Hancock: The Discussion Thread (Major Spoilers)

Cafe Society
21

[QUOTE=Omniscient]
That doesn’t add up. Mary and Hancock were a couple for centuries and centuries until Mary finally decided she’d had enough of the near death experiences. She said that all of his scars happened during moments when “they” tried to use her to get to him. All this pretty clearly illustrates that while they become mortal in the sense that they can be wounded and killed, the still do not age and would not die of old age unless there’s a serious caveat that was left out of the story. .
[/QUOTE]

Right, but remember their powers return once they are out of contact from each other. What we don’t know is how far away they have to be for their powers to turn on again.

If he went to work, halfway across town for 10 hours, would that be enough to kick in some of his powers? To retard his aging? Note even in direct contact with her, he was still damn powerful.

At dinner he told them, it took an hour for his skull fracture to heal, and he was already invulerable when he reached the hospital…how far could the ride be from the street where he was attacked to the the hospital? Mary was separated from him during this period of time.

So I think it’s more of a regeneration power, than straight immorality and is constantly kicking on when they are not together.

Edit, I misread your post…nevermind.

22

I took it to be that they separated and came back together several times. The one time was in 1850 (I think), then he got hurt. 1920’s Miami, then he got hurt.

My idea on the powers thing is that, to each other, they’re like kryptonite. Ot rlike batteries that wear down when they’re together.

I really enjoyed the movie. It went somewhere most superhero movies don’t go. And if there was no major villian - that’s okay.In most people’s lives there isn’t a major villian. There’s just picking yourself up and doing the best you can every day. Hancock may be super, but his life decidely isn’t.

StG

23

The mysterious “them” that ends up nearly killing the pair over the centuries when they are together and most vulnerable is just humanity and its unchanging mentality of revenge and the genetic or speciated disposition that humans have to kill or destroy that which is different. She is referring to humans in the way that a demigod would… the division is much more magnified when you are the only two superbeings in all of the world, Us and Them. The “Them” are all of the timeless villains like Red that seek revenge and the mob mentality that is best demonstrated in the train scene and Hancock’s eventual jailing.

I think it’s a good movie and perhaps brilliant in its symbolism and plot simplicity. It’s a realistic exposition- the original negative before being developed, so to speak, of a realistic superhero in the real world. No comicbook presuppositions or caveats. The eternal struggle of good and evil with a certain amount of ambivalence.

Mary (Charlize) said that she didn’t know what they were, only that throughout history humanity has called them different things- Gods, Angels, and now, Superheroes.

I wonder what the symbolism of the twice recurring eagle was in regards to Hancock? The eagle is associated with Jupiter/Zeus and Odin in mythology. Anyone have any speculations?

24

I wondered about the eagle, too. You see an eagle on the front of his ratty ol’ knit cap (looked like a sports logo, but I didn’t recognize it), on the back of the superhero uniform he initially refused to wear, and again when he’s swooping down the side of the skyscraper in NYC. Also, if you look closely on the movie poster (as I did last night), you can see an eagle reflected in Hancock’s left sunglasses lens.

Seeing that as Greek or Norse myth symbolism is reasonable. I interpreted the eagle in the concluding NYC scene as a sidekick/familiar for Hancock - as well as a big damned surprise for any pigeons or peregrine falcons there!

25

[QUOTE=devilsknew]
The mysterious “them” that ends up nearly killing the pair over the centuries when they are together and most vulnerable is just humanity and its unchanging mentality of revenge and the genetic or speciated disposition that humans have to kill or destroy that which is different. She is referring to humans in the way that a demigod would… the division is much more magnified when you are the only two superbeings in all of the world, Us and Them. The “Them” are all of the timeless villains like Red that seek revenge and the mob mentality that is best demonstrated in the train scene and Hancock’s eventual jailing.
[/QUOTE]

Except that hancock is really a huge screwup and deserved a lot more than his pitiful jail time.

26

The eagle is also a symbol for America, as is Hancock’s name, and I think an argument could be made for Hancock having some allegorical parallels with the USA. He’s the only “superpower” in the world (as far as he knows). He more or less tries to use his powers for good but he causes a lot of collateral damage in doing so, is often insolent or arrogant, is thin-skinned about criticism, is often reckless in how he pursues goals, is irresponsible and unaccountable, has “internal conflict” and identity issues, etc. Yet, at bottom he is basically good and wants to do good and has potential that no one else has.

Maybe I’m over reading it, though. It’s just speculation.

27

Overall, I give it an incomplete, just like I did with Jumper.

