Hero Fails: Supposedly Heroic Characters Who Are Actually Awful

[scarynikki12]

I think that where Runaway Bride went wrong was wanting to be a romantic comedy.  The focus should have been on Maggie, her careless (if unintentional) cruelty, and working to stop being the frequently awful person she currently is and become the person she thinks she is/wants to be.  Basically, the My Best Friend's Wedding approach.  The only legitimately interesting parts of the movie were the few scenes that provide character insight.  Maggie dealing with her drunk father who puts her down, flirting with her best friend's husband and getting called on it, and even her copying her fiances' egg orders because she didn't really have a sense of self are all things that could have made for a fascinating character study if done correctly. 

There still could have been comedy, as none of that precludes humor, but a romance it shouldn't have been.

[wallflower75]

On 2/22/2019 at 10:19 AM, scarynikki12 said:

I think that where Runaway Bride went wrong was wanting to be a romantic comedy.  The focus should have been on Maggie, her careless (if unintentional) cruelty, and working to stop being the frequently awful person she currently is and become the person she thinks she is/wants to be.  Basically, the My Best Friend's Wedding approach.  The only legitimately interesting parts of the movie were the few scenes that provide character insight.  Maggie dealing with her drunk father who puts her down, flirting with her best friend's husband and getting called on it, and even her copying her fiances' egg orders because she didn't really have a sense of self are all things that could have made for a fascinating character study if done correctly. 

There still could have been comedy, as none of that precludes humor, but a romance it shouldn't have been.

Now that would be an interesting movie.  I'd go see that.

[Proclone]

On 2/22/2019 at 11:19 AM, scarynikki12 said:

I think that where Runaway Bride went wrong was wanting to be a romantic comedy.  The focus should have been on Maggie, her careless (if unintentional) cruelty, and working to stop being the frequently awful person she currently is and become the person she thinks she is/wants to be.  Basically, the My Best Friend's Wedding approach.  The only legitimately interesting parts of the movie were the few scenes that provide character insight.  Maggie dealing with her drunk father who puts her down, flirting with her best friend's husband and getting called on it, and even her copying her fiances' egg orders because she didn't really have a sense of self are all things that could have made for a fascinating character study if done correctly. 

There still could have been comedy, as none of that precludes humor, but a romance it shouldn't have been.

I think you're totally right.  A movie focusing on Maggie actually figuring out who she is would have been an interesting choice.  Especially since I don't think the whole copying what your partner likes thing is actually that uncommon.  I had a friend who every time she had a new boyfriend she would change her tastes to match his.  Suddenly she'd like music she'd never liked before, she would know everything about a sport she never watched before, or she'd suddenly be into some obscure hobby, that all coincidently coincided with what the new boyfriend liked.  It drove me crazy, as her friend, for years.  Thankfully she's outgrown thinking that you have to like everything your partner likes, but it was a real problem for a while. 

I think it would actually make for a really interesting un-romantic comedy or a dramedy about a woman finding herself.  

[andromeda331]

On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 9:19 AM, scarynikki12 said:

I think that where Runaway Bride went wrong was wanting to be a romantic comedy.  The focus should have been on Maggie, her careless (if unintentional) cruelty, and working to stop being the frequently awful person she currently is and become the person she thinks she is/wants to be.  Basically, the My Best Friend's Wedding approach.  The only legitimately interesting parts of the movie were the few scenes that provide character insight.  Maggie dealing with her drunk father who puts her down, flirting with her best friend's husband and getting called on it, and even her copying her fiances' egg orders because she didn't really have a sense of self are all things that could have made for a fascinating character study if done correctly. 

There still could have been comedy, as none of that precludes humor, but a romance it shouldn't have been.

4 hours ago, Proclone said:

I think you're totally right.  A movie focusing on Maggie actually figuring out who she is would have been an interesting choice.  Especially since I don't think the whole copying what your partner likes thing is actually that uncommon.  I had a friend who every time she had a new boyfriend she would change her tastes to match his.  Suddenly she'd like music she'd never liked before, she would know everything about a sport she never watched before, or she'd suddenly be into some obscure hobby, that all coincidently coincided with what the new boyfriend liked.  It drove me crazy, as her friend, for years.  Thankfully she's outgrown thinking that you have to like everything your partner likes, but it was a real problem for a while. 

I think it would actually make for a really interesting un-romantic comedy or a dramedy about a woman finding herself.  

Now that would be interesting to watch.

[andromeda331]

Francesca from the Bridges of Madison County. So she has an affair while her husband and kids are away. Then leaves a letter for her kids to read after her death detailing her affair. Thanks Mom! 

[Blergh]

On 3/7/2019 at 2:56 AM, andromeda331 said:

Francesca from the Bridges of Madison County. So she has an affair while her husband and kids are away. Then leaves a letter for her kids to read after her death detailing her affair. Thanks Mom! 

