5 Characters Who Totally Missed the Moral of Their Own Movie
All of the truly meaningful lessons in life (the importance of love, the trappings of power, the follies of dinosaur cloning) are taught to us by movies. We learn by watching the established heroes of the film either learn a lesson themselves or fight to protect it.
This is why it's so weird when, on occasion, the good guys of the film seem to let the obvious moral that they themselves helped establish whiff by them as they do EXACTLY what they just taught us to never do.
#5. The Jedi Enslave Slaves So the Sith Won't Make Us All Slaves
The Moral:
Star Wars is as basic as good vs. evil gets, and no matter if the evil is the Sith or the Empire, the side of good remains the same in each film. Jedi (the spiritual, bearded hippies of space) want freedom and democracy, and the Sith want to have all the power and all the control, and perhaps explode a planet or two if it suits their needs or seems like it might be fun.
But of course that's what makes them the bad guys and the Jedi the good guys -- while the Sith and Empire won't be content until they hold the entire galaxy in their fists, the Jedi are selfless, thinking only about the well-being of others. After all, you don't see Obi-Wan or Yoda enslaving countless drones of men for their own purposes, right?
What, did you think these guys were salaried?
The Miss:
In Attack of the Clones, Obi-Wan stumbles onto an army of clones while tracking the bounty hunter Jango Fett (wanted for the attempted assassination of Senator Amidala). The clones have been created in Jango's likeness by order of a Jedi who had died years before the order was placed. Totally not sketchy.
When he contacts the other Jedi and informs them of what's going on, they ask Obi-Wan if he thinks this army is connected to the threat on the senator's life, and in what has to be the least intuitive moment of his Jedi career, Obi-Wan says no.
"Tell you what, we'll just call it in the air: Heads, they're connected. Tails, they're not."
The Jedi seem to agree with this assessment, because this isn't Star Wars: Attack of the Functional, Logical Plot, it's Star Wars: Attack of the KEEP MOVING THE PLOT FORWARD UNTIL GIANT CGI MONSTERS ARE FIGHTING CGI CLONES! So the Jedi Council doesn't dwell on this for a second, and why would they? What would a bunch of clones of the guy who tried to kill the senator have to do with that guy who tried to kill the senator? Did you answer "Probably nothing, I bet"? Congratulations, you're Yoda. As Yoda, you then, after making a few moves in the Senate, use these clones to build your own Grand Army of the Republic.
"Alright, helmets, time for lunch injections!"
And sure, having an entire army is convenient. We get that. But while Yoda was sending wave after wave of mindless clones to their deaths, did anyone stop to consider whether or not enslaving an entire race might be a bad thing or, at the very least, un-Jedi-like behavior? It's true that they were bred for battle and even designed to be genetically obedient, but that doesn't really change the fact that they are sentient slaves of the Republic.
In fact, them being created and designed for self-sacrifice really makes the whole situation that more horrifying. Utilizing the clones just because they've been bred for war isn't better; that's like saying, "No, no, it's cool, they're allowed to be soldier slaves because they've been soldier slaves since they were children."
Broken will to live included.
And they're the good guys!
#4. Lt. Col. Rhodes Puts the Iron Man Suit in the Wrong Hands So It Doesn't Fall into the Wrong Hands
The Moral:
The central conflict in Iron Man: 2 is this: Should Tony Stark be allowed to keep his one-man-army suit to himself or be forced to share it with the government? (The secondary conflict is "Look out, that robot warrior has WHIPS!")
He'll whip you in fucking half!
It's an interesting debate. On one hand, it's kind of a dick move to fly around all by yourself in arc-reactor-powered jet boots and not share that action with the rest of the world (not to mention totally unsustainable as a national defense plan). On the other hand, the rest of the world is full of lunatics who will no doubt use the technology for unspeakable crimes.
Stark decides to keep the armor to himself, but once we get introduced to Ivan Vanko (a combination of Crimson Fury from the comics and whichever one of Mega Man's villains had whips), the U.S. government gets really worried. If some Russian guy can build his own lightning-whip vest in his dank one-roomer, surely North Korea or Iran can eventually figure it out. This is why they call upon Lt. Col. Rhodes, a close friend to Tony, to try to talk Tony into giving up the goods.
Of course, the request is just him asking in the way you'd ask a dog to drop the ball.
Negotiations prove fruitless, as Tony has become more reckless, arrogant, selfish and just all-around douchey. Left with no other choice, Rhodes snatches one of Tony's back-up suits and turns it over to the government who, with the help of Tony's professional rival Justin Hammer, weaponizes the suit further.
