, a woman in the modern day, to create such an unpleasant, uninteresting, useless drip of a character who constantly needs to be rescued, despite not being worth the trouble in the slightest.

While I've loosened up on expecting all female characters to fully embody the "STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMAN" mold, couldn't the screenwriters have made Bella at least reasonably fun to watch? Give her a real sense of humor, some agency, something, anything for us as an audience to latch onto?

[dusang]

22 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Re: Bella Swan

Olivia de Havilland played Maid Marian, one of literature's premier "damsels in distress" in 1938's The Adventures of Robin Hood, but still gave the character a personality, inner strength, and best of all? Marian saves Robin at some point. I'd also like to mention that Marian needs to be rescued exactly once. Even if she needed to be rescued more than once, she's at least worth it.

That was a movie written by a bunch of dudes 80 years ago, this is now. There is no excuse for Stephanie Meyer, a woman in the modern day, to create such an unpleasant, uninteresting, useless drip of a character who constantly needs to be rescued, despite not being worth the trouble in the slightest.

While I've loosened up on expecting all female characters to fully embody the "STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMAN" mold, couldn't the screenwriters have made Bella at least reasonably fun to watch? Give her a real sense of humor, some agency, something, anything for us as an audience to latch onto?

(This is a response to all the Bella talk, not just you but there's too many to quote them all now!) Bella Swan is THE WORST.  The character as written is a total cipher -- physically she's non-descript, she has no talents or interests, no quirks, no pet peeves, nothing.  She latches on to Edward for no readily apparent reason beyond the fact that he is attractive (if you took out all of the descriptions and references to the Cullens' beauty, there would be less than half of one book left from the four).  He is actively disdainful of her for the first half of the first book and then condescending, overbearing, and possessive for the rest of the series.  She is disinterested and unkind to the total strangers who try desperately to befriend her at school and ultimately chooses to effectively kill herself and sever all ties with family and friends as soon as possible before she ages past her 100-year-old boyfriend eternally trapped in the body of a 17-year-old.  She spends an entire book deliberately risking her life so that she can feel "close" to this asshat who has, with no consultation with her, decided that they cannot be together and left the country. SHE IS AWFUL.

All that said, I did manage to read all four Twilight books, while I was so horribly bored by 50 Shades that I never made it through one book.  Anastasia Whatshername is an even more washed out, non-entity of a person on the page -- a faded facsimile of an already atrocious character. And Dakota Johnson did make her marginally tolerable and lively on screen, while Kristen Stewart dragged the material further down.  Neither of them had much to work with in their male costars but still I will forever respect Dakota J. for attempting to imbue her character with some basic human personality, which the author entirely forgot to do.

[JustaPerson]

On 2018/10/1 at 7:32 PM, tennisgurl said:

As far as supposedly good guys who are actually assholes, I know that this started from the book, but its legit for the films too (maybe even more so), but Snape from the Harry Potter movies/books is a dickhead, no matter how things ended. Yeah he turned out to be on the side of good, but it was only after he got friendzoned by his long time crush from childhood, and she stopped talking to him when he called her a racial slur, and then he ended up joining the Death Eaters, and only changed his tune when he found out the woman he was still hung up on was going to die. All those other innocent people? Her husband and infant son, even when it would break her heart? They can all go choke, but when the women he refuses to get over is in trouble? Oh shit, all hands on deck! Then when he becomes a teacher, he is a bullying jerk to most of his students, for no reason, and routinely makes kids and teenagers cry with how cruel he is to his own innocent students, and treats the son of his dead crush like garbage because he is bitter as fuck that she didnt like him back, even though he never did anything, and is in general a petty jerk. Yeah, I can appreciate that he seemed to be genuine in his turning good later on, and he was certainly brave, and I can appropriate then adding complexity to his character, but the posthumous love that he got as this amazing, heroic good guy is just way too much. 

I read an interesting comment that wondered if Snape might have treated Harry differently if he had instead mostly resembled Lily but had James's eyes (hazel, if you're wondering). 

[Spartan Girl]

I know the movie Waitress tried to show Dr. Pometer as some big hero for wanting to give up everything and run away with Jenna therefore saving her from her abusive husband. All I saw was an obsessive sleazebag cheating on his perfectly nice wife and who would have kept the fair going behind her back had Jenna not finally broken things off.