And the sad thing is that even by her own telling of it her Midwest farmer husband who loved her even though he never understood her ways or became crazy about her cuisine and  had rescued her from a life of postwar chaos and destitution in Italy and   had two children with her  somehow deserved her cheating on him solely because she considered him a provincial hick bore- not adulterous, abusive or neglectful re   own telling but a just a bore! 

    And she was enthralled by this subject-in-every-frame shutterbug Robert who couldn't have cared less that she was married- and likely wouldn't have done more than wined & dined her but left her to rot  forever in destitution had he met her in Italy in the last days of  WWII.  Did she imagine when she was tempted to run to his car that he'd have done more than than have his way with her some more then just drop her like an exposed roll  after a few days?  So he dedicated a book to her initial (as if she could have been the only fling he'd ever had with a name starting with the letter 'F' ) big woo! 

    I guess she considered her own kids to have been provincial hick bores for having preferred going to a state fair with their father over a weekend  who therefore deserved to have her spring the news postmortem that she hadn't actually loved their late father but that the love of life was this shutterbug.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Blergh

[andromeda331]

6 hours ago, Blergh said:

And the sad thing is that even by her own telling of it her Midwest farmer husband who loved her even though he never understood her ways or became crazy about her cuisine and  had rescued her from a life of postwar chaos and destitution in Italy and   had two children with her  somehow deserved her cheating on him solely because she considered him a provincial hick bore- not adulterous, abusive or neglectful re   own telling but a just a bore! 

    And she was enthralled by this subject-in-every-frame shutterbug Robert who couldn't have cared less that she was married- and likely wouldn't have done more than wined & dined her but left her to rot  forever in destitution had he met her in Italy in the last days of  WWII.  Did she imagine when she was tempted to run to his car that he'd have done more than than have his way with her some more then just drop her like an exposed roll  after a few days?  So he dedicated a book to her initial (as if she could have been the only fling he'd ever had with a name starting with the letter 'F' ) big woo! 

    I guess she considered her own kids to have been provincial hick bores for having preferred going to a state fair with their father over a weekend  who therefore deserved to have her spring the news postmortem that she hadn't actually loved their late father but that the love of life was this shutterbug.

That is the other thing. The husband deserved it. Why? Because he's a hick? He's a bore? So he deserved to be cheated on? Because he's not the exciting photograph who wined and dined her? Just the man who loved her, worked supported and took care of her and their kids. Who was there every day. Who cares about that right? He wasn't a bad man. He didn't beat her, he didn't abuse her in any other way. He just wasn't an exciting man like the photographer. Who she totally believes loves her and only her. Right. He certainly never had women in other towns right? So Florence choses not to go to the state fair with her family over the weekend which could have been real fun. She ends up cheating on her husband who has no real horrible flaws and thinks about running off with him leaving her husband and abandoning her kids. Then decides at the end of her life to leave letter detailing the affair in forming her kids after her death she never loved their father. But she's the hero. I don't think so.

[Blergh]

Andromeda,

   I have to admit that Miss Streep's performance as Francesca was so charming that I had a difficult time weighing her actual actions against it before drawing my conclusions. I mean, if at the end, she had written a postscript saying how she DID love their late father and the time with Robert helped re-awaken what had originally attracted her to him (besides desperation to sail for any port in the postwar storm) and that alone is why she wanted to honor that time, that would have been enough in my eyes to redeem the character. Alas, that's not what she did. 

[andromeda331]

6 hours ago, Blergh said:

Andromeda,

   I have to admit that Miss Streep's performance as Francesca was so charming that I had a difficult time weighing her actual actions against it before drawing my conclusions. I mean, if at the end, she had written a postscript saying how she DID love their late father and the time with Robert helped re-awaken what had originally attracted her to him (besides desperation to sail for any port in the postwar storm) and that alone is why she wanted to honor that time, that would have been enough in my eyes to redeem the character. Alas, that's not what she did. 

See that would have been great. Marriages do hit rough patches or after being married so long and so busy raising kids its not uncommon for them to lose steam or something. Meeting Robert who comes off exciting and interesting could have been what helped her re-awaken her feelings for her husband. She realizes she almost made a horrible mistake and/or thinks they need to work on their marriage more. Talk more, maybe go out to dinner and things together. But no that's not what she did. Meryl Streep is a great actress I loved her in a lot of movies. Just not this one. Francesca's actions are selfish while she's being painted as the "hero". She cheats on her husband while he's away but he "deserves it" for not being more exciting she thought about running off with Robert who she doesn't really know that well and could easily have other women other places and leaving her kids. Doesn't she love them? Doesn't she care about what that'll do to them? Then decides to write a letter for her kids to get after she dies telling them all about it. Yeah, that's not going to mess them up at all.

[Spartan Girl]

The humans in King Kong (the original, not the remakes where their greed and stupidity is more obvious).

Instead of just escaping from the island and being grateful to be alive, they decide to capture a giant ape so they can get rich exploring him, regardless of the risks to the public. And yet Kong is the bad guy for escaping and rampaging like any other wild animal out of their natural element would do?

