# Your unpopular interpretations of creative works \[Spoilers\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [August 3, 2009, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-unpopular-interpretations-of-creative-works-spoilers/505194 "2009-08-03T18:34:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-unpopular-interpretations-of-creative-works-spoilers/505194/141 "2009-08-12T17:25:24Z")
> [@](#): > > Batman, in many of his incarnations, doesn’t choose not to kill because of moral qualms. It’s because he, at least subconsciously, wants to prolong his fight against villainy. It’s what he’s based his identity on, and channeled his entire reason for being (and his own pain and rage) into. If he won, he’d have to stop fighting. I’ve always figured Batman isn’t really fighting crime. His real enemy is death. He doesn’t want anyone to die - not his parents, not his friends, not innocent victims, not even criminals or supervillains. ---
**Author:** ![filling\_pages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9bd4f/32.png) [@filling\_pages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filling_pages)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-unpopular-interpretations-of-creative-works-spoilers/505194/142 "2009-08-12T17:30:38Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > A friend speculated after seeing _Chicago_ that the [entire final scene](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luef1H24hU8) (Velma and Roxy headlining at the posh venue) was a fantasy sequence in Roxie’s mind and that in reality the best they’d ever get was a $100 bucks each in the dive Velma mentioned. I prefer to think they really did get a great comeback (though I can’t see it lasting for more than a few weeks). I thought that a common take on Chicago is that pretty much all of the songs are Roxy’s fantasies. That’s how I saw it, and I’ve seen several others, who know more about the musical than I, say the same. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-unpopular-interpretations-of-creative-works-spoilers/505194/143 "2009-08-12T17:34:13Z")
Well, if you go by just the movie Chicago, that makes sense. But if you’ve seen the Broadway show, it’s a bit different. They obviously don’t do that cut between people dressed up and people wearing period pieces–it’s all done in that black lingerie type style. So I suppose that might make sense just based on the film, but in the musical I think it’s just…what it is. Songs are just songs, even though the characters don’t necessarily know they’re singing. Like in every musical. ---
**Author:** ![filling\_pages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9bd4f/32.png) [@filling\_pages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filling_pages)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-unpopular-interpretations-of-creative-works-spoilers/505194/144 "2009-08-12T17:39:51Z")
Okay, that makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-unpopular-interpretations-of-creative-works-spoilers/505194/145 "2009-08-12T17:44:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I don’t see that. The message in _Ratatouille_ was “you’re as good as everyone else so don’t let other people convince you they’re better than you.” The message in _The Incredibles_ was “you’re better than everyone else so don’t let other people convince you they’re as good as you.” But Remy, the rat, isn’t “as good” as everyone else - he’s much, much better. His natural culinary talent is essentially a superpower shared by few others, if any. And against him stand the forces of mediocrity: his father, who wants him to be just another rat; the chef, who wants to market knocked-off versions of another’s genius to the masses; and the critic, who sees it as his goal to stifle any expression of greatness. No, Brad Bird has an obssession with genius - as well he should. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-unpopular-interpretations-of-creative-works-spoilers/505194/146 "2009-08-12T17:48:29Z")
> [@Ranchoth](#): > > Batman, in many of his incarnations, doesn’t choose not to kill because of moral qualms. It’s because he, at least subconsciously, wants to _prolong_ his fight against villainy. It’s what he’s based his identity on, and channeled his entire reason for being (and his own pain and rage) into. If he _won_, he’d have to _stop fighting_. Most villains in the Batverse have speculated on this at one time or another. ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-unpopular-interpretations-of-creative-works-spoilers/505194/147 "2009-08-12T18:06:00Z")
> [@Biggirl](#): > > This was mentioned in another thread but I did not think the magic in Pan’s Labyrinth was real. I thought it was Ofelia’s response to the horrid conditions she was forced to live under. The director, however, felt very differently and said so in the commentary. He went as far as to point out things that happened in the movie that could not have happened without magic. > > As much as I’d like to go with the director’s assurances, I still can’t see it that way. Not popular with wife and daughter…but I also maintain that Ofelia imagined the whole thing. ---