The details, I think, would have given the move way more depth. Mary showed little if no turmoil for Hancock, particularly for one who is biologically drawn to him. She barely showed that. Why does Mary like Ray? It seemed more convenient that she needed a place to hide and have a normal life than any sort of devotion. Given the undertones of the movie, why does Hancock even care what happens to the human race? Why doesn’t Mary also play superhero? Did Mary even say that Hancock has a penchant for heroics? Why doesn’t Ray turn on Hancock or his wife when he finds out that they used to be lovers? Is he really that well-adjusted? Sure, it’s possible, but not very entertaining.

All the real tension in this movie is either a one-off with a quip (like the handless guy in prison, telling people to take back their power (and how are you supposed to do that against a guy who puts heads into asses?)), or straight vanilla with only a minor semblance that any character has any conflict. Overall, the characters just sort of did things, reacting to their environment.

I could go on, but I think I made my case. I did enjoy the movie, but there is definitely much room for improvement. I think people like it because it gives them a chance for fanwankery. However, upon critical inspection, it is very lacking.

28

[QUOTE=StGermain]
I took it to be that they separated and came back together several times.
[/QUOTE]

^ That.

I’ll have to watch it again when it comes out on video and pay closer attention to the dialog. But my impression was that they had been drawn to each other several times until one of them gets injured and they go their separate ways for a few hundred years.

29

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The eagle is also a symbol for America, as is Hancock’s name, and I think an argument could be made for Hancock having some allegorical parallels with the USA. He’s the only “superpower” in the world (as far as he knows). He more or less tries to use his powers for good but he causes a lot of collateral damage in doing so, is often insolent or arrogant, is thin-skinned about criticism, is often reckless in how he pursues goals, is irresponsible and unaccountable, has “internal conflict” and identity issues, etc. Yet, at bottom he is basically good and wants to do good and has potential that no one else has.

Maybe I’m over reading it, though. It’s just speculation.
[/QUOTE]

I doubt that this angle was intended by the writers/director, but it’s a hell of an interesting take.

30

[QUOTE=mazinger_z]
Overall, I give it an incomplete, just like I did with Jumper.
[/QUOTE]

I sort of agree, I thought it lacked something as a movie, as well. But I think that has more to do with the over emphasis as a summer action flick. I think they were trying to keep it dumb and action packed in editing.

[QUOTE=mazinger_z]
The details, I think, would have given the move way more depth. Mary showed little if no turmoil for Hancock, particularly for one who is biologically drawn to him. She barely showed that. Why does Mary like Ray? It seemed more convenient that she needed a place to hide and have a normal life than any sort of devotion. Given the undertones of the movie, why does Hancock even care what happens to the human race? Why doesn’t Mary also play superhero? Did Mary even say that Hancock has a penchant for heroics? Why doesn’t Ray turn on Hancock or his wife when he finds out that they used to be lovers? Is he really that well-adjusted? Sure, it’s possible, but not very entertaining.
[/QUOTE]

I inferred the answer for most of these questions when I watched the movie, I don’t need a movie to spell everything out for me, in fact I’d rather have to think and flesh out some parts of a movie with my imagination.

I think Mary showed enough reaction for an immortal being who has a 3000 year on and off doomed love affair. Remember, she’s trying to keep him as far away as possible for his and her own good while he belabors under amnesia… tossing him 100 feet through the wall of her home at first spark seems almost like an overreaction.

Also, she said that she and Hancock are opposites and they are drawn together. Hancock might be the extroovert superhero type, she might be the introvert. She also tells Hancock that she is stronger than him, she probably means this both physically and emotionally. However, the superhero angle was also played out in Ray and Mary’s relationship. She likes Ray because he’s a sort of everyday modern superhero with his “all heart” campaign, and probably reminds her of Hancock. Mary is Ray and his kid’s savior. His wife passed away, and she was there to lift them up at the right moment.

Why did Hancock superhero? Because he’s a superhero and nobody else can, you can see his motivation and conflict in his depression.

31

[QUOTE=Omniscient]
I doubt that this angle was intended by the writers/director, but it’s a hell of an interesting take.
[/QUOTE]

Well, there was the annoying French kid that Hancock gave a tossing. What other motivation could there be for the kid to have a totally unnecessary French accent? The actor is named Daeg Farch so maybe he does have French ancestry, but he doesn’t have that accent, He’s an American..

32

[QUOTE=Omniscient]
That doesn’t add up. Mary and Hancock were a couple for centuries and centuries until Mary finally decided she’d had enough of the near death experiences. She said that all of his scars happened during moments when “they” tried to use her to get to him. All this pretty clearly illustrates that while they become mortal in the sense that they can be wounded and killed, the still do not age and would not die of old age unless there’s a serious caveat that was left out of the story.
[/QUOTE]

At the hospital, Mary specifically tells Hancock that they lose their powers to connect, love, grow old and die.

Mary mentioned that they came at her with a sword, that could have been for any ‘violation’ that a woman could have made at that point in history. The second two times appeared to be racially moviated, again that something that happened to hundreds of African-Americans ( or what appears to be) at any time in America.