[Blergh]

19 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

The humans in King Kong (the original, not the remakes where their greed and stupidity is more obvious).

Instead of just escaping from the island and being grateful to be alive, they decide to capture a giant ape so they can get rich exploring him, regardless of the risks to the public. And yet Kong is the bad guy for escaping and rampaging like any other wild animal out of their natural element would do?

I think Fay Wray would have agreed with you. She would live to 96(!) but some years before her death, she entitled her biography as On the Other Hand and said that every time she was in New York she'd say a prayer when passing the Empire State Building as a 'good friend of hers' had died there! 

Edited June 17, 2019 by Blergh
some for a few

[Spartan Girl]

The Jets in West Side Story. The movie doesn't actually frame them as "heroes", more like a "lovable" rag-tag gang...either way, the fact is, they're a bunch of racist bullies. The Sharks weren't exactly saints, but everything they did was defending themselves from them. The war council scene revealed that the whole feud started because the Jets attacked Bernardo when he first moved here. And when Bernardo points this out, Riff's very nasty response is "Who asked you to move here?" Ugh.

Watching the film today, it's very hard to like any of the Jets. All I could think was these were exactly the kind of bigots that were marching in Charlottesville.

[Morrigan2575]

3 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

The Jets in West Side Story. The movie doesn't actually frame them as "heroes", more like a "lovable" rag-tag gang...either way, the fact is, they're a bunch of racist bullies

I always thought they were the bad guys but, I guess we were supposed to view them as heroes, or at least view both gangs on equally bad.

I always hated West Side Story, I also hate the source material (Romeo and Juliet) but, at least WSS tries to add some depth making the feud about Immigration and Racism.

I have no desire to see the remake but, I think it will hit home hard for a lot of people given the times we are in.

Edited August 11, 2019 by Morrigan2575

[Constant Viewer]

12 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

16 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

The Jets in West Side Story. The movie doesn't actually frame them as "heroes", more like a "lovable" rag-tag gang...either way, the fact is, they're a bunch of racist bullies

I always thought they were the bad guys but, I guess we were supposed to view them as heroes, or at least view both gangs on equally bad.

The Jets are racist to the Sharks, and then the  policeman calls the Jets' parents "tin horn immigrant scum". There is racism and/or classism all around in the movie.

Edited August 12, 2019 by Constant Viewer

[Spartan Girl]

12 hours ago, Constant Viewer said:

The Jets are racist to the Sharks, and then the  policeman calls the Jets' parents "tin horn immigrant scum". There is racism and/or classism all around in the movie.

True, but you'd think that knowing what it's like to be harassed because of your immigrant status would get the Jets thinking about how they're treating the Sharks and their families.  Nope.

On 8/11/2019 at 10:55 AM, Morrigan2575 said:

I always thought they were the bad guys but, I guess we were supposed to view them as heroes, or at least view both gangs on equally bad.

Perhaps, only I don't think they were equally bad.  The Jets were racist bigots.  Had they not decided to harass Bernardo and the others from day one, the whole stupid war never would have started.  

[Dandesun]

On 8/11/2019 at 7:55 AM, Morrigan2575 said:

I always hated West Side Story, I also hate the source material (Romeo and Juliet) but, at least WSS tries to add some depth making the feud about Immigration and Racism.

I mean, the whole point of the feud, whether it's Capulets and Montegues or Jets and Sharks is how absolutely fucking pointless it is and the sheer amount of bloodshed that happened because no one could pull their heads out of their asses.

The Jets were a bunch of delinquents from broken and abusive homes who carved out a little place where they felt like they belonged (even if they didn't really because the cops were always on their asses and none too pleasant about it, either.) The Sharks stuck together because they were immigrants coming into a shitty, poor section of New York and there is strength in numbers.

Being harassed doesn't automatically make you empathetic and kind to others who are being harassed. It's far more common for those who get spit on and kicked around to eagerly find someone more marginalized than they are so they can feel powerful.

Hell, the only thing the Sharks and the Jets remotely agreed on was not trusting the cops. And the cops were the ones pushing the Jets to give them ANY excuse to go after the Sharks because they were the most corrupt, racist group in the whole movie.

The whole point of the story (and I loathe Romeo and Juliet simply because too many people over the years have touted it as this Great Romantic Play when it's not that at all) is that worthless grudges and pride and overall BULLSHIT always hurts people and it's usually the people who didn't do anything to start it in the first place.

There's a reason it's called a tragedy.

[Morrigan2575]

1 hour ago, Dandesun said:

The whole point of the story (and I loathe Romeo and Juliet simply because too many people over the years have touted it as this Great Romantic Play when it's not that at all) is that worthless grudges and pride and overall BULLSHIT always hurts people and it's usually the people who didn't do anything to start it in the first place.

👍 I tried for find a clap one but, it's on my phone not the PC.  Seriously bravo to the whole bolded part about R&J couldn't agree more.  