Oh, and why the hell didn't he call the cops if he knew how bad Jenna's husband was?

[Ubiquitous]

On ‎9‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 6:54 PM, Wiendish Fitch said:

On ‎9‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 6:37 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

Putting this here since I just saw this on Netflix:

Peter Rabbit. I mean Peter, the Rabbit. He’s obnoxious, self-absorbed and the ABSOLUTE WORST. And I’m pretty sure he’s supposed to be the hero of this movie. McGregor was almost as bad, but not the outright villain, Like his great-Uncle.

Now I want to go read the original, because I’m pissed at how the story was changed.

Just the trailer for that damn thing made me sick. I could learn to hate James Corden as much as everyone else does. And wasn't the point of the book that Peter Rabbit was a naughty and disobedient brat who should have listened to his mom, and that Mr. McGregor was just a farmer who wanted rabbits to stay out of his garden? I think rabbits are adorable (real ones, not icky CGI ones), but I completely understand what a nuisance they are to farmers and gardeners.

So it wasn't my imagination when I saw the trailer for the Peter Rabbit movie? What made it worse was the PSAs that aired in tandem with this movie about not wasting food.

[Spartan Girl]

Kate Beckinsale's character in Nothing But the Truth. Contrary to what the movie would have us believe, she was no hero to journalism. She used an innocent girl to out her mother as an FBI agent all to win a fucking Pulitzer, then hid the truth to cover her ass.

[VCRTracking]

On 10/10/2018 at 2:20 PM, HunterHunted said:

Kristen Ritter has played two textually awful characters, Chloe in Don't Trust the Bitch in Apartment 23 and Jessica Jones. Both characters were written by creators with more skill than Stephanie Meyer. Ritter has always taken a beat to sometimes let the character's mask slip a bit and show that she does feel compassion even if the character goes and does the same terrible thing again.

And Jane in Breaking Bad. She's a mess who pulls Jessie, an already messed up person in her downward spiral with her but you do see why he's attracted to her and they are cute together(when they're not shooting up heroin).

A character I'm supposed to like but don't is Maude in Harold and Maude. Sorry but being old and feisty doesn't make it okay to steal cars and drive like a maniac.  There are other ways to show you love life. Apparently "manic pixie dream girls" are annoying at any age.

Edited October 31, 2018 by VCRTracking

[Wiendish Fitch]

22 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

 

A character I'm supposed to like but don't is Maude in Harold and Maude. Sorry but being old and feisty doesn't make it okay to steal cars and drive like a maniac.  There are other ways to show you love life. Apparently "manic pixie dream girls" are annoying at any age.

I'm always happy to find other people who think Harold and Maude is overrated.

[topanga]

This saddens me: The Indiana Jones saga is one of my favorite action series. In the first movie, Raiders of the Lost Ark, when Indiana goes into Marion's bar, she slapped him and said he took advantage of her in the past. When Marion said, "I was a child!" I thought she meant metaphorically, like 18-19.

Nope. There are transcripts of a conversation among George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and another guy. George Lucas conceived of Marion being an actual child--age 12--when she and Indiana had a relationship. The other two managed to convince him that she should be older than that. "Okay," he relented. "But no older than 15." Kinda predatory, if you ask me.  

[Dandesun]

So... Lucas is a big fan of Lolita, I guess? And didn't fucking GET IT? I always figured Marion was like 17 maybe... this stuff takes place in the 40's and I can conceive of that being realistic. Also, Marion clearly had a very unconventional upbringing with Abner taking her all over the place for his work. So, yeah, I figure 17-19 AND I WILL ALWAYS BELIEVE THAT!!

No way in hell am I ever going to sign on to the idea that Indy and Marion had a 'relationship' when she was 15. It's never stated in the films so she can be however old I want her to be. 17 is plenty young to be starry eyed over Henry Jones Jr when he was, presumably, in his 20s and studying under Abner without making it fucking gross.

[dusang]

If I can ignore the existence of The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and the Star Wars prequels, ignoring those transcripts is a piece of cake.

[HunterHunted]

There is no intellectual property more deserving of inclusion on this list than Inhumans, which was a movie that concluded with a TV series. The protagonists treat nearly every human they encounter terribly even when these humans are actually helping them. The protagonists also spend the movie and series advocating for a caste and apartheid system among their people, which largely seems to be based around whether they think another Inhuman's powers are cool. If your powers are uncool, you get to spend the rest of your life toiling and dying in the mines. They also openly denigrate the one family member without cool powers.

