Narkalui
Nerf Herder
Thank you, I liked Lawless.
Cinema's Unlikable Movie Characters?
- Thread starter BAYLOR
- Start date
Lucas said Star Wars was expected to make the same money as a Planet of the Apes film which indicates it was not aimed specifically at ages 7 and up as Lucas later claimed. In fact, there was no true children's film market in the 1970s. No one was going to spend $7 million to make a film exclusively aimed at small children. The pacing of TPM is completely wonky. If it was more like the originals in pace I think JarJar would have been a little less annoying. The other deficiencies in the film helps one to focus on him. Exsqueeze me.
Re: Kevin Spacey. In Glengarry Glen Ross he deserves a comeuppance but then is saved. The same thing happens in Seven. The logical ending would have been for Brad Pitt to shoot himself, thus robbing John Doe of his success and ironically, also validating his negative world view. Either action would make no difference to Morgan Freeman's POV or the final narration.
Ditto with The Usual Suspects--what if a real cripple momentarily blocked his path to prevent his escape? In all three films Spacey is a jerk in one way or another but is triumphant.
Re: Kevin Spacey. In Glengarry Glen Ross he deserves a comeuppance but then is saved. The same thing happens in Seven. The logical ending would have been for Brad Pitt to shoot himself, thus robbing John Doe of his success and ironically, also validating his negative world view. Either action would make no difference to Morgan Freeman's POV or the final narration.
Ditto with The Usual Suspects--what if a real cripple momentarily blocked his path to prevent his escape? In all three films Spacey is a jerk in one way or another but is triumphant.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,095
I've got this theory that Spacey's contract used to stipulate "must be cleverest/wisest man in film".
I think there are a few arguments against Jar Jar. Firstly, he’s just annoying: his voice is loud and silly and he gets in the way of the film where, properly done, he would be providing comic relief and commentary on the events. Secondly, the tone of Phantom Menace is all over the place. Both he and Anakin feel as if they’re from a straight-up kids’ film: in the original films, Anakin wouldn’t be able to win a space battle by pressing buttons to see what they do. But then you’ve got the heavy talk about trade negotiations, and so on. And thirdly, there’s the view that Jar Jar is uncomfortably similar to a comedic black man in an old film, with his foolish clowning and sort-of-Jamaican accent. IIRC, there was a feeling that the devious fish-people and the miserly shopkeeper were also given accents that made them rather like racial stereotypes (I think earlier Star Wars films had aliens with distorted voices, but American accents. Except for the space Nazis, who were English, of course).
I think there are a few arguments against Jar Jar. Firstly, he’s just annoying: his voice is loud and silly and he gets in the way of the film where, properly done, he would be providing comic relief and commentary on the events. Secondly, the tone of Phantom Menace is all over the place. Both he and Anakin feel as if they’re from a straight-up kids’ film: in the original films, Anakin wouldn’t be able to win a space battle by pressing buttons to see what they do. But then you’ve got the heavy talk about trade negotiations, and so on. And thirdly, there’s the view that Jar Jar is uncomfortably similar to a comedic black man in an old film, with his foolish clowning and sort-of-Jamaican accent. IIRC, there was a feeling that the devious fish-people and the miserly shopkeeper were also given accents that made them rather like racial stereotypes (I think earlier Star Wars films had aliens with distorted voices, but American accents. Except for the space Nazis, who were English, of course).
I think what Toby just said is a good summary of what I read at the time of the release of the sequels, and to be honest, this ground has been pretty well ploughed over within the Star Wars forums here, so could I ask that we give examples of characters that aren't from Star Wars.
What about this? It is true, and not only in Star Wars, or for Nazis. Whenever Hollywood needs an evil character 9/10 times he has an English accent (and never Irish or Scots.) In the USA that probably is never even noticed, but as someone from England it can irk after a while. Though it does keep Alan Rickman and Gary Oldman in work
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,095
In Rogue One, there’s a scene where the characters go to Space Fighter Command at the rebel stronghold and talk to a man who, to put it bluntly, sounds quite like me. Whilst watching it, I instinctively labelled him as either a traitor, a coward or a fool and expected him to be revealed as such. Somewhat later, I had a moment of “Hey, wait a minute…” and it occurred to me that it must be very annoying to see every damn character who resembles you doing the same stupid things, in film after film.
On the other side of the coin, the robot character in Solo is absolutely hated on the crackpot-right: partly because she’s got a female voice and partly for her “set my people free” schtick about the other robots (which surely doesn’t logically work, because they’re robots, but still…). In fairness, there's probably a more reasonable argument that she's just annoying. Which leads me to think that...
Generally, I’d say that the problem comes when the filmmakers have decided that “You WILL love this person, and I will fill the screen with them until you do”. I had this problem with River Tam in Firefly, who is meant to be troubled and unhappy, but is clearly an author’s darling. Yes, she is portrayed as disturbed, but she never loses a fight or is humiliated by other characters, unlike Jayne, who I find much more likeable. For me, it’s about the character “earning” the right to take up screen time with their antics. I think this is done quite well with the Alyson Hannigan character in the first couple of American Pie films, who is just a one-joke figure, but is allowed more screen time in the sequel once it’s proven that the character works and isn’t just a nuisance.