[Mulva]

Quote

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.

I prefer the William Shatner version of "Common People".  No, I'm not kidding. 

Topic:

Captain America from the Marvel movies.  First, he gives Tony a self-righteous speech about how Tony "Isn't the guy to sacrifice himself", which Tony proves wrong in the same movie by flying a nuclear bomb into a wormhole, not expecting to return.  Then, in Civil War, he drags Scot, Wanda, Sam and Clint into to his 'let's demolish an airport while shielding Bucky' crusade, then leaves them to get arrested while he and Bucky escape.  Then in Endgame, Tony sacrifices himself to save the entire universe, while Steve abandons his friends and duties to live in the past with Peggy.  Don't get me started on Cap living the apple pie life while Bucky was being tortured.

[HunterHunted]

On 8/16/2019 at 9:50 AM, Mulva said:

Captain America from the Marvel movies.  First, he gives Tony a self-righteous speech about how Tony "Isn't the guy to sacrifice himself", which Tony proves wrong in the same movie by flying a nuclear bomb into a wormhole, not expecting to return.  Then, in Civil War, he drags Scot, Wanda, Sam and Clint into to his 'let's demolish an airport while shielding Bucky' crusade, then leaves them to get arrested while he and Bucky escape.  Then in Endgame, Tony sacrifices himself to save the entire universe, while Steve abandons his friends and duties to live in the past with Peggy.  Don't get me started on Cap living the apple pie life while Bucky was being tortured.

Civil War is kind of a mess for many reasons. One is because the audience and Steve know that Bucky has zero control over his actions and no agency. He has no more control than Rhodey does in Iron Man 2 when Vanko has control of the War Machine armor. So when they're all captured and Thunderbolt Ross, Everett Ross, and Tony are kind of blase about the rights that should be afforded to Bucky and Wanda, they essentially lose Steve forever.

Secondly, it can't be said enough that Tony never once actually adheres to the Sokovia Accords. He actually breaks it constantly by bringing Spider-Man in without ever going through any of the proper oversight for the kid.

Third, the film is lacking any real nuance. I've long maintained that Steve's "I don't need any oversight" position would have been completely invalidated had they done a better job of incorporating the stuff on TV and Netflix because both illustrated that there was a super powered arms race happening on the margins of the movies; we see a bit of it in the Ant-Man films. We see someone like Kilgrave force all manner of people to do monstrous things. At the same time, Tony is an enormous hypocrite because we know he was never going to adhere to any external limits placed on him.

While Steve constantly talks derisively about Tony's inability to sacrifice himself for others, their real issue is Tony's arrogance and ego, which isn't to say that Steve's own arrogance about being regarded as a paragon of decency doesn't get in the way too. More often than not, Tony's arrogance and ego is the architect of a lot of his own misery. All of the villains in the IM films exist because of Tony or Howard. Tony is the cause of all three villains in Age of Ultron. This includes Infinity War where he's so certain that the best way to avoid additional casualties on Earth are to let the Q ship continue to Titan. And Tony's bratty return to Earth where he decides that shit went badly because Steve split the Avengers up is more of the same. Steve's constant refrain about Tony sacrificing himself is probably better reframed as "is Tony willing to sublimate his ego and arrogance for the good of others?" The answer for the most part is no.

The reason I say this is because Tony sacrifices himself at the end of the Avengers. The sheer scope of the problem overwhelms him so totally that he ends up with PTSD for the rest of the movies. It's only in Civil War that Tony concludes that he needs to hand over control because he can't be trusted. Unfortunately, the end of Civil War serves to undermine the position that Tony needs to consult with others because so many of the world governments were broken or complicit. He still didn't trust any of these other organizations because he doesn't order Friday to contact Thunderbolt Ross and tell him what's up at the end of Civil War and beginning of Infinity War. The latter is presumably left to Bruce and Rhodey. Tony returns to Earth and refuses to continue to be an Avenger. This isn't about his willingness to sacrifice himself. This is about his ego. So when he sacrifices himself in Endgame, it's because his ego means so much less to him than Morgan, Pepper, and everyone else he loves.

On the flip side, Steve going to be with Peggy is supposed to represent that Steve finally cares enough about his own happiness that he actually wants to live. He's actually let his ego and wants move to the forefront even if it's a completely dickish thing to do. He's near death in every one of his films, but in Endgame he's in his grief group and it causes him to wonder if he's just killing time for nothing in particular.

I dislike so much of Endgame. I see what they're trying to do even if it doesn't really work.

I have to repeat this point that the Screen Junkies crew made about Tony's entrance in Avengers. So we see the Holocaust survivor stand up to Loki. Captain America makes a similar point and begins fighting with Loki. Then Tony arrives on the scene to Shoot to Thrill. That's not Shoot to Thrill playing on the soundtrack. Tony has overridden the speakers on the Quinjet to play ACDC aloud. What an arrogant jackass.