Also the queen's parents were lower caste members who protested and advocated for ending the caste system; they were executed by her future in-laws, the previous king and queen.

So while we know that the antagonist was a jealous power mad striver, it's not like the so called heroes are any great shakes either.

[Blergh]

On 11/2/2018 at 2:42 PM, topanga said:

This saddens me: The Indiana Jones saga is one of my favorite action series. In the first movie, Raiders of the Lost Ark, when Indiana goes into Marion's bar, she slapped him and said he took advantage of her in the past. When Marion said, "I was a child!" I thought she meant metaphorically, like 18-19.

Nope. There are transcripts of a conversation among George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and another guy. George Lucas conceived of Marion being an actual child--age 12--when she and Indiana had a relationship. The other two managed to convince him that she should be older than that. "Okay," he relented. "But no older than 15." Kinda predatory, if you ask me.  

I agree that that sounds rather warped - on Mr. Lucas's part. However; there was nothing in the  final script that indicated that Marion wasn't actually of age when she and Indy embarked on their initial fling. Hence; IMO this should be considered  a 'Creator NEAR Fail' rather than a Hero Fail  on the depicted Indy's part (not unlike how Harper Lee's initial depiction of Atticus Finch was far more flawed and bigoted than the version generations drew strength from in the polished final form of  To Kill a Mockingbird). 

Edited November 4, 2018 by Blergh
less for

[Wiendish Fitch]

On 11/2/2018 at 3:42 PM, topanga said:

This saddens me: The Indiana Jones saga is one of my favorite action series. In the first movie, Raiders of the Lost Ark, when Indiana goes into Marion's bar, she slapped him and said he took advantage of her in the past. When Marion said, "I was a child!" I thought she meant metaphorically, like 18-19.

Nope. There are transcripts of a conversation among George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and another guy. George Lucas conceived of Marion being an actual child--age 12--when she and Indiana had a relationship. The other two managed to convince him that she should be older than that. "Okay," he relented. "But no older than 15." Kinda predatory, if you ask me.  

This proves my longstanding belief that George Lucas is a creepy idiot.

[Mabinogia]

1 minute ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

This proves my longstanding belief that George Lucas is a creepy idiot.

I never knew enough about him to think it, but his insistence that she be so young, not just coming up with it in the first place but after being told 12 was too young then insisting she be under 15? EEEEEEEWWWWWW Just...why? What did that bring to the character? 

I'm going to go bleach this out of my brain because I grew up loving Indy and I don't want to lose that. Damn you George Lucas!

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 11/4/2018 at 10:35 AM, Mabinogia said:

I'm going to go bleach this out of my brain because I grew up loving Indy and I don't want to lose that. Damn you George Lucas!

Helping!

[Mabinogia]

Yes, that is the Indy I know and love. 

[VCRTracking]

On 11/2/2018 at 12:42 PM, topanga said:

This saddens me: The Indiana Jones saga is one of my favorite action series. In the first movie, Raiders of the Lost Ark, when Indiana goes into Marion's bar, she slapped him and said he took advantage of her in the past. When Marion said, "I was a child!" I thought she meant metaphorically, like 18-19.

Nope. There are transcripts of a conversation among George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and another guy. George Lucas conceived of Marion being an actual child--age 12--when she and Indiana had a relationship. The other two managed to convince him that she should be older than that. "Okay," he relented. "But no older than 15." Kinda predatory, if you ask me.  

 

On 11/2/2018 at 3:39 PM, Dandesun said:

So... Lucas is a big fan of Lolita, I guess? And didn't fucking GET IT? I always figured Marion was like 17 maybe... this stuff takes place in the 40's and I can conceive of that being realistic. Also, Marion clearly had a very unconventional upbringing with Abner taking her all over the place for his work. So, yeah, I figure 17-19 AND I WILL ALWAYS BELIEVE THAT!!

No way in hell am I ever going to sign on to the idea that Indy and Marion had a 'relationship' when she was 15. It's never stated in the films so she can be however old I want her to be. 17 is plenty young to be starry eyed over Henry Jones Jr when he was, presumably, in his 20s and studying under Abner without making it fucking gross.