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-unpopular-interpretations-of-creative-works-spoilers/505194/148 "2009-08-12T18:08:13Z")
Back to **Forrest Gump** , I’ve always thought that Jenny asked Forrest to marry her not because she finally realized he was the best thing to ever happen to her, but because he was fabulously wealthy from Bubba Gump Shrimp Co and could take care of her son after she died. Not that wanting to provide for your child is an ignoble thing, but the movie seemed like it was trying to portray that Jenny had finally realized after all her travels and trials, that there _was_ no place like home. I think she figured since she wasn’t going to be alive to raise little Forrest, might as well get Wealthy Baby-Daddy involved again in her life, and by extension, her son’s. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-unpopular-interpretations-of-creative-works-spoilers/505194/149 "2009-08-12T18:19:56Z")
The **Aliens** were a biological weapon and not of the same species that built and piloted that wrecked starship. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-unpopular-interpretations-of-creative-works-spoilers/505194/150 "2009-08-12T18:24:18Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > The **Aliens** were a biological weapon and not of the same species that built and piloted that wrecked starship. That’s not really an interpretation. That’s straight out of the text of the movie. We see the pilot of the crashed ship, and he’s nothing like the things that hatch out of the eggs. Here’s a [screencap](http://www.feelthesource.com/drifters/images/pointless/spacejockey.jpg) of the scene. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-unpopular-interpretations-of-creative-works-spoilers/505194/151 "2009-08-12T18:25:21Z")
> [@](#): > > The Aliens were a biological weapon and not of the same species that built and piloted that wrecked starship. I thought that was the mainstream story not an alternative theory. The real crew member was the mummified “pilot” and the aliens had captured his ship just like they were trying to capture the Nostromo. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-unpopular-interpretations-of-creative-works-spoilers/505194/152 "2009-08-12T18:30:26Z")
The “aliens” in the movie “Signs” aren’t really aliens. They are boogie-men. That’s why their actions don’t make any logical sense, and they can be killed by things that don’t make any sense. Every Boogie-man has a weakness. Maybe its heart is hidden in a box. Maybe it is afraid of mice. Maybe water causes it to melt. Or maybe a baseball bat to the face will do the trick. The boogie-men may (or may not) come from outer space, but they are still boogie-men whose only goals are to scare children. Everything else is just speculation by the characters in the movie. This explains why the boogie-man won’t open a door, because it’s scarier if he doesn’t. Note that M. Night Shamalayan might not believe that the creatures are boogie-men. He might believe that he made a movie with aliens. All I can tell you is that if it walks like a boogie-man and quacks like a boogie-man, it’s a boogie-man. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-unpopular-interpretations-of-creative-works-spoilers/505194/153 "2009-08-12T18:32:01Z")
> [@](#): > > But Remy, the rat, isn’t “as good” as everyone else - he’s much, much better. His natural culinary talent is essentially a superpower shared by few others, if any. And against him stand the forces of mediocrity: his father, who wants him to be just another rat; the chef, who wants to market knocked-off versions of another’s genius to the masses; and the critic, who sees it as his goal to stifle any expression of greatness. > > No, Brad Bird has an obssession with genius - as well he should. But Remy’s problem wasn’t that he was not recognized as a genius. It was that people hated him because he was a rat. He wanted to be among people not above them. Bob Parr, on the other hand, was a superhero who was forced to live among regular people. But he was a regular person - he had a family, a job, and a house - not some despised minority. So the difference, as I wrote, was that in one movie the “common crowd” was looking down at the hero when they should have been treating him as an equal. In the other movie, the common crowd was treating the hero as an equal when they should have been looking up to him. ---