Unfortunately for everything except the plot, Hammer has been secretly working with Vanko, the very same wrong hands everyone was worried about the whole film. This makes for many killer robots, followed by the expected explosions and death that would come with such killer robots, and it's up to Tony and Rhodes to team up and save the day.
When the smoke clears, Rhodes, now seeing just what this technology can do in the hands of one maniacal individual, does the responsible thing and returns ownership of the suit to Tony ...
This way, no more than 50 percent of America's military might is controlled by career alcoholics.
The Miss:
... the alcoholic narcissist playboy billionaire.
Sure, early in the movie Tony thought he was dying of some kind of plot-device-related blood poisoning, which might explain away his reckless and erratic behavior. And, sure, he's been cured of the blood poisoning, so it's possible that he'll be less reckless, but still, eventually he's going to actually die, right? And even alive, he's still an asshole. He's still not going to work with the government, even though he's seen what happens when they're forced to blindly fumble around with his inferior competitors. But at least Rhodes knows better, right?
"OK, what haven't I exploded yet?"
Wrong. When the film ends, we last see Rhodes flying off, playfully telling Tony that he plans to borrow the suit and take on the role of War Machine. Even though the entire movie highlighted the dangers of giving total power to an individual, Rhodes is fine with that as long as he's the individual with the power. This is like a teacher insisting that a student share his gum with the rest of the class, but then decides it's OK as long as HE gets a stick. Only in this case the gum can kill people with missiles.
#3. Ethan Hunt Is Fooled Not Once, Not Twice, but Four Times in Mission Impossible
The Moral:
With all its ridiculous plot twists and ultra-action, it's hard to imagine any coherent moral lesson coming from a series of films that play out less like spy movies and more like an imaginary playground game. Even the name of Hunt's agency, Impossible Mission Force, sounds more like something scrawled onto the side of a treehouse than onto a government-run building.
Via Myconfinedspace.com
"Our front company is the International Monetary Fund."
But the movies are fun to watch. And there is one clear through line: Ethan is a good spy and a good man who loves his country and the company he works for.
Even though that company is fucking terrible.
First of all, Ethan gets wrongfully disavowed and hunted down by IMF in two of the three films, making them statistically more harmful than helpful. On top of that, in all three of these movies the bad guy is actually an agent for the IMF. All three films. This means that every problem of the series could go away if the agency had simply called it quits sometime in the '80s.
The Miss:
Via HE'S STILL WORKING FOR THEM!
You can tell just from the preview alone that Hunt is back to his old ways of running on the sides of tall things while in a constant state of explosion-caused propulsion. He is once more working for the IMF and from the looks of it is once more disavowed by them.
Look, it's one thing when your bosses repeatedly fuck up, it's another thing when they fuck up AND treat you like garbage -- and boy do they treat him like some salty garbage in the third film, when Ethan's boss learns that he led an unauthorized mission to successfully capture a known enemy because of information he withheld from the agency. So what does he get? Paid leave? A demerit of some kind?
Nope! A sweet mouth patch!
Oh OK, Hannibal mask it is then.
By the third film, you'd think that after Hunt had saved the world twice in the past they would perhaps listen to what he has to say instead of instantly gagging him and assuming he's turned bad, but then again we're talking about an agency that has had a different boss for every damn film.
The newest is played by Metallica.
So after all that, he's learned absolutely nothing. It would be one thing if Ethan Hunt was like James Bond, who has absolutely no passion outside of his work and therefore would pursue adventure after adventure -- but we've seen just the opposite from him up to this point. He's even married and completely in love in MI:3 -- why wouldn't he just quit or work for literally any company that won't repeatedly disavow him and consistently hire traitors? There are so many companies that hardly ever do either of those things, Ethan. NYPD. FBI. Sports Authority. So many, Ethan. What's it going to take to get you to realize that IMF is the crazy ex-girlfriend of jobs?
i distinctly remember the prime minister of kamino saying "this army was created for the republic", not "this army was created for the jedi". the jedi had nothing to do with using the clones as an army, that was all the senate and supreme chancellor palpatine (who set it all up in the first place). the jedi were actually leading the army, not sitting back and using it for their own purposes.
ReplyWait... Antony Hopkins becomes head of IMF, a couple years later the standard administrative punishment is a Hannibal Lecter Mask...
ReplyDoes anyone else get the feeling that Hollywood's just dicking with us now?
So was i the only one that thought putting the iron man suite into the hands of the american government was the precise definition of it 'falling into the wrong hands'
ReplyBecause they've always been so responsible when it comes to superweapons
I thought the same exact thing, actually. I mean, he basically steals it from Stark and ultimately refuses to give it back. The only reason he is War Machine is because he committed a felony. A very, very expensive and dangerous felony.