 

 

On 11/4/2018 at 7:35 AM, Mabinogia said:

I never knew enough about him to think it, but his insistence that she be so young, not just coming up with it in the first place but after being told 12 was too young then insisting she be under 15? EEEEEEEWWWWWW Just...why? What did that bring to the character? 

I'm going to go bleach this out of my brain because I grew up loving Indy and I don't want to lose that. Damn you George Lucas!

Here's the transcript, which you can find here:
 

Quote

 

G — We have to get them cemented into a very strong relationship. A bond.

L — I like it if they already had a relationship at one point. Because then you don't have

to build it.

G — I was thinking that this old guy could have been his mentor. He could have known

this little girl when she was just a kid. Had an affair with her when she was eleven.

L — And he was forty-two.

G — He hasn't seen her in twelve years. Now she's twenty-two. It's a real strange relationship.

S — She had better be older than twenty-two.

G — He's thirty-five, and he knew her ten years ago when he was twenty-five and she

was only twelve.

G — It would be amusing to make her slightly young at the time.

S — And promiscuous. She came onto him.

G — Fifteen is right on the edge. I know it's an outrageous idea, but it is interesting.

Once she's sixteen or seventeen it's not interesting anymore. But if she was fifteen and he was twenty-five and they actually had an affair the last time they met. And she was madly in love with him and he...

S — She has pictures of him.

G — There would be a picture on the mantle of her, her father, and him. She was madly in love with him at the time and he left her because obviously it wouldn't work out. Now she's twenty-five and she's been living in Nepal since she was eighteen. It's not only that they like each other, it's a very bizarre thing, it puts a whole new perspective on this whole thing. It gives you lots of stuff to play off of between them. Maybe she still likes him. It's something he'd rather forget about and not have come up again. This gives her a lot of ammunition to fight with.

S — In a way, she could say, "You've made me this hard."

G — This is a resource that you can either mine or not. It's not as blatant as we're talking about. You don't think about it that much. You don't immediately realize how old she was at the time. It would be subtle. She could talk about it. "I was jail bait the last time we were together." She can flaunt it at him, but at the same time she never says, "I was fifteen years old." Even if we don't mention it, when we go to cast the part we're going to end up with a woman who's about twenty-three and a hero who's about thirty-five.

 

They ended up casting Karen Allen was 30 when she made the movie and Harrison Ford who was 38. Indy's canon age in Raiders is 37 and if they hadn't seen each other in a decade Marion would have to been at least 17-18 when Indy was 27. Very inappropriate but not so much that Indy is a pedophile.

I've read the transcripts years ago and yeah it's creepy but I really think when Lucas said Marion should be "11" he was being sarcastic or else Kasdan wouldn't have added that Indy would be "45". Also him saying ironically  "It's a strange relationship."  It was a dark joke that would probably get him fired if he made it on Twitter but wasn't that outrageous considering what a hedonistic cesspool Hollywood was in the 70s. Spielberg was like "Dude not funny!" so they got serious about it. If you read the actual brainstorming they're doing Lucas wanting Marion being young was mainly just to make her a layered character and the relationship between her and Indy more messy and contentious and as he put it more "interesting" than the typical adventure romance. Also that he wanted it to be subtle so that the audience would be like "Heeey! Wait a minute!" when they thought about it. He had no problem or fear depicting his hero as not a completely good guy and was willing to show that he had done some shady shit. And unlike James Bond he has to face the consequences of his actions. People act now like the movie made it seem okay when it clearly showed Marion being rightfully angry about it and Indy deeply regretting it. I'm glad Crystal Skull exists because it shows Indy didn't fall in love with her when she was a kid. He fell in love with her when they were both adults later. Indy still didn't deserve Marion after Raiders and needed to lose her again and she live a good life on her own before they got back together.

People have to realize that Lucas didn't conceive of Indiana Jones as pure-as-snow and innocent like Luke Skywalker. He was originally a much darker, more amoral character who when he wasn't off looking for relics or teaching, spent most of his time drinking womanizing and going to nightclubs and mainly artifacts to finance his playboy lifestyle(you see some of that in Temple of Doom). Lucas wanted to have a hero inspired by the ones of Saturday matinee serials but instead of being boring with zero personalities like most of them were, they would have the hardened, morally grey and cynical edge of Humphrey Bogart and a lot of protagonists in 40s film noir. Indy was almost a deconstruction of the virtuous heroes in the old Hollywood adventure movies and serials the way Alan Moore deconstructed superheroes in Watchmen.