**Author:** ![Dogzilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@Dogzilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogzilla)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-unpopular-interpretations-of-creative-works-spoilers/505194/154 "2009-08-12T18:51:06Z")
This is and will continue to be highly unpopular, but **Schindler** struck me as not really a very nice guy at all. I was actually offended by the end of that film that he was held up as some sort of hero. IMO, hiring Jews to work his factories was entirely a self-serving business decision. He could have hired non-Jew Germans, but because the Jews were supposed to submit to the ghettos, it was just like outsourcing GM to China: labor so cheap, it’s damn near slave labor. Yea, he saved some Jews, but that was incidental. I do not think it was his primary motivation. The way I saw that movie, Schindler’s motivation was to continue to make money in his factories throughout the war. That makes him a sweatshop owner and war profiteer who happened to also manage to hire a few Jews. He never really did much else to help them outside of his efforts to keep his factory fully staffed. That I’m aware of and that Spielberg presented in the film. I started to read the book, but didn’t get very far because I saw all the same self-serving decision making happening early on and it made me a little sick. Not that hiring the Jews was a bad thing; I’m glad he was able to save them. That’s great. But he didn’t do it because he loved his Jews and wanted to save as many as he could. He did it because he was about to go bankrupt and lose everything that was dear to him… which pretty much seemed to be money. So, I think he took advantage of a bunch of Jewish people who were desperate to take any job or do anything they could to avoid being murdered. ---
**Author:** ![Love\_Rhombus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/love_rhombus/32/10694_2.png) [@Love\_Rhombus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Love_Rhombus)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-unpopular-interpretations-of-creative-works-spoilers/505194/155 "2009-08-12T18:51:33Z")
> [@Tengu](#): > > I’ve taken to calling this the Lex Luthor Syndrome, combining the names of the two most common examples of it (Syndrome and Luthor, natch). > > A rather bizarre form of [Misaimed Fandom](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MisaimedFandom), where the painfully transparent self-justifications of a villain are taken at face value, because they claim they’re doing it for the ‘normal’ man, despite its clashing with their own actions, and the universe they’re shown happening in. > > ‘I’m doing this for the little people, the ones without powers. The ones who are endangered, or killed by my attempts to strike at the heroes, or demonstrate my own superiority. I could create a cure for cancer, or revolutionize transportation technology, but I can’t, because there’s someone with superpowers! I have to spend all my time and resources showing them up in extravagant and dangerous combat, or else “humanity” will be held back by _the very fact that they exist_.’ There’s some rational thinking here. As mentioned in Kingdom Come, what’s the point of having Olympics if there’s people around who can win every medal without trying hard? The idea of a Superman does devalue human achievement. My unpopular interpretation: Superman Returns was a bad dream Clark Kent had after trying that new Mongolian barbecue place. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-unpopular-interpretations-of-creative-works-spoilers/505194/156 "2009-08-12T19:01:46Z")
> [@Dogzilla](#): > > This is and will continue to be highly unpopular, but **Schindler** struck me as not really a very nice guy at all. I was actually offended by the end of that film that he was held up as some sort of hero. IMO, hiring Jews to work his factories was entirely a self-serving business decision. He could have hired non-Jew Germans, but because the Jews were supposed to submit to the ghettos, it was just like outsourcing GM to China: labor so cheap, it’s damn near slave labor. Yea, he saved some Jews, but that was incidental. I do not think it was his primary motivation. > > The way I saw that movie, Schindler’s motivation was to continue to make money in his factories throughout the war. That makes him a sweatshop owner and war profiteer who happened to also manage to hire a few Jews. He never really did much else to help them outside of his efforts to keep his factory fully staffed. That I’m aware of and that Spielberg presented in the film. I started to read the book, but didn’t get very far because I saw all the same self-serving decision making happening early on and it made me a little sick. > > Not that hiring the Jews was a bad thing; I’m glad he was able to save them. That’s great. But he didn’t do it because he loved his Jews and wanted to save as many as he could. He did it because he was about to go bankrupt and lose everything that was dear to him… which pretty much seemed to be money. So, I think he took advantage of a bunch of Jewish people who were desperate to take any job or do anything they could to avoid being murdered. I think that’s pretty clearly his motivation at the beginning. At some point, that changes to a more genuinely humanitarian concern. IIRC, by the end of the movie, he’s actually losing money by employing Jews, but keeps doing so because the only alternative for them is the death camps. I haven’t seen the movie since it was in theaters, so I might be misremembering the end, though. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-unpopular-interpretations-of-creative-works-spoilers/505194/157 "2009-08-12T19:03:35Z")