On the other side of the coin, the robot character in Solo is absolutely hated on the crackpot-right: partly because she’s got a female voice and partly for her “set my people free” schtick about the other robots (which surely doesn’t logically work, because they’re robots, but still…). In fairness, there's probably a more reasonable argument that she's just annoying. Which leads me to think that...
Generally, I’d say that the problem comes when the filmmakers have decided that “You WILL love this person, and I will fill the screen with them until you do”. I had this problem with River Tam in Firefly, who is meant to be troubled and unhappy, but is clearly an author’s darling. Yes, she is portrayed as disturbed, but she never loses a fight or is humiliated by other characters, unlike Jayne, who I find much more likeable. For me, it’s about the character “earning” the right to take up screen time with their antics. I think this is done quite well with the Alyson Hannigan character in the first couple of American Pie films, who is just a one-joke figure, but is allowed more screen time in the sequel once it’s proven that the character works and isn’t just a nuisance.
Last edited:
I loved L3 in Star Wars, probably because she had a female voice - like me. I also like River Tam.
A character who I utterly detested, who was obviously the writers' darling, was Jack Shepherd in Lost. I know that's a TV series. But urgh, what a vile, horrible character. And the writers decided we need backstory on "how Jack got his tattoos" rather than anything more interesting like what the bloody smoke monster is. I've tried rewatching Lost and can't because Jack makes me so angry. And I was a huge Lost fan.
A character who I utterly detested, who was obviously the writers' darling, was Jack Shepherd in Lost. I know that's a TV series. But urgh, what a vile, horrible character. And the writers decided we need backstory on "how Jack got his tattoos" rather than anything more interesting like what the bloody smoke monster is. I've tried rewatching Lost and can't because Jack makes me so angry. And I was a huge Lost fan.
Margaret Note Spelling
Small beautiful events are what life is all about.
You know, I think that might be the true definition of a Mary Sue? I remember running across a Youtube video some months back which I thought analyzed the concept behind a Mary Sue wonderfully...hold on, let me look for it...okay, here we go.
[YouTube media removed by moderator]
Last edited by a moderator:
Margaret Note Spelling
Small beautiful events are what life is all about.
If we're including TV series, can I mention that John Sheppard from Stargate Atlantis is drastically overrated? His moral sense was literally all over the place, while at the same time the writers obviously took care to make him always right as far as the story was concerned. In fact, I've heard the actor say they didn't want Sheppard to be dark, 'cause, well, he's the hero.
But it seems like at the same time they wanted him to be flawed and interesting and mysterious, and so even when all of that took him straight into "dark," he was still treated like a regular, unfallen hero. As if they were trying too hard to protect his admirable, heroic status, does that make sense? His character in Vegas was frankly his best portrayal of the series--and that was an alternate universe where his good qualities weren't shoved in our faces, and he actually made acknowledged moral mistakes, and he wasn't the beloved leader of the main character team (as, we all know, the true hero always should be).
He would have been an interesting character--he had enough interesting issues in him--if they'd just gone all the way and let him be wrong sometimes. As a character, he couldn't take the consequences. The writers wouldn't truly punish him for anything he did, and I mean punishment intended to teach him what he did wrong, not injuries or aborted scoldings.
I'm sorry--this is the thread for ranting, right?
Anyway, I'm sorry if I skewed this thread towards Star Wars! But now I'm a little more clear about why people dislike Jar Jar, thanks everybody. That, for me, is a really useful exercise--not only identifying the worst characters in a story, the ones that really fail in a spectacular way, but then going on to figure out exactly why it happened. Then I know a lot more about how to not make the same kinds of mistakes myself. If you can see where a published work failed somewhere, and understand exactly why...well, that's actually one of my biggest motives for writing: seeing all the failed, or at least somewhat neglected, ideas lying around that nobody's ever used to their full potential, and itching to go and do some of them right myself.
...Not all of them, I hasten to add. Don't go expecting to find a rehabilitated Jar Jar walking around in my world.
Just rest assured that if you do, he will work, in all the ways the original character did not!
But it seems like at the same time they wanted him to be flawed and interesting and mysterious, and so even when all of that took him straight into "dark," he was still treated like a regular, unfallen hero. As if they were trying too hard to protect his admirable, heroic status, does that make sense? His character in Vegas was frankly his best portrayal of the series--and that was an alternate universe where his good qualities weren't shoved in our faces, and he actually made acknowledged moral mistakes, and he wasn't the beloved leader of the main character team (as, we all know, the true hero always should be).
He would have been an interesting character--he had enough interesting issues in him--if they'd just gone all the way and let him be wrong sometimes. As a character, he couldn't take the consequences. The writers wouldn't truly punish him for anything he did, and I mean punishment intended to teach him what he did wrong, not injuries or aborted scoldings.