Edited August 18, 2019 by HunterHunted

[proserpina65]

On ‎08‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 12:20 PM, Spartan Girl said:

True, but you'd think that knowing what it's like to be harassed because of your immigrant status would get the Jets thinking about how they're treating the Sharks and their families.  Nope.

I think that's a reflection of how each immigrant group tends to treat the next wave of immigrants badly.  For example, the Irish were treated like dirt when they got here, but when the Italians started coming into the country, the Irish treated them just as badly, if not worse.

On ‎08‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 2:02 PM, Dandesun said:

The whole point of the story (and I loathe Romeo and Juliet simply because too many people over the years have touted it as this Great Romantic Play when it's not that at all) is that worthless grudges and pride and overall BULLSHIT always hurts people and it's usually the people who didn't do anything to start it in the first place.

I don't loathe R&J, but I do hate how people treat it like some great romance and miss the point entirely.

[Spartan Girl]

Re Steve Rogers/Captain America:

I loved Steve and understood all his viewpoints and decisions no matter how flawed and hypocritical they could be. But him cheating his way to a happy ending by going back in time and reinserting himself in Peggy's life when he knew damn well she had moved on, become her own woman, and had a long happy life with another man ...that crossed the line. It was a selfish, dick move, completely unworthy of the man who was supposedly worthy to catch Thor's hammer.

Do not start with that "he was always supposed to be her husband" time travel paradox that the writers are trying to sell us. That's horseshit and we all know it.

How was that ending supposed to be better that Steve making a quick stop to share a dance and a proper farewell with Peggy before returning to his own time? Or simply hanging up the shield and going off to find happiness for himself in the present? Hell, I would have taken him getting killed by Thanos and having that stupid dance with Peggy in the afterlife. ANY of those endings would have been true to his character.

But not this. This is not the Steve I knew and loved. This was not my Captain America. I don't know this Steve, and I don't WANT to know him.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Spartan Girl

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

Re Steve Rogers/Captain America:

I loved Steve and understood all his viewpoints and decisions no matter how flawed and hypocritical they could be. But him cheating his way to a happy ending by going back in time and reinserting himself in Peggy's life when he knew damn well she had moved on, become her own woman, and had a long happy life with another man ...that crossed the line. It was a selfish, dick move, completely unworthy of the man who was supposedly worthy to catch Thor's hammer.

Do not start with that "he was always supposed to be her husband" time travel paradox that the writers are trying to sell us. That's horseshit and we all know it.

How was that ending supposed to be better that Steve making a quick stop to share a dance and a proper farewell with Peggy before returning to his own time? Or simply hanging up the shield and going off to find happiness for himself in the present? Hell, I would have taken him getting killed by Thanos and having that stupid dance with Peggy in the afterlife. ANY of those endings would have been true to his character.

But not this. This is not the Steve I knew and loved. This was not my Captain America. I don't know this Steve, and I don't WANT to know him.

I agree with you. The thing that is working for me is to consider Steve ending to just be crappy writing that is not reflective of the character. To me Steve Rogers would never make that decision in that way so HE didn’t. I’m wouldn’t say that I am denial but I do try and separate bad plot contrivances from the characters I am attached to. 

[Spartan Girl]

Benjamin Braddock in The Graduate is the movie equivalent of Holden Caulfield: a character that the story (tries to) make us believe is the hero when all he does is act like an asshole.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 8/20/2019 at 10:24 PM, Spartan Girl said:

But not this. This is not the Steve I knew and loved. This was not my Captain America. I don't know this Steve, and I don't WANT to know him.

Except the fact is, Steve was a hypocrite from the instant he told Tony that someone trying to win a war preemptively means that innocent people die. Fine, Bucky's not culpable because he had no free will, couldn't have stopped himself no matter how much he wanted to, but Cap using Tony's carelessness and mistakes as a club to beat him with because he just cares so much about collateral damage is the height of idiocy when he was both willing to infiltrate Lagos without giving a heads up, resulting in civilian casualties, and conceal the truth about the murder of the Starks. That it takes a guy like Helmut Zemo, a killer in his own right, to finally knock Steve off of his pedestal is both infuriating and completely hilarious. The only really blameless person involved was Barnes, but it always strikes me as funny when Zemo's talking to Steve near the end of Civil War: "Now that you're standing here, I see that there's a bit of green in the blue of your eyes. How nice to find a flaw." Son, you have no idea.

[Spartan Girl]

1 hour ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Except the fact is, Steve was a hypocrite from the instant he told Tony that someone trying to win a war preemptively means that innocent people die. Fine, Bucky's not culpable because he had no free will, couldn't have stopped himself no matter how much he wanted to, but Cap using Tony's carelessness and mistakes as a club to beat him with because he just cares so much about collateral damage is the height of idiocy when he was both willing to infiltrate Lagos without giving a heads up, resulting in civilian casualties, and conceal the truth about the murder of the Starks. That it takes a guy like Helmut Zemo, a killer in his own right, to finally knock Steve off of his pedestal is both infuriating and completely hilarious. The only really blameless person involved was Barnes, but it always strikes me as funny when Zemo's talking to Steve near the end of Civil War: "Now that you're standing here, I see that there's a bit of green in the blue of your eyes. How nice to find a flaw." Son, you have no idea.