**Dogzilla** said: > [@](#): > > This is and will continue to be highly unpopular, but **Schindler** struck me as not really a very nice guy at all. I was actually offended by the end of that film that he was held up as some sort of hero. IMO, hiring Jews to work his factories was entirely a self-serving business decision. I’m not an expert on the history, but I kinda thought that while it started as a selfish business decision, over time he began to see the horrors of the NAZI plan and became interested in saving lives. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-unpopular-interpretations-of-creative-works-spoilers/505194/158 "2009-08-12T19:12:16Z")
> [@Dogzilla](#): > > The way I saw that movie, Schindler’s motivation was to continue to make money in his factories throughout the war. At first (like others have said), yeah, probably. But the movie makes it pretty explicit that he’s not that way “throughout” the war. _Stern: We’ve received an angry complaint from the Armaments Board. The artillery shells, tank shells, rocket casings, apparently all of them have failed quality-control tests. Schindler: Well, that’s to be expected – start-up problems. This isn’t pots and pans. This is a precise business. I’ll write them a letter. Stern: They’re withholding payment. Schindler: Sure, so would I, so would you. I wouldn’t worry about it. We’ll get it right one of these days. Stern: There’s a rumor you’ve been going around miscalibrating the machines. They could shut us down, send us back to Auschwitz. Schindler: I’ll call around, find out where we can buy shells, pass them off as ours. Stern: I don’t see the difference whether they’re made here or somewhere else. Schindler: You don’t see a difference? I see a difference. Stern: You’ll lose a lot of money, that’s the difference. Schindler: Fewer shells will be made. Stern, if this factory ever produces a shell that can actually be fired, I’ll be very unhappy._ ---
**Author:** ![Dogzilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@Dogzilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogzilla)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-unpopular-interpretations-of-creative-works-spoilers/505194/159 "2009-08-12T19:17:36Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > **Dogzilla** said: > I’m not an expert on the history, but I kinda thought that while it started as a selfish business decision, over time he began to see the horrors of the NAZI plan and became interested in saving lives. YMMV. I don’t recall seeing any evidence that the motivation changed as time went on, but I was pretty disgusted with that film after all the hype and never bothered to re-watch. Upon preview: I don’t remember it being mentioned in anyway that he was actually losing money in the end. I could have missed that through the fog of my disgust. 😉 I still don’t think he was much of a hero. Wasn’t like he started some sort of underground railroad, ‘transferring’ his Jewish employees to factories in non-Nazi-occupied countries so that he could continue to hire more and thus, increase the number of people he saved. Nope. He just had the one factory and that was all. Still leaves me cold. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-unpopular-interpretations-of-creative-works-spoilers/505194/160 "2009-08-12T20:04:50Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But Remy’s problem wasn’t that he was not recognized as a genius. It was that people hated him because he was a rat. He wanted to be among people not above them. > > Bob Parr, on the other hand, was a superhero who was forced to live among regular people. But he was a regular person - he had a family, a job, and a house - not some despised minority. > > So the difference, as I wrote, was that in one movie the “common crowd” was looking down at the hero when they should have been treating him as an equal. In the other movie, the common crowd was treating the hero as an equal when they should have been looking up to him. The way I see it, Remy didn’t want acceptance - as far as he was concerned, he would have been happier if no-one, rat or man, even knew he existed. All he wanted to do is cook. He felt he had a unique gift and an obligation to use it, both to fulfill himself and to make the world a better place. Why did the Parrs have secret identities, even back in the old days? Why was Bob perfectly happy believing he was doing top-secret work for the government? In neither movie did the heroes ever do anything in order to win approval. They acted to solely to fulfill themselves and help others. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-unpopular-interpretations-of-creative-works-spoilers/505194.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-unpopular-interpretations-of-creative-works-spoilers/505194.md?page=9)