If this info ruined Indy for you, please watch at least one episode of the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles the short-lived TV show Lucas made in the 1990s where we see a 16-19 year old Indy as a thoughtful young man being effected by experiencing World War I and meeting practically EVERY major historical figure at the time like Dr. Albert Schweitzer in Africa! This particularly good episode was written by Frank Darabont(The Shawshank Redemption):

Edited November 6, 2018 by VCRTracking

[Bastet]

Quote

 

He could have known this little girl when she was just a kid. Had an affair with her when she was eleven.

[She gets upped to twelve]

G — It would be amusing to make her slightly young at the time.

S — And promiscuous. She came onto him.

G — Fifteen is right on the edge. I know it's an outrageous idea, but it is interesting.

Once she's sixteen or seventeen it's not interesting anymore. But if she was fifteen and he was twenty-five and they actually had an affair the last time they met.

 

What a thoroughly disgusting conversation.

[VCRTracking]

27 minutes ago, Bastet said:

What a thoroughly disgusting conversation.

Yes it is, but when you watch the movie is Marion anything less than awesome or that the movie has any contempt of her and feelings? No.

Let's face it, many of the people who make our favorite art weren't saints. I'm not going to apologize for most of them but sometimes they grow and change and become better individuals, and some stay terrible.

Edited November 6, 2018 by VCRTracking

[Bastet]

Just now, VCRTracking said:

Yes it is, but do you when you watch the movie is Marion anything less than awesome or that the movie has any contempt of her?

I've never seen any of the Indiana Jones movies; they don't interest me.  How the character and her past relationship with him wound up being written and filmed is one subject, but the fact these men initially sat around and discussed making her 11, 12, or 15, and talked about a child seducing her father's mentor as if that's an actual thing, is its own subject, and isn't affected by what they wound up with.  Not one of them said, "This is fucking disgusting, and I can't even believe it would be suggested; no, she needs to have been capable of a relationship with him that was non-coercive if we're going to allude to one."  They just, by virtue of casting, aged her up a few more years, into inappropriate but not illegal.  They didn't back off of their original "interesting" idea because it was a reprehensible crime.

[VCRTracking]

21 minutes ago, Bastet said:

I've never seen any of the Indiana Jones movies; they don't interest me.  How the character and her past relationship with him wound up being written and filmed is one subject, but the fact these men initially sat around and discussed making her 11, 12, or 15, and talked about a child seducing her father's mentor as if that's an actual thing, is its own subject, and isn't affected by what they wound up with. 

And if you did see the movie you that they don't treat it as something she should get over and absolves Indy. She's rightfully pissed and punches him when she sees him again and Indy has always regretted it and thought he made a mistake.

There's this idea fans have that creators should be "benevolent gods" who must alway take care of the characters and show only good things happen to them when most good writers at best are cruel Old Testament gods who torture their own creations and put them through hell if it would make a better story.

21 minutes ago, Bastet said:

Not one of them said, "This is fucking disgusting, and I can't even believe it would be suggested; no, she needs to have been capable of a relationship with him that was non-coercive if we're going to allude to one."  They just, by virtue of casting, aged her up a few more years, into inappropriate but not illegal.  They didn't back off of their original "interesting" idea because it was a reprehensible crime.

I believe it because these men lived or worked in Hollywood in the 1970s and probably witnessed a LOT of disgusting behavior where they become blase. Horrible stuff has always been around the movie industry since the days of Fatty Arbuckle but it got turned up to 11 after the late 60s and the sexual revolution.

Edited November 6, 2018 by VCRTracking

[Bastet]

1 minute ago, VCRTracking said:

And if you did see the movie you that they don't treat it as a Indy isn't callous about it "That was in the past" and "She should get over it". and she doesnt' accept. She's rightfully pissed and punches him when she sees him again and Indy has always regretted it and thought he made a mistake.

Again, completely irrelevant to the fact they had the quoted conversation.

[VCRTracking]

And I also added the relevant part. Their attitude about the subject was gross but I also think they didn't back off of it and none of them got upset because they were talking about fictional characters.

Think about all the characters you like from your favorite TV shows, books, movies and even video games where they have a backstory involves abuse of any kind, sexual, emotional and physical and I guarantee you the creators were just as blase not have any hesitation or doubt about putting it in. They don't have any second thoughts about it if it meant a more interesting character and better story.