Like I said, I was aware of Steve's flaws and he did plenty of things I disagreed with. But never -- never -- did I think he'd be the kind of person that would change Peggy's future for his own benefit. 

What kills me is up until then, the whole Peggy thing broke the whole "my girlfriend moved on because she thought I was dead" trope. He'd been sad that he missed his chance, but he handled it beautifully, able to speak with elderly Peggy as an old friend, being genuinely happy for her that she had a family and being proud of her accomplishments. Which makes Endgame even more appalling.

[Dandesun]

On 8/25/2019 at 2:47 PM, Spartan Girl said:

Benjamin Braddock in The Graduate is the movie equivalent of Holden Caulfield: a character that the story (tries to) make us believe is the hero when all he does is act like an asshole.

The thing is... I don't feel like the movie is all that sympathetic to Ben throughout. Like, at the beginning... sure, as it goes on? Not so much? And that last scene as the euphoria of running out of the wedding wear off? That scene is NOT triumphant.

[Spartan Girl]

1 hour ago, Dandesun said:

The thing is... I don't feel like the movie is all that sympathetic to Ben throughout. Like, at the beginning... sure, as it goes on? Not so much? And that last scene as the euphoria of running out of the wedding wear off? That scene is NOT triumphant.

Excellent point. But since Holden is on the Book Horrible Heroes thread, I feel that Ben should be mentioned on this one too.

[blugirlami21]

Hmmm. I don't enjoy Civil War because everyone acts ooc. Neither Tony or Steve would do or say the things they did in that movie based on what we know about them from other films. The whole point of that movie is so we could have that big cinematic clash at the end and it shows. The buildup is sloppy and Tony being incapable of coherent thought surrounding what Bucky did while he was brainwashed is poorly executed. 

And Steve, Spartan Girl, you nailed every issue I have with Steve's "happy ending" in Endgame. Steve would never choose to abandon Bucky, the avengers, and his responsibility to go play house with Peggy knowing full well that she lived a happy, full life without him. Knowing that Bucky was being tortured by Hydra, knowing that Shield was really Hydra.  

They ruined his character, I would have preferred that he had died in the fight than what we were given. I too have to pretend that the last ten minutes of Endgame were a fever dream. Thank God for fanfiction.

[Spartan Girl]

Robert Thorn in The Omen. I love Gregory Peck but this was NOT one of his best characters, let alone "heroes". I mean, the guy thinks nothing -- NOTHING -- of replacing their stillborn baby with another one so his wife will never find out she "miscarried". Wouldn't the better, more honest thing to do would be to tell her the truth, then repeat the priest's speech about how there was another baby without parents that needed a family, etc?! Of course adopting Damien was a huge mistake, but still...

Then there was the whole not wanting her to have an abortion when she had maternal misgivings about Damien and made it clear she didn't want any more kids. Never mind her feelings and mental health, it was just "we need this baby." Ugh.

[methodwriter85]

Can I just say that I didn't enjoy Don't Breathe because I thought Rocky was an awful human being? My god, Jane Levy had one good role in Suburgatory and she's never been good in anything else.

Edited October 23, 2019 by methodwriter85

[Sweet Tee]

That's the same reason I didn't like Don't Breathe.  There was no one to root for.  Rocky and her friends were breaking and entering with the intention of stealing money from a blind man.  And, of course, Stephen Lang turned out to be a murderous psycho.  So, it was well made, but I wasn't invested in the outcome.

[Wiendish Fitch]

Apologies to all the Disney fans I'm about to piss off:

Fucking Tinker Bell.

I hate this little sociopath, and I hate how she's framed as this spunky, lovable heroine, despite the fact that she tried to have Wendy killed. Dammit all, she couldn't even do it herself, she tricked one of the Lost Boys into doing her dirty work! 

Spoiler

She and Wendy are reunited in Return to Neverland, and I wish the exchange had gone thusly:

Wendy: Oh, Tink! It's been so long! Say, do you remember that time you tried to have me killed?

*Proceeds to squash Tink in her fist, drops her corpse to the ground.*

Wendy: Clap for that, bitch.

[Spartan Girl]

1 hour ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Apologies to all the Disney fans I'm about to piss off:

Fucking Tinker Bell.

I hate this little sociopath, and I hate how she's framed as this spunky, lovable heroine, despite the fact that she tried to have Wendy killed. Dammit all, she couldn't even do it herself, she tricked one of the Lost Boys into doing her dirty work! 

  Hide contents

She and Wendy are reunited in Return to Neverland, and I wish the exchange had gone thusly:

Wendy: Oh, Tink! It's been so long! Say, do you remember that time you tried to have me killed?

