While they are clearly outlaws in the first movie, they were valid protagonists because their crimes are minor, and Ronan, the villain, is trying to violate a peace treaty and destroy a civilization, and they are attempting to save it. In Volume 2, their overriding motivation is escaping the consequences of Rocket’s criminal actions. Yes, this led them to Ego and to stopping his attempt at universal expansion (though of course if Ego never found Quill he wouldn’t have been able to make the attempt, but let’s assume that the events of the first movie would have led him to find Quill regardless of the Guardians’ attempts to escape the golden people), but as they’re the protagonists of the movie, we, the viewers, are meant to be rooting for them to escape unharmed, and to feel relief when Ego rescues them from their pursuers and when they later escape from being trapped on Ego (planet) by them. Personally, I just wasn’t “feeling it.”
I agree completely with your first sentence, but have serious reservations about the second. I assume the second is meant sarcastically. If it’s meant literally, then I have other problems with it…
Most teenagers are attracted to the opposite sex (or the same, whatever, fill in the blank as appropriate), most teenagers (and adults, but particularly teenagers) are very confused and immature around their own feelings and impulses (aka idiots). Teenagers completely of their own volition will do things which range from unwelcome, clumsy advances to sexual assault. Somewhere on that continuum behavior moves from annoying to problematic to illegal and immoral.
If there is mutual attraction, then the annoying or even problematic behavior may be cute or endearing. In romantic comedies, teen sex comedies, etc. there is almost always mutual (but initially unacknowledged) attraction. A teen need never see a John Cusack movie to repeatedly pester the object of his affection.
I do think that much of the cultural stuff can be circular in causality. Teens do stupid things, sometimes teens see stupid things succeed, sometimes those successes are fictional depictions, sometimes those fictional depictions are there because teens do stupid things IRL, or they’re cute when the work, etc.
It was all sarcasm, a point I thought would be aptly clear by starting with, “Because women are inconsequential…” and ending with a comparison to Weinstein and Polanski.
And once again, the written word fails me, in that my meaning wasn’t clear. I was responding as if you’d written it sarcastically—I’m suspicious of the claim that it is the fault of movies that teenagers (etc) behave poorly.
Yes, I’m sure that entertainment mediums like film have no influence on how children learn to behave, and that having a character who sexually molests a woman and is then rewarded by winning her affection with no consequences or acknowledgement whatsoever about how creepy it is has nothing to do with the outrage that many women feel about how they are treated and disregarded.
Damn, I forgot to use my sarcastic voice again. Well, you’re a bright boy and I’m sure you’ll figure it out.
Perhaps you’ve forgotten about Mr. Wolf who graciously took time out of his busy day attending philanthropic benefits to help out two incompetent thugs who accidentally shot and killed someone that Marcellus specifically told them to bring to him alive. And Captain Koons, who I’m sure many would regard as a peripheral character but who actually had the most interesting story of anyone in the film.
OK, I will grant Captain Koons. He was considerably more significant than a peripheral character. But the Wolf, no. Someone who knowingly facilitates the activities of violent criminals is not a good person.
I’d call Butch a good guy, relative to the world of the film. I mean, yes, he did some questionable things: he killed a man in the ring, albeit by accident; he cheated the people who wanted him to cheat, which is morally neutral; and his killing of Vincent stretches the limits of self defense. But he did go back into the rape dungeon to rescue his worst enemy, simply because it was the right thing to do. That has to count for something.
You know the old saw about how you call a friend to help you move, but you call a good friend to help you move a body? There you go. He even compensates Jimmie for his ruined linens out of his pocket and makes sure that Jules and Vkncent are hygenic. Sure, Jules and Vincent are not good people (although Jules is on a path to reform and Vincent dies soon thereafter) but that just shows what a good person Mr. Wolf is; like a true Christian, he doesn’t judge good or bad but rather he helps those sinners who can be redeamed out of an innate sense of charrity.
Uhhhh Sam Jackson is as good as Saul. Good enough for God to care about rehabilitating. Shit…God wanted to rehabilitate Travolta too.
But not the wishy washy Marvin.
As for The Wolf…ha. Ha. He was fully capable of gunning down any John Laws that got in the way…just didnt want the Bobsy Twins doing anything he til he did.
The way I see it, what Rocket did - stealing the batteries - was wrong, but it was only property. Stealing from the rich and snooty is a popular heroic pastime. At no point did the Guardians physically harm any of them, despite the fact that the golden guys’ immediate response to theft was to hunt down and murder all of the thieves without the benefit of trial. In other words, it was the golden schmucks’ gross overreaction that pushed them to bad guy status, and even then, they only thing they ultimately lost was some money and some pride.