My point is the attacks mentioned are nothing sinister, on unique to Mary and Hancock. Those events were common-place, if you were at the wrong place at the wrong time, or said the wrong thing.

When together, they become mortal AND they suffer the usual crap that we all do, murders and car accidents and old age alike; the difference being is that they have a trump card to play and restart the game. If they get the chance.

I bet the attack by the one-handed man is the first time Hancock was targeted for being Hancock and not just at the wrong place at the wrong time.

33

On further reflection, putting the All Heart logo on the near face of the Moon was a nice gesture, but a terrible thing for science. Unless Hancock put up some kind of luminescent chemical (like in a funny little Arthur C. Clarke story, in which a company that sounds a lot like Coca-Cola pulls a similar stunt) in the ultrathin thin lunar atmosphere, he’s defaced the Moon and displaced millions of years of accumulated lunar surface dust. And what about the Apollo landing sites?

OK, OK, I know it’s just a movie. The more I think of this, though, the worse an idea it seems.

34

[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir]
On further reflection, putting the All Heart logo on the near face of the Moon was a nice gesture, but a terrible thing for science. Unless Hancock put up some kind of luminescent chemical (like in a funny little Arthur C. Clarke story, in which a company that sounds a lot like Coca-Cola pulls a similar stunt) in the ultrathin thin lunar atmosphere, he’s defaced the Moon and displaced millions of years of accumulated lunar surface dust. And what about the Apollo landing sites?

OK, OK, I know it’s just a movie. The more I think of this, though, the worse an idea it seems.
[/QUOTE]

Yea it was a kind of a wtf moment for me. I seriously hoped it wasn’t a permanent defacement, I assumed that he was just doing some skywriting on the moon.

This movie isn’t very subtle, but again I think that it was a good script that very likely got edited down to nothing, as well as the actual footage. Somebody hacked this up based on test audiences and it lost its integrity, just like I am Legend. They were trying to fit a great concept into a least common denominator formula. I’m still awaiting the new Hollywood renaissance in movies, but I’m starting to think it will never come in this bull market. Film isn’t a business, it’s an art. Hell, there’s a reason to vote democrat… better art.

Another not so subtle symbolism was Mary. She was the Goddess archetype to Hancock’s God in this movie, the stronger, nurturing, and compassionate God. Her compassion was transsubstantiated through Ray and into Hancock. Mary saved Ray, Ray saved Hancock, Hancock saved Mary… complete circle.

35

[QUOTE=devilsknew]
I’m still awaiting the new Hollywood renaissance in movies, but I’m starting to think it will never come in this bull market. Film isn’t a business, it’s an art. Hell, there’s a reason to vote democrat… better art.

[/QUOTE]

I meant “Bear Market”. Sorry.

But if you were to ask me if I thought the current market was bull? I’d reply, "Does a Bear shit in the woods?’

36

[QUOTE=devilsknew]
Well, there was the annoying French kid that Hancock gave a tossing. What other motivation could there be for the kid to have a totally unnecessary French accent? The actor is named Daeg Farch so maybe he does have French ancestry, but he doesn’t have that accent, He’s an American..
[/QUOTE]

Ermm… Daeg Faerch is Danish in origin, my bad. I swear I’ve heard of a frenchman by Faerch.

He might as well be named Daeg Frog after that stereotype.

37

[QUOTE=devilsknew]
Well, there was the annoying French kid that Hancock gave a tossing. What other motivation could there be for the kid to have a totally unnecessary French accent? The actor is named Daeg Farch so maybe he does have French ancestry, but he doesn’t have that accent, He’s an American..
[/QUOTE]

Maybe him abusing a kid didn’t work well with test audiences, but him abusing a french kid got a better reception.

38

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
Maybe him abusing a kid didn’t work well with test audiences, but him abusing a french kid got a better reception.
[/QUOTE]

I kinda assumed that there was going to be some jokes about the kid getting bullied by a “girl” named Michelle before it’s revealed that it’s a boy named Michel. Perhaps there were jokes on the topic that got dropped in editing. Obviously in order for there to be a boy named Michel it’s only logical that he’d be French. I doubt that there was supposed to be a political agenda in making him French, if there was it’s a pretty fucking weak one.

39

“I hate only two things in the world. Irrational bias based on one’s nationality, and the Dutch.” - Michael Caine

40

I don’t have anything to add to this thread, but I’m enjoying it thoroughly. You guys have made me like the movie even more than I did (and I did enjoy it) and you’ve made me want to see it again. Maybe there will be an extended version on DVD. I’ve already said I would be interested in a sequel. I hope the unfortunate bad reviews are offset by the money it made in its first week so that there will be one. There doesn’t need to be a sequel/prequel, but I wouldn’t mind one anyway, if the script were good (big if there).