But what if, by coming to terms with the fact that he’s a replicant, Deckard gains his humanity? Did I just blow you’re mind? Also, Admiral Adama seems to know the contents of his dreams.
Only in the (IMHO) inferior Director’s Cut.
The final message of The Wizard of Oz: “There’s no place like home.” This is a really crappy message, especially for kids. Kids need to learn that someday they’ll go out into the world and discover things that are greater than the confinements of family. Especially kids who don’t have such a great childhood; they need to know that there’s something better out there that they can aim toward without looking back.
And in the (IMHO) excellently-done Final Cut.
Which one’s the cut where Rutgar Hauer shot first?
I don’t think that’s what it was saying at all. “There’s no place like home” was just a way of saying “after you have those big, huge adventures, don’t forget about your family.”
Which is not a bad message at all.
jackdavinci said:
They never actually show the Cowardly Lion lusting after male characters - “Hey Dorothy, don’t you think that Tin Woodsman has got a big axe?” But the thing is they were using the stereotypes of being homosexual to convey the meaning of being a girly man. They could have done scared and weak and running to hide without giving him a perm and putting ribbons in his hair, for example. No, he was as gay as gay can be without having him mount the Scarecrow.
The Incredibles. Sure, the villain was a bona-fide douchebag, but the protagonists seem to equate empty, questionable achievements (e.g. “graduating” from 5th grade) with actually impressive and useful abilities, like flying with the aid of a jetpack. In the end, they’re really fighting to maintain their supremacy over the inferior low-borns.
“When everyone’s super… no one will be!”
Well, no, the protagonists in fact do NOT do that. Mr Incredible wasn’t unimpressed by Billy’s jetpack because it wasn’t a superpower, he was unimpressed with Billy because Billy was a clumsy kid who let a villain get away and endangered innocent people.
Sure, but the entire movie is basically a soapbox for the filmmaker to whine about how nobody recognizes his genius, an aspect which gets lost since it also happens to be a pretty good movie (and, I suspect, because everyone likes to think they’re special). But when Bob Parr rants about the 5th grade graduation, is that really Bob Parr talking, or Brad Bird? And let’s not forget that Syndrome’s evil plan, aside from whacking Bob, is to… give everyone superpowers. WoooOOOOoooooOOOooo.
Didn’t we just do this?
That’s your story. I see nothing but your say-so to support it, and certainly nothing in the film.
In the Starship Troopers movie, the war against the Bugs is completely fabricated by the government. Planetbound bugs, even ones who can shoot plasma out of their butts, can’t shoot an asteroid at Earth. Hell, they probably can’t even get off their own ball of rock (which, by the way, nobody would want, anyway). The asteroid was a false flag, secretly launched at Buenos Aires by the government to jumpstart the war. Why’d they want a war? Because “Service Guarantees Citizenship”- and without any war to fight, too many people were getting citizenship without really “earning” it.
And in Reign of Fire, the dragons weren’t from Earth at all- they weren’t even biological. They were a nanotech-engineered terraforming device. They didn’t burn things to eat them- they burned them to get carbon, which is what their bodies were made of, and to convert the atmosphere into something their creators can live in (possibly similar to Venus’ atmosphere). Evidence: dragons are dissimilar from anything else on Earth, and they took over the planet so quickly. The reason that there’s only one male is so that the alien species which built them can easily deactivate them, after the dragons have sufficiently changed the environment.
I have a hard time seeing how you got this from the film. The only person in the film who whines about people not recognizing his genius is the villain, and it’s the desire for recognition and adulation that drives his entire plan. Bob Parr, on the other hand, doesn’t want recognition at all. He just wants to help people.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the “5th grade graduation” rant does reflect Bird’s point of view, but what of it? If anything, it re-enforces the theme that recognition is not a desirable end in and of itself.
Except, as pointed out repeatedly in this thread, that’s not his plan. His plan is, first, to kill as many superpowered people as possible so he has no competition. (Which part of the plan he completes, by the way. Dude has killed a ton of people.) Then he plans to kill a bunch of innocent bystanders in a series of faked attacks, so that he can show up and pretend to be a superhero, thereby gaining the adulation of the masses. We only ever see the giant robot plan, of course, but it seems in keeping with his character that, had that plan succeeded, he’d have eventually needed to stage another attack when the public adulation he’s so desperate for starts to wane.
That whole “I’m going to give everyone superpowers!” was never really part of his plan. It was a transparent attempt at moral justification for the series of sordid murders he’s committed. If he just wanted to give everyone superpowers, he could just… give everyone superpowers. There’s no need for the giant robot attack, or the complicated revenge against Mr. Incredible, or all the other superheros. He’s had that technology for years by the time he’s introduced - he built his rocket boots when he was a little kid, after all. But instead of giving everyone the ability to fly, he’s kept them for himself for close to twenty years. There’s no way that’s going to change once he becomes a world famous superhero. If anything, he’s going to hold onto that stuff even tighter, to protect his reputation as the greatest hero in the world.
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, 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.’
That’s the unpopular interpretation? I honestly thought that was the entire point of the movie. I saw it a few months ago for the first time, and I never thought anybody was really supposed to believe that the bugs were actually guilty of instigating a war. I thought the “triumphant ending” was supposed to make you feel sick to your stomach since they just massacred an innocent planet.
I’ve argued on this board before that people have misunderstood Clerks II. They think that it has a happy ending because Dante dumped Emma for Becky and bought the Kwik-e-mart with Randall rather than move to Florida. And in the movie this was superficially portrayed as a happy ending.
But look at Dante’s past. He supposedly spend years wanting to get out of his rut, move away from New Jersey, and become something bigger than what he was. So how was the ending of Clerks II anything other than Dante giving up his dreams?
Look at Kevin Smith. He did marry Jennifer Schwalbach and move out of New Jersey. Dante Hick is the person he would have been if he had given up instead.
It’s not Charlie’s fault that his grandparents are lazy bums. That does not reflect on his character. And his dad was clearly suffering from clinical depression.
As far as him buying the chocolate bars and gobbling them up–that was not an indication that he was irresponsible. That was an indication that he was a normal kid and not some sort of saint. If he were saintly, we wouldn’t like him. And we do like him. He’s not devoid of charisma. He’s just a quiet boy who is doing what he needs to do to get by. A bit of a blank slate, perhaps, but not a drip.
You know what’s really scary? That somewhere out on the internet, at this very moment, there is almost certainly a variety of Cowardly Lion/Scarecrow slash fanfic available.
I never saw Charlie’s grandparents as lazy. They’re old, for crying out loud. When I get old, I plan on moving into a bed with three other oldies and never getting out ever.
Whereupon, I’ll start legislative proceedings for every country everywhere for a ban on mentioning Ayn Rand and the Incredibles in the same sentence.
I think from an Objectivist standpoint, Syndrome’s major sin would be that from the very beginning he wanted to latch onto someone else’s genius rather than cultivating his own. Buddy, instead of using his intellectual skills to develop incredible new inventions (as Edna Mode did), tried to be “Incredi-boy”. And he carries that into adulthood: despite his financial success, he’s still desperate for recognition from other people rather than finding fullfilment in himself (or his Self).
I mean, if you want to blast The Incredibles as an Objectivist screed, at least have a passing familiarity with how an Objectivist would actually look at the thing.
(BTW, I am not an Objectivist, though I do think Ayn Rand made a number of perceptive observations about society.)