Plus, Rocket later admitted that he was wrong to steal the batteries.
But why, again, are “women are always going to be treated badly” in teen sex comedies?
Or, to spell it out more directly. Why are, for some definitions of always, men never treated badly in teen sex comedies? Why, in your example, was it a “he” pestering a “her”?
And, re: whether or not teens’ behavior is the “fault” of movies, well, there’s always a chicken and egg conundrum when discussing the ways culture shapes human behavior shapes culture, but I don’t think it’s particularly radical to say that “upbringing plays a part in shaping who we become” and that art and cultural tropes are part of that upbringing.
Does Sixteen Candles play rape as a joke because rape is in fact normal, or does rape become normal because movies like Sixteen Candles play it as a joke? I think the answer is “yes”.
I’m using hyperbole to accentuate the prevailing trend. In the 100 years or however long teen sex comedy movies have been made, I’m sure there are a few examples where the women are treated well. Usually the women are objects to be ogled and obtained. Why? Probably because these movies have been made by men for what they think other men want—wish fulfillment of the schlub getting the girl, and to see some boobs along the way.
It doesn’t have to be this way, and it will be great if a good female centered teen sex comedy is made. As the past few years have shown, a movie can be commercially and critically successful even if the main characters are not white men. I think a movie’s success is much more influenced by it being a good film in total (whatever that entails) than the gender and ethnicity of the main characters. If Blackpanther was as bad of a movie as Batman vs Superman, it wouldn’t be the third highest grossing movie in US box office history (as of this writing).
I also used “he” as that is the predominate way it goes. Yes, I’m sure in every high school in the world there is some woman pestering a guy, and women rape men sometimes, too. That doesn’t change what usually happens. If it makes you happier, replace “he” with (he|she|it|they).
It’s such lazy thinking to blame movies for bad behavior. There was rape before movies. There was rape before novels. Extrapolating from animal behavior, there was rape before language. There was violence before video games, and hey, there’s less violence after video games.
Can a movie act to normalize transgressional behavior? Sure, does that mean the movie causes the transgressional behavior? Not societally. One anecdote about a kid who held a jam box over his head IRL doesn’t mean that movies are to blame for stalking.
You’re missing my point completely. It’s not that I think you wrongfully used “he” or should have been more inclusive with your pronouns. It’s that your (and, in general, Hollywood’s) entire concept of what makes a “teen movie” is actually, as you say, by and for men. It’s not a “teen” sex comedy. It’s a “male” sex comedy. You used “he” because it’s the obvious frame of reference for the kind of content we’re talking about. The problem is pretending that there’s a universal “teen” perspective being shown on the screen when it’s actually male perspective/fantasy.
I’m not “blaming” movies for bad behavior, nor do I imagine that everyone was sunshine and rainbows to each other until Quake taught people to shoot.
It’s such lazy thinking to build a “but violence isn’t caused by videogames” strawman out of any argument that culture plays a part in promoting and propagating behavior and attitudes.
You agree that a movie can act to normalize transgressional behavior. I’m not suggesting that Sixteen Candles “caused” anyone to rape anyone else. But in aggregate, of course cultural influences are going to have an impact on behaviors and expectations.
The fact that you’ve equated male perspective with teen perspective is direct evidence of that fact.
This is one of my pet peeves. A group of people are put in a life-threatening situation and there is one abusive asshole that puts everyone else at risk (Cube, Saw 2, etc.). Not to say that isn’t realistic but what is not realistic is the whole group takes it. It seems to me that mob mentality would work to neutalize the threat. So it’s not that the character behaves badly that makes the movie bad. It’s that everyone else let’s him behave badly at the cost of their safety.
And to add to Eonwe’s well stated post. It isn’t even a universal male perspective/fantasy. It is a very specific subgroup of men - but it is a subgroup that is very used to seeing their perspective as “universal” or “the default.”
I’ll probably get slammed for this, but how is Long Duk Dong a racist stereotype, exactly?
Not that I’m defending Hughes over the character. The very fact that he decided to name him “Long Duk Dong”, and the gong sound effect that accompanies his every appearance are enough to keep me from doing so.
But, thinking just of the character himself, how is he a racial stereotype? Because he doesn’t speak English well? It’s not his native language; he’s a foreign exchange student. He’s a horndog and over-indulges in alcohol because he is a teenaged boy with minimal supervision, not because he’s Asian. So what makes him stereotypical?