I'm sorry--this is the thread for ranting, right?
Anyway, I'm sorry if I skewed this thread towards Star Wars! But now I'm a little more clear about why people dislike Jar Jar, thanks everybody. That, for me, is a really useful exercise--not only identifying the worst characters in a story, the ones that really fail in a spectacular way, but then going on to figure out exactly why it happened. Then I know a lot more about how to not make the same kinds of mistakes myself. If you can see where a published work failed somewhere, and understand exactly why...well, that's actually one of my biggest motives for writing: seeing all the failed, or at least somewhat neglected, ideas lying around that nobody's ever used to their full potential, and itching to go and do some of them right myself.
...Not all of them, I hasten to add. Don't go expecting to find a rehabilitated Jar Jar walking around in my world.
Just rest assured that if you do, he will work, in all the ways the original character did not!
Last edited:
Star-child
Science fiction fantasy
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2019
- Messages
- 479
If there is one, hopefully he doesn't also look like an aquatic Roger Rabbit.
Margaret Note Spelling
Small beautiful events are what life is all about.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,095
You're spoiling it for everyone! Now I can't watch it again because you've spoiled it! I will be petitioning Disney to remake it!
As for that video... the first half is spot on, although all of that has been said elsewhere, and isn't really controversial. The second half is alt-right "Feminazi libtards stole our fandom!" stuff, and doesn't link to the first half in any real way. No personal offence intended, but it looks like propaganda to me.
Last edited:
MikeAnderson
A.K.A. TRICKY DICK NIXON!
1.Poorly animated
2. Poor dialogue
3. Looks ridiculous and badly designed
3. Sounds like something D.W. Griffin would've put in his movies if they had sound back in the day. Seriously, all Jar Jar needs is a plate of collard greens doing the shuck and jive on stage, and he's the perfect personification of straight up racist character. Jar Jar Binks is what Al Jolston would have done if sci-fi was popular in the 30's.
Seriously, we had to explain this one to you?!?
Margaret Note Spelling
Small beautiful events are what life is all about.
Well, I know very little about the specific spectrums of intense political opinion that permeate our popular media (one of the few ignorances I cherish, actually) and frankly I recognized very few of the examples the Youtuber was giving. But I do agree with the abstract principles he pulled, because I've seen characters that are like that. I thought he was exactly right. As to the specific instances he cited, I can't say. Any propaganda was lost on me.
Not knowing precisely what "Feminazi libtards" are, nor the definition of alt-right, I guess I simply don't have the same kind of context you do for analyzing this video.
tegeus-Cromis
a better poet than swordsman
- Joined
- May 17, 2019
- Messages
- 1,343
You can already tell it's going to be like that from its use of "SJW" in the thumbnail screen.
Narkalui
Nerf Herder
I haven't actually watched that clip yet, what does SJW stand for?
Elckerlyc
"Philosophy will clip an angel's wings."
Well, I had no idea either, so I Googled.
SJW – Social Justice Warrior
Social justice warrior is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism, as well as identity politics. The accusation that somebody is an SJW carries implications that they are pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and engaging in disingenuous arguments.
Which put the whole clip in a certain light, as @tegeus-Cromis already said.
SJW – Social Justice Warrior
Social justice warrior is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism, as well as identity politics. The accusation that somebody is an SJW carries implications that they are pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and engaging in disingenuous arguments.
Which put the whole clip in a certain light, as @tegeus-Cromis already said.
It stands for "social justice warrior" and while I realise the clip was added innocently, we don't discuss politics here so please let's move on. If anyone starts to discuss social politics or take exception to Toby's comments about the clip then the thread will get closed.
In fact, I'm going to remove the clip before someone does just that. if anyone wants to watch it they can search YouTube for it.
In fact, I'm going to remove the clip before someone does just that. if anyone wants to watch it they can search YouTube for it.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,095
As I say, no offence or personal attack intended. This whole "culture wars" phenomenon is a new one, especially the idea that including certain sorts of character is inherently political (I don't think it is, one way or the other). In fact, the first half of the argument being made in the video was very good - which is kind of why the rest of it bothers me. If anyone wants to take down my earlier comments, in the absence of the clip, feel free.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | Who are Cinema's Most Boring and Uninteresting Characters? | General Film Discussion | 44 | |
| B | Dr Who Characters whom you found to be Unlikable and of Little Use. | Doctor Who | 71 | |
| B | Whom Do You Think Are Literatures Most Unlikable Fictional Characters | Book Discussion | 89 |
Similar threads
-
Who are Cinema's Most Boring and Uninteresting Characters?
- Started by BAYLOR
- Replies: 44
-
Dr Who Characters whom you found to be Unlikable and of Little Use.
- Started by BAYLOR
- Replies: 71
-
Whom Do You Think Are Literatures Most Unlikable Fictional Characters
- Started by BAYLOR
- Replies: 89