> That's one thing I really look for when I'm looking for a good film or TV
> series - ambiguity in who the good guys and the bad guys are.

One of the things I look for is WHY is this guy evil?

Let's face it, how many actual humans set out to do something "because 
it's evil"? Mostly people set out to do things because they think it's 
necessary, or because they don't see what trouble it will cause, or 
whatever. Most people don't wake up and think "what's the most evil 
thing I could possibly do today?"

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 04:08:53 -0500, Warp wrote:

> In comics the bad guy basically never dies. It makes sense: The heros
> are not murderers.

[Spoiler warning:  If you haven't watched Man of Steel and don't want to 
know how it ends, don't read any further]

That was one of the things about Man of Steel that was disappointing.  
Overall, I thought it was a good reimagining of the Superman / General Zod 
story, but Superman basically was completely unaware of the scale of his 
destruction both in Smallville and in Metropolis.

Which I can accept to a point - he was still figuring out who he was and 
what he stood for in that version of the story.  But he didn't find a way 
to let Zod live.

As an American hero, Superman is supposed to represent the so-called 
"American Exceptionalism" - but in this particular telling, the bar for 
such exceptionalism has been lowered, rather than holding it to a high 
standard with the character.  So while I actually really liked the way 
the story was told, with a focus on Clark's difficulties as a child, and 
perhaps the violence of his defense of the planet being the product of 30
+ years of bottled-up-rage that he could never let out because if he did, 
bad things would happen to his target - that was one part that was 
disappointing.

But at the same time, it introduces some of that moral ambiguity, too, 
which I like.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:35:31 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>> That's one thing I really look for when I'm looking for a good film or
>> TV series - ambiguity in who the good guys and the bad guys are.
> 
> One of the things I look for is WHY is this guy evil?

That's a good thing to look for.  It's also interesting to listen to 
actors talk about playing the "bad guy" - most of the time, what they're 
looking for before they inhabit the role is the character's motivation - 
and usually it's because they think it's the right thing to do.

> Let's face it, how many actual humans set out to do something "because
> it's evil"? Mostly people set out to do things because they think it's
> necessary, or because they don't see what trouble it will cause, or
> whatever. Most people don't wake up and think "what's the most evil
> thing I could possibly do today?"

That's one of the complexities of Zod in Man of Steel that was 
interesting - he really thought he was doing the right thing, in order to 
save the people of Krypton.  That he was going to do it by wiping out 
humanity was incidental to him, because it was about the survival of 
*his* race.

That does make for an interesting story.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 22/12/2013 7:31 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 08:54:25 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Generally speaking, I agree but it is tiring that the good guys always
>> win and the black hats always lose.
>
> That's one thing I really look for when I'm looking for a good film or TV
> series - ambiguity in who the good guys and the bad guys are.
>

I've given up going to the movies and watching them on TV.
I've just watched a play about Kenneth Williams. A very troubled man, 
indeed. There were no goodies nor baddies and it was a difficult watch. 
Seeing how hard and sad life was for one of my childhood heroes.

> I really liked the remade Battlestar Galactica for this reason - I mean,
> the clarity in the start between the "good" and "bad" guys was clear, but
> as the programme progressed, you saw that it wasn't really as clear cut.
>
> Breaking Bad was similar, in that there really weren't /any/ good guys at
> all - all the characters were flawed to some extent.
>

It got good reviews but I knew that he would die in the end. Even in 
American book, so my wife tells me. The character that does something 
bad has got to pay for it.


> But writers and producers seem less willing these days to write stories
> that have such ambiguity in them.  Well, let's face it - these days,
> we're lucky to get anything that's actually a well thought-out story.
> It's more likely to be some "reality TV" garbage that's cheap to produce
> and makes shedloads of money from advertisers.

That seems to be the way of most things now-a-days.


> Heck, the "Sci Fi"
> channel (now sickeningly called "SyFy") is mostly *Wrestling* shows.  WTF?
>
Noy you know how we feel when we hear SF called Sci Fi. And while I am 
on the subject. It is MATHS not math. ;-)



-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 23/12/2013 00:23, Stephen wrote:
>>
> Noy you know how we feel when we hear SF called Sci Fi. And while I am
> on the subject. It is MATHS not math. ;-)
>

Incidentally, are you going to stop him wearing suspenders and a vest? :-D

John

Post a reply to this message

Spoiler alerts below for Breaking Bad (read no further if you don't know 
how it ends).

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 00:23:27 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> I've given up going to the movies and watching them on TV.
> I've just watched a play about Kenneth Williams. A very troubled man,
> indeed. There were no goodies nor baddies and it was a difficult watch.
> Seeing how hard and sad life was for one of my childhood heroes.

Theater itself probably does have more complexity in its storytelling, 
that's for sure.