Edited November 6, 2018 by VCRTracking

[Morrigan2575]

On 11/6/2018 at 12:15 PM, VCRTracking said:

Indy's canon age in Raiders is 37 and if they hadn't seen each other in a decade Marion would have to been at least 17-18 when Indy was 27. Very inappropriate but not so much that Indy is a pedophile.

This was what I always assumed but, after reading everything it puts that bar confrontation into new light. It also makes me curious as to Marion's relationship with with Ox (big brother?). How when Indy was trying to get Ox to snap out of it, he referred to Marion as "Abner's little girl".  

This doesn't change my love for Indy or my love for Indy/Marion but, it's always fascinating to see how movies evolve from concept to writing to filming etc. 

Edited November 10, 2018 by Morrigan2575

[VCRTracking]

6 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

This was what I always assumed but, after reading everything it puts that bar confrontation into new light. It also makes me curious as to Marion's relationship with with Ox (big brother?). How when Indy was trying to get Ox to snap out of it, he referred to Marion as "Abner's little girl".  

This doesn't change my love for Indy or my love for Indy/Marion but, it's always fascinating to see how movies evolve from concept to writing to filming etc. 

Looking it up the official info Marion was born in 1909, ten years after Indy and they got together in 1925 so he would have been 26 and she would be 16. Not ideal but they were at least a year older than Laura and Almanzo Wilder was when they started courting IRL!

[Dandesun]

Yeah, 16 and 26 was considered pretty damn normal for a long time. Now? No. Absolutely not. In the 30? Or even the 20s when it happened? Probably not even remotely controversial. Hell, Indy would probably have been considered a 'stable, calming influence' on a girl that age.

The idea of Marion being 14-15 is ick... 16 is still kind of based on what we consider appropriate currently but taking the time into account. Well, I know stories from my grandmother's younger years during that time so... I'm just saying I get it.

[VCRTracking]

I don't care for most of the characters in Rent, but especially Mark. He sucks.

Edited January 13, 2019 by VCRTracking

[Wiendish Fitch]

4 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

I don't care for most of the characters in Rent, but especially Mark. He sucks.

 

Second that. Mark is awful, a pretentious, whiny, lazy, immature, spoiled, untalented trust fund baby... basically, Mark is everything that Millennials are accused (unfairly) of being. Listen to the song "Angry Young Man" by Billy Joel and tell me it doesn't remind you of Mark (though if Mark heard it, he'd fail to get the joke).

But yeah, everyone in Rent is horrid: sociopathic Maureen, useless Roger, irresponsible Mimi, smug Collins, and the allegedly wonderful Angel (who murders dogs for cash).

Edited January 13, 2019 by Wiendish Fitch

[Spartan Girl]

3 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Second that. Mark is awful, a pretentious, whiny, lazy, immature, spoiled, untalented trust fund baby... basically, Mark is everything that Millennials are accused (unfairly) of being. Listen to the song "Angry Young Man" by Billy Joel and tell me it doesn't remind you of Mark (though if Mark heard it, he'd fail to get the joke).

But yeah, everyone in Rent is horrid: sociopathic Maureen, useless Roger, irresponsible Mimi, smug Collins, and the allegedly wonderful Angel (who murders dogs for cash).

Angel did WHAT?!

Yeah, I never liked Rent because everyone is just a bunch of posers acting like they're better than "sell-out" people with paying jobs. Gimme a break. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

44 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

Angel did WHAT?!

Yeah, I never liked Rent because everyone is just a bunch of posers acting like they're better than "sell-out" people with paying jobs. Gimme a break. 

Yeah, Angel brazenly mentions it at length in the song "Today for You": 

Quote

 

It was my lucky day today
On Avenue A
When a lady in a limousine
Drove my way
She said: "Darling be a dear
Haven’t slept in a year
I need your help
To make my neighbor's yappy dog disappear"
"This Akita, Evita, just won't shut up
I believe if you play nonstop that pup
Will breathe its very last
High strung breath
I'm certain that cur
Will bark itself to death"

Today 4 u
Tomorrow for me

Today 4 u
Tomorrow for me

We agreed on a fee
A $1000 guarantee
Tax free
And a bonus
If I trim her tree
Now who could foretell
That it would go so well
But sure as I am here
That dog is now in doggy hell
After an hour
Evita in all her glory
On the window ledge
Of that 23rd story
Like Thelma and Louise did
When they got the blues
Swan dove into
The courtyard of the Gracie Mews

 

What. An. Asshole. Yet Rent tries to frame Angel as this ethereal paragon of compassion and hope. Fuck that.