"...surely North Korea or Iran can eventually figure it out."
ReplyWell, seeing as North Korea can't even figure out how to properly build a rocket properly, I'd say their chances of building this one (okay, two)-of-a-kind super suit that had only been around for a few years at that point would be pretty slim.
You're putting regular logic into place rather than comic book/movie logic. Logically, "Whiplash" shouldn't have happened either. Certainly not in a way that worked so well on his first try. But it did work, because he has the same comic book style ability as Tony Stark, which is simply being way smarter than everyone else. It's not that big a problem to create someone like that for any other country if the story calls for it. They would just keep on using that same idea over and over again, and then realize it got boring a long time ago so it's time to reboot the series.
Ivan Vanko was bad-boy sexeh...
ReplyHoly crap, you can re-write this article with all five entries being about the ending to Mass Effect 3.
ReplyThe clones were enslaved by the Kaminoans. They can no longer avoid being slaves. I can understand the stance of not using them out of principle, but I can also understand using a garunteed bad situation to their advantage. It is a war after all; nothing is right.
ReplyThat arguments works until you realize that the Jedi allowed the Kaminoans to continue cloning and actively defended the production center.. Nevermind.
What about Pinocchio? He's supposed to lean how to be "brave, truthful, and unselfish," and yet, when he escapes from captivity on Pleasure Island, what does he do? He runs and saves himself, leaving behind all the other boys who are being turned into donkeys and sent to work at the salt mines for the rest of their lives. F**k Pinocchio.
Replywho the eff is Crimson Fury? did you maybe mean Crimson DINAMO? cause no not he isn't whip lash/backlash/blacklash is an established Iron man villian and one of the few who's gear wasn't jacked from stark industries
ReplyThere should just be a Cracked article on why Superman's an a*****e, it gets written about a lot here.
ReplyYeah, when I saw Superman, I thought it would be about (or at least mention) when he saves a village and does the right thing, but lets Lois die, so he turns back time specifically to NOT do the right thing so he can save his girlfriend at the expense of a whole village...
Apparently, by going back in time, he can do both. PHYSICS!
It is implied that because of their shared love of Jules Verne, the Brown family would be heading to space. Especially since he looked up, if I remember right. So I think he was planning to have his family asphyxiate on the moon.
ReplyI don't know.It'd seem like,for the fabric of time to not be riddled with paradoxes,if you go back in time that would have happened anyway,and everything that happens is supposed to,at least in one path of choices,and thus wouldn't possibly kill everyone in the future...
Replywhich,yes,has nothing to do with the article,but explain how saving that chick might not have been too horribly bad.
You're right about Back to the Future, but in their defense, that train was probably the best part of the whole third movie.
ReplyIf by "best" you mean dumbest, yeah.
About the Superman part, the one with justice.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesI don't know about America, since I'm not an American, but where I'm from it is perfectly legal to stop a criminal committing a crime and "arresting" him, even tie him up or lock him into a room if you have to to stop him from running away until the police can apprehend him. So taking Luthor and dumping him at a place where police are would be completely fine here.
Citizen arrests are legal in America too. But in order to incarcerate someone there has to be a trial, and in order to have a trial there has to be an investigation, and in order to have an investigation there has to be legally obtained evidence, which requires probable cause. So Supes skipped a couple steps by just dropping ol' Lex in the prison yard
There's a reason why, in the comics and the DCAU, the superheroes usually wind up stopping the crook after they start whatever shenanigans they're up to. (Unless it's escaping from prison, or there's already wants and warrants out.) They simply do not usually have the authority to capture the guys beforehand. That's why, in the DCAU, they had to get evidence on Luthor before he could be arrested.
(Of course, FAR too many of the crooks help identify themselves, with their themes and costumes. Speeds up the process quite a bit when the police can say, 'We know that [villain] did this because of [trademark].")
Candi, you are now persona non grata here. I can no longer tolerate your reasonable comments and unbiased judgments. The comment section is for bad jokes, kissing up and most importantly, passive-aggressive nerd-raging. Then YOU come along and make sense! What are you, our mom? Do us all a favor and go skiing or something. Just leave.
MI:4 was actually a surprisingly good movie to watch. f*****g long as all hell, but a decently made movie.
ReplyI hated Don Cheadle in Iron Man 2. Terrence Howard was good in the original, but I thought Don Cheadle was bland and didn't really put much effort into the role. To be honest I thought the Iron Man sequel was a big drop in quality from the original.