*Proceeds to squash Tink in her fist, drops her corpse to the ground.*

Wendy: Clap for that, bitch.

That would have been fucking awesome.  And don't worry, I'm a Disney fan and I too think Tinker Bell was a bitch.  Peter certainly brought out the worst in a lot of female characters, didn't he, LOL.

[Danny Franks]

4 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

That would have been fucking awesome.  And don't worry, I'm a Disney fan and I too think Tinker Bell was a bitch.  Peter certainly brought out the worst in a lot of female characters, didn't he, LOL.

Peter himself was a bit of a dick, although I guess he was what might be expected for an immature boy from the 1940s. I don't think I ever really liked him, even when I was a kid. And watching the movie again as an adult, he was really quite annoying.

[Spartan Girl]

I hate to say this, since I know he's one of the more popular characters from Scream, but upon rewatching the movies, Randy really did have several Nice Guy tendencies. He admitted out loud he was hoping Billy was the killer so he could have a shot with Sid. Ditto with Derek in the sequel.

Plus, at the end of the day, he's still Jamie Kennedy.

[bmoore4026]

On 8/16/2019 at 9:50 AM, Mulva said:

Topic:

Captain America from the Marvel movies. 

I asked my mother what her thoughts on Captain America were after watching Civil War with me, along with some of the other Avengers movies, especially the first one.  She felt he was quite arrogant.  "What makes him so high and mighty?  Him busting in there like he's already been appointed leader." was more or less what she said.  She doesn't remember Civil War that well, but let's just say she was firmly on Iron Man's side.

Edited October 23, 2019 by bmoore4026

[Kel Varnsen]

On 8/17/2019 at 8:05 PM, HunterHunted said:

Civil War is kind of a mess for many reasons. One is because the audience and Steve know that Bucky has zero control over his actions and no agency.

Civil War is a mess although I am not sure I would say that mind controlled Bucky had zero control of his actions. Steve did manage to at least partially get through to him in Winter Soldier so I imagine that would complicate things for Tony.

[Dandesun]

I always wanted Tony to see what Hydra actually did to Bucky. Steve got through to Bucky because he's STEVE and mattered to Bucky more than anyone. (And vice versa.) But when Bucky said that he knew 'the man on the bridge' they wiped him again and it involved shocks and a lot of screaming. The next time we see Bucky, he's back in full on Winter Soldier mode and doesn't know Steve at all until he's almost beat him to death.

When the Winter Soldier was sent to kill the Starks that was still after 50 years of brutality and mind-control. Ever see Agent Carter? Howard Stark didn't even last 48 hours before succumbing to Hydra's mind control. I'd actually say it was less than that. It was that strong in so little time it's not a stretch to say that fifty years would make it so Bucky didn't even flinch when he saw Howard and Howard goes 'Sargeant Barnes?'

Civil War is a big fat mess. Ever see Legal Eagle cover Civil War? That one's really interesting because it does break down the actual real life legal ramifications of the Sokovia Accords. Spoiler Alert: General Fuckstick Ross and Tony haven't got a leg to stand on.

[Kel Varnsen]

4 hours ago, Dandesun said:

I always wanted Tony to see what Hydra actually did to Bucky. Steve got through to Bucky because he's STEVE and mattered to Bucky more than anyone. (And vice versa.) But when Bucky said that he knew 'the man on the bridge' they wiped him again and it involved shocks and a lot of screaming. The next time we see Bucky, he's back in full on Winter Soldier mode and doesn't know Steve at all until he's almost beat him to death.

In Tony's defence he didn't know any of that because no one told him. All he knew pre-Civil War was that Bucky was back and was under mind control, but had enough freedom where he could stop himself from killing Steve. I doubt anyone mentioned the severity of the brainwashing to him, and he only found out that Bucky killed his parents after Bucky had tried to kill him.

[Spartan Girl]

I understand Bucky was brainwashed, but I still can't blame Tony for how he reacted. And even Bucky didn't let himself off the hook for what he did, unlike Steve.

[HunterHunted]

Winter Soldier is hilarious because at least one other person (Natasha) and up to three other people (Natasha, Nick Fury, and Maria Hill) who had a preexisting relationship with Tony knew a great deal of what was up with Bucky and never bothered telling Tony anything. Nick fakes his death during Winter Soldier, but still shows up in the barn during Age of Ultron and says nothing. Maria Hill goes to work for Stark Industries and says nothing. And Natasha just straight up lives on Tony's dime for years and says nothing nor did she seem to think she should try to encourage Steve to talk to Tony about Bucky. Did all 3 of them start "nothing is going on" whistling when anything having to do with the winter soldier and the fall of SHIELD came up?

In my head after Siberia, Steve sarcastically thanks his "friend" Natasha for all her help during this mess and Tony walks into Stark Industries and fires Maria Hill and tells her to let Fury know that Fury is dead to him and for real this time.