[Apathy]

On 1/13/2019 at 8:00 AM, Wiendish Fitch said:

Second that. Mark is awful, a pretentious, whiny, lazy, immature, spoiled, untalented trust fund baby... basically, Mark is everything that Millennials are accused (unfairly) of being. Listen to the song "Angry Young Man" by Billy Joel and tell me it doesn't remind you of Mark (though if Mark heard it, he'd fail to get the joke).

But yeah, everyone in Rent is horrid: sociopathic Maureen, useless Roger, irresponsible Mimi, smug Collins, and the allegedly wonderful Angel (who murders dogs for cash).

 

ITA with all of this, except I'd replace "Angry Young Man" with "Common People" by Pulp, mainly because of Lindsay Ellis' video essay on the film.

"Aww, look Mark, someone wrote a song about you!"

Edited January 29, 2019 by Apathy

[Wiendish Fitch]

6 hours ago, Apathy said:

ITA with all of this, except I'd replace "Angry Young Man" with "Common People" by Pulp, mainly because of Lindsay Ellis' video essay on the film.

"Aww, look Mark, someone wrote a song about you!"

I love Lindsay's takedown of Rent, it's a classic. 

And I think there's room enough on the playlist for both, no? ;)

[Spartan Girl]

I think the fact that Mark took his video camera to reord that HIV/AIDS support meeting without giving a thought to at least asking the group if it was okay first tells you all you need to know about him. Insensitive prick.

As for the so-called "saintly" Angel, it would have been much better if she took the bitch's money then ratted her out to her neighbor about her plans. Rip off rich people and get them in trouble without harming an innocent dog. But that didn't occur to you, didn't you, Angel?!

[Wiendish Fitch]

5 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

I think the fact that Mark took his video camera to reord that HIV/AIDS support meeting without giving a thought to at least asking the group if it was okay first tells you all you need to know about him. Insensitive prick.

The scene where the homeless woman gives him the verbal smackdown he so richly deserves is a thing of beauty. Yeah, it doesn't amount to anything, but still...

[Spartan Girl]

Kirsten Dunst's version of Mary Jane in the Spider-Man 1.0 movies. Not sure if this counts as a "heroic" character since she's mainly the damsel-in-distress in those movies, meaning she does NOTHING of value except to be a giant whiny pain-in-the-ass, but since all the characters go on about how "strong and wonderful" she supposedly is, I think she counts for this thread.

I could give a hundred reasons why she sucks, but to avoid a long explicitive-filled rant, she was only interested in men as long as they were constantly singing her praises and giving her their undivided attention. Which was NOTHING at all like the real and infinitely more awesome MJ in the comics and cartoons.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Spartan Girl

[wallflower75]

On 9/1/2018 at 9:54 PM, GreekGeek said:

It probably says more about me than about them, but I usually find myself not rooting for those "screw the rules" "free spirit" types.

McMurphy in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest wouldn't have bothered me as much if he had stood up against a man running the ward. I'm willing to blame the misogyny on Ken Kesey's vision and not the movie, though.

I'll see you McMurphy and raise you pretty much all the girls in Girl, Interrupted.  This movie came out as I was starting my career in mental health.  The first time I saw this, I was more inclined to relate to the girls.  When I saw it again a few years later, my sympathies were VERY MUCH for Whoopi Goldberg and everyone else who worked there.  I think I jokingly said to someone that while I couldn't technically approve of Whoopi throwing Winona Ryder's character into the bathtub when she was being a snotty brat at one point, I understood why she did it.