ReplyFascinating. I've never heard this opinion before in the two years since the film has been released. Tell us more.
The thing with the Star Wars example is that the prequels deal with a lot more moral ambiguity than the original trilogy did. It's not necessarily that the jedi don't realize there's something non-jedi-like about what they're doing, it's just that they're not shown discussing the moral implications on-screen.
ReplyBear in mind that it's implied that the senators and Jedi alike thought the clone army was the only alternative to letting the separtists create anarchy in the galaxy. So it's sort of like a "nuke tens of thousands of people to save several more" dilemma.
I had always understood the 'enslavement' of the Clones as a sign of the Dark Side's gathering strength. The rising evil of the Sith tricked the Jedi into turning to rather Sith-y ideas themselves, marshaling even MORE power for the Dark Side.
Everyone deserves good and beauty in lives. A perfect place to provide you with this:---casualchats.c-0-m---. it's catering to people who want to meet like-minded types for no-strings-attached fun. You wanna get laid tonight? Come in and give it a shot, you will find someone you like there. Have fun! ^_^
ReplyI think I just met the spam-bot of my dreams right here.
Talk about a missed moral.
Um, in response to VictorSho's reply to my comment, I actually study Greek Mythology, and the remake of Clash of the Titans was NOT concerned with accuracy. They didn't have to include a backstory for Medusa. They cut out a lot of other things, but they *chose* to include a backstory that completely undermined the moral of the movie. Way to miss the entire point of my criticism.
ReplyThe *original* Clash of the Titans wasn't concerned with accuracy! They had *Perseus* flying around on Pegasus while Medusa was still alive! And that was just the tip of the inaccuracy iceberg.
It's mainly because of that I refuse to watch the remake. And it sounds like I'm not missing a thing.
The Star Wars section was not very well written. The clones are a matter of contention the entire time. The Jedi are obviously uncomfortable with the situation, but they serve the Republic and decide to go along with it for that reason.
Reply Hide All See All 5 RepliesNot really, the Jedi's didn't seem to have the same level of respect for the clones as other life they seemed like second class citizen's who's lives weren't as important. A good example is a scene in a clone wars episode where Anikian, Asoka, another Jedi master,and 4 clones were using ropes to climb down a steep cliff
when one of the clones fell screaming to his death right past Anikan and he doesn't even bat an eye, but actually looks bored as he continues climbing down. minutes later when the group is ambushed the Jedi with them dies and they make a huge deal out of it digging a grave and having a funeral right there in hostile territory.
During that the only thing I could think of was "what the hell?!" What about the clone soldiers they left at the bottom of that cliff? It would of made that sad funeral scene hilarious if the camera kept switching to shots of the clone's bodies and the flies buzzing around them at the bottom of the cliff during Anikan's long, sad, speech about how he'll miss this one guy.
Also while I'm ranting, does anyone know why the hell those clones have to use those crappy laser guns that they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with while Jedi's get to fight with the cool laser sword? There isn't any reason the clones couldn't use light sabers. Jedi don't need their powers to use the light sabers their even told to preserve their powers during fights and use them sparingly.
And that bull crap about "light sabers traditionally only being used by Jedi" would fly out the window if it was up to anyone else because you'd have better weapons and a better chance of live soldiers. Course, I nitpick cause I'm not a die hard fan and I just see the Jedi's as racist assholes who want to keep all the cool weapons for themselves. (Wait do clones count as a race?)
P.S. Please excuse my Long-ass TL;DR reply.
@notreallname
Actually the Jedi do use their powers to block laser fire with the swords... since the clones can't do that lightsabers would present the same problems using a sword in a world where guns exist has...
Yes, the Jedi's connection to the force make them able to move much faster than ordinary humans. Thus, during a fight, everything seems to be moving slower to them including the blaster bolts. This allows them to maneuver in such a way that they can deflect incoming blaster fire and even to counter it with their lightsabers. It also explains why Jedi are only really challenged by other force sensitives because that whole "time goes slower to you" thing goes out the window when the opponent has the same advantage.
Srry about that. I'm a die hard Star Wars fan and I read a lot of Expanded Universe. :D
@notrealname: Actually, it's stated over and over again in EU that if a non-Jedi attempted to use a lightsaber, they'd be more likely to kill themselves as anyone else due to a powerful gyroscopic effect created by the generation of the magnetic field that holds the plasma blade to a specific length. That, coupled with the fact that the blade of a lightsaber has no weight, are the reasons that Jedi have to go through years of extensive training to use them properly.
Yet Luke still mastered that s**t in a couple days.