>> I really liked the remade Battlestar Galactica for this reason - I
>> mean, the clarity in the start between the "good" and "bad" guys was
>> clear, but as the programme progressed, you saw that it wasn't really
>> as clear cut.
>>
>> Breaking Bad was similar, in that there really weren't /any/ good guys
>> at all - all the characters were flawed to some extent.
>>
>>
> It got good reviews but I knew that he would die in the end. Even in
> American book, so my wife tells me. The character that does something
> bad has got to pay for it.

Watching the story, I wasn't so sure - Walt didn't really *pay* for his 
crimes, in the end, his death was a bit more of an easy way out.  It 
wasn't a "fair" punishment, and it wasn't clear how they were going to 
wrap it up.  Having it be an accident as a result of his own hubris had 
kind of a poetic justice to it, but it was far from the punishment he 
deserved.

>> But writers and producers seem less willing these days to write stories
>> that have such ambiguity in them.  Well, let's face it - these days,
>> we're lucky to get anything that's actually a well thought-out story.
>> It's more likely to be some "reality TV" garbage that's cheap to
>> produce and makes shedloads of money from advertisers.
> 
> That seems to be the way of most things now-a-days.

Yeah, sadly.

>> Heck, the "Sci Fi"
>> channel (now sickeningly called "SyFy") is mostly *Wrestling* shows. 
>> WTF?
>>
> Noy you know how we feel when we hear SF called Sci Fi. And while I am
> on the subject. It is MATHS not math. ;-)

Depends on whether we're talking about the subject as a singular object 
or not. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 00:33:36 +0000, Doctor John wrote:

> On 23/12/2013 00:23, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>> Noy you know how we feel when we hear SF called Sci Fi. And while I am
>> on the subject. It is MATHS not math. ;-)
>>
>>
> Incidentally, are you going to stop him wearing suspenders and a vest?
> :-D
> 
> John

LOL

Post a reply to this message

On 23/12/2013 12:33 AM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 23/12/2013 00:23, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>> Noy you know how we feel when we hear SF called Sci Fi. And while I am
>> on the subject. It is MATHS not math. ;-)
>>
>
> Incidentally, are you going to stop him wearing suspenders and a vest? :-D
>
> John
>

I'm not. I don't want to think of Jim wearing his waistcoat with his 
kecks around his ankles. Let him keep his dignity and his braces. :-D

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 23/12/2013 3:10 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Spoiler alerts below for Breaking Bad (read no further if you don't know
> how it ends).
>

Or if you live in a media vacuum. :-)

> On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 00:23:27 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> I've given up going to the movies and watching them on TV.
>> I've just watched a play about Kenneth Williams. A very troubled man,
>> indeed. There were no goodies nor baddies and it was a difficult watch.
>> Seeing how hard and sad life was for one of my childhood heroes.
>
> Theater itself probably does have more complexity in its storytelling,
> that's for sure.
>

Sorry, it was a TV play. Every now and again a drama budget is spent on 
drama.


>> It got good reviews but I knew that he would die in the end. Even in
>> American book, so my wife tells me. The character that does something
>> bad has got to pay for it.
>
> Watching the story, I wasn't so sure - Walt didn't really *pay* for his
> crimes, in the end, his death was a bit more of an easy way out.  It
> wasn't a "fair" punishment, and it wasn't clear how they were going to
> wrap it up.  Having it be an accident as a result of his own hubris had
> kind of a poetic justice to it, but it was far from the punishment he
> deserved.
>

(How to put this without sounding overly critical, or personal?)
It is that attitude, the one that expects people (exclude politicians) 
to pay for their wrong doings, to the N th. degree, that disturbs me.
It is reflected in American literature and films. Which is where I came in.


>>>
>> Noy you know how we feel when we hear SF called Sci Fi. And while I am
>> on the subject. It is MATHS not math. ;-)
>
> Depends on whether we're talking about the subject as a singular object
> or not. ;)
>

It is a collective noun.
The different branches are singular.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 22.12.2013 20:35, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>> That's one thing I really look for when I'm looking for a good film or TV
>> series - ambiguity in who the good guys and the bad guys are.
> 
> One of the things I look for is WHY is this guy evil?

Don't ask that, because we all know but fear the answer.

You see it in the daily political discussions. Everywhere they shout: We
must fight against "terrorism"!

But nearly no-one ask: Why do young men get so despaired in their lives,
that they bomb themselves away? Why are they so disappointed about our
world, about their future in this world that they hope for salvation in
a promised heaven?

It would be quite easy to stop all of this "terrorism" in a few years:

1) stop to support the preacers of hate with money and political patronage.

2) invest in education in the so-called "3rd world" countries.


But no-one really wants it. Educated people in these countries would be
a threat for our prosperity. But dumb people who shoot each other are a
solid customer for our arms and ammunition for decades.

Moreover: The vivid fear of abstract "terrorism" is a welcome reason to
degrade freedom, human rights and democracy in Western countries.

Hollywood does support this trend by its movies, so the people are
trained to accept "causeless evils" and not to ask "Why are they evil?"

Actually, it works. :-(


			Lars R.

Post a reply to this message