[luna1122]

I feel like MOST characters in rom coms suck. Julia Roberts in Notting Hill is a cheating, dishonest, self involved prima donna and I only wanted Hugh Grant to run very far away. Andie McDowell in Four Weddings and a Funeral: also a cheating, self indulgent drama queen, and Hugh's adorable character isn't much better for ditching his almost-wife at the altar (tho better than marrying and then cheating on her). Kate Beckinsale and John Cusack in Serendipity: cheaters we're supposed to cheer on as they are engaged to others but keep looking for one another. Meg Ryan in Sleepless in Seattle: engaged to/living with Bill Pullman, lies to him and obsesses about some guy she hears on the radio and travels across the country to find him. The Notebook: Ryan Gosling is nuts and Rachel McAdams justifies cheating on cute James Marsden cuz truelove, you know. Julia Roberts again My Best Friend's Wedding: she's an evil selfish bitch, and again in Runaway Bride, where she agrees to marry nearly countless (stupid) men and leave them all at the altar, then at her own wedding rehearsal, macks on some other guy right in front of her latest betrothed, THEN decides to marry the stupid new guy on the same day, same venue, same dress as the guy she's just cheated on, and then leaves new guy at the altar (who saw that coming, amirte?), and all because she's just...insecure or something stupid. And yeah, everyone in Family Stone.

I hate this genre.

Edited February 15, 2019 by luna1122

[Spartan Girl]

22 hours ago, luna1122 said:

Julia Roberts again My Best Friend's Wedding: she's an evil selfish bitch.

Don't forget Michael, who at no point admits that it wouldn't be the end of the world to work for Kimmy's dad for just a little while so that Kimmy could finish college.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Spartan Girl

[andromeda331]

On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 10:55 AM, luna1122 said:

 Runaway Bride, where she agrees to marry nearly countless (stupid) men and leave them all at the altar, then at her own wedding rehearsal, macks on some other guy right in front of her latest betrothed, THEN decides to marry the stupid new guy on the same day, same venue, same dress as the guy she's just cheated on, and then leaves new guy at the altar (who saw that coming, amirte?), and all because she's just...insecure or something stupid. And yeah, everyone in Family Stone.

I hate this genre.

I've gotten to that point too. I really love romantic comedies but it seems like its almost impossible for one or both not to be horrible, in a relationship and cheating on that person, the woman ends up giving up a great job or something to be with the guy or something else weird. Sleepless in Seattle, she falls in love with someone she never met just by his voice and then stalks him. Yeah, that's romantic. You summed up Runaway Bride so well, why men keep getting engaged to her I don't know but Maggie is horrible. She runs away on their wedding day embarrassing and humiliating her grooms. During Ike's interviews with each groom it turns out Maggie was basically lying to them about everything during their entire relationship. Lied about how she liked her food, lied about the tatoo, and still doesn't think she did anything wrong or hurt anyone. She actually seems surprised to find out she did.  I know we're suppose to think Bob's an idiot which he is. But she goes along with everything, how is he suppose to know she's not really interested in hiking on their honeymoon when she doesn't tell him? Then there's her reaction after she makes out with another guy at their rehearsal about it being progress since it was before the wedding day. But yeah, its just because she's insecure. I don't think so. 

Edited February 17, 2019 by andromeda331

[tennisgurl]

Runaway Bride is just such a weird movie, in that both of the main characters are totally awful, but they dont have much of an arc to become better people, and the movie only seems partially aware of how awful they actually are. Ike is a shoddy journalist and a sexist tool, and Maggie is just one of the worst romantic comedy protagonists you'll ever find. Not only does she dump THREE men at the altar (why people keep getting engaged to her is a mystery) who all seem like perfectly nice guys who really loved her, but she cheated on her current fiance (and thats on Ike as well) and the dumped him too, and then dumped Ike as well! Like, if you know you dont wanna commit, dont get engaged! Or, in the words of Adam Sandler from The Wedding Singer, all of her issues could be brought to her fiances attention yesterday! In any other movie, these two would be the jerk the main character starts out with before they realize the other protagonist is the one they really want to be with, or the asshole ex that the main character has to let go of before they can move onto happiness with someone better, not the main couple!

[Spartan Girl]

As long as we are talking shitty rom com heroines, how about the ladies of  the Sex and the City movie? There's Samantha, who'd rather be a 50-year-old woman screwing every random guy she can find rather than be in a relationship with a great guy like Smith. Miranda, who whines and complains how she doesn't have time for keeping the romance in her marriage, but has ample time to have brunch with her girlfriends and help Carrie move out of her apartment -- not that it was an excuse for Steve cheating on her, but still. Charlotte...well, other than just being uptight and annoying, I can't really think of anything she did wrong.

And Carrie, that whiny materialistic neurotic narcissist. Enough said.