[Raja]

10 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

Winter Soldier is hilarious because at least one other person (Natasha) and up to three other people (Natasha, Nick Fury, and Maria Hill) who had a preexisting relationship with Tony knew a great deal of what was up with Bucky and never bothered telling Tony anything. Nick fakes his death during Winter Soldier, but still shows up in the barn during Age of Ultron and says nothing. Maria Hill goes to work for Stark Industries and says nothing. And Natasha just straight up lives on Tony's dime for years and says nothing nor did she seem to think she should try to encourage Steve to talk to Tony about Bucky. Did all 3 of them start "nothing is going on" whistling when anything having to do with the winter soldier and the fall of SHIELD came up?

In my head after Siberia, Steve sarcastically thanks his "friend" Natasha for all her help during this mess and Tony walks into Stark Industries and fires Maria Hill and tells her to let Fury know that Fury is dead to him and for real this time.

Well all three of the SHIELD Agents were spies  and Tony Stark didn't expect anymore from them. Spies lie, so be it. Where as Captain Rogers wore a uniform, the American flag and only an agent in the sense that his uniformed  army unit was attached to a spy agency

[Dandesun]

19 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

In Tony's defence he didn't know any of that because no one told him. All he knew pre-Civil War was that Bucky was back and was under mind control, but had enough freedom where he could stop himself from killing Steve. I doubt anyone mentioned the severity of the brainwashing to him, and he only found out that Bucky killed his parents after Bucky had tried to kill him.

I know Tony didn't know. That's why I always wanted him to see what Hydra did to Bucky.

Frankly, expecting three severely traumatized people (Bucky, Steve and Tony) to be able to communicate effectively about the sources and results of said trauma in the middle of a highly tense and emotionally compromising situation is ridiculous.

That T'Challa was able to pull himself out of the revenge chase was more due to discovering who was actually responsible for killing his father (not Bucky) rather than rising above the situation.

[GHScorpiosRule]

No one will ever convince me that Steve was "actually awful" and not a hero. Nopenopenopenopenopenope.

And the last five minutes of Endgame never happened. nopenopenopenopenope.

[bmoore4026]

11 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

No one will ever convince me that Steve was "actually awful" and not a hero. Nopenopenopenopenopenope.

And the last five minutes of Endgame never happened. nopenopenopenopenope.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I love Steve.  I wish he and Bucky could stay together.  But he can be a bit thickheaded.

I'm watching Night of the Living Dead (annual Halloween tradition), and I can't help but think that Duane Jones' character got everybody killed.  He was so stubborn.  Admittedly, that one guy was a jerk to him but he was right - they would have been safer in the basement.  But ego got in the way and everybody died.  Maybe that was the point?  Hubris can we the greatest enemy in the face of disaster?

[Ubiquitous]

On ‎10‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 12:39 AM, bmoore4026 said:

I'm watching Night of the Living Dead (annual Halloween tradition), and I can't help but think that Duane Jones' character got everybody killed.  He was so stubborn.  Admittedly, that one guy was a jerk to him but he was right - they would have been safer in the basement.  But ego got in the way and everybody died.  Maybe that was the point?  Hubris can we the greatest enemy in the face of disaster?

If memory serves, the point was that everything they should have done was wrong: listening to the authorities, risking their lives to help stupid people, not going in the basement, etc.

[Spartan Girl]

Not long ago on the Villains thread we all called out Janis on Mean Girls for not being the misfit heroine she claimed to be. The Take must be fucking psychic:

 

[andromeda331]

31 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

Not long ago on the Villains thread we all called out Janis on Mean Girls for not being the misfit heroine she claimed to be. The Take must be fucking psychic:

 

I just watched that! It was really good. 

[VCRTracking]

On 8/12/2019 at 12:54 PM, Morrigan2575 said:

👍 I tried for find a clap one but, it's on my phone not the PC.  Seriously bravo to the whole bolded part about R&J couldn't agree more.  

I think we're all meant to feel likMercutio. A pox on both houses.

Marty in Cabin I'm the Woods. Selfish ass.

Edited February 29, 2020 by VCRTracking

[Spartan Girl]

I mentioned Sue Snell in Carrie in the book version of this thread, and I feel it's only right to add her here too. Because her actions sum up to: "Sorry for picking on you for all these years, here's my boyfriend to take you to the prom, we good?" It was more about clearing her own conscience with such a grand gesture. If she really felt bad for what she did, she could have easily reached out to Carrie herself, try to befriend her and stand up for her, which would have been much more meaningful.

To be fair, getting Tommy to take her to the prom would have been a good thing had it not been for Chris dumping pig blood on her. But what made that night so meaningful for Carrie up to that point wasn't so much the prom itself, it was that Tommy and his friends were connecting with her, getting to know her, making her feel like she wasn't alone. That was what she needed all along (as well as to get the hell away from her mother), and it should not have taken showing up to prom in a pretty dress with the popular guy for all her classmates to go, "Hey this girl is a human after all."