That's not unpopular, it's wrong. Movies are criticized when the characters are one dimensional and lack moral nuance.
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
18 points (69.6% liked)
Unpopular Opinion
6289 readers
111 users here now
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Why do characters need moral nuance though?
Because it makes them more interesting. If I kick puppies just because I'm "evil" and I like to kick puppies, thats a boring one dimensional character.
If I kick puppies because I genuinely believe that will cure cancer, then that's more interesting.
Like Thanos, his argument is stupid, but he genuinely believed in that, and was powerful enough to do it
I think that's why he worked as such a good villain, because you understood his reasoning, which was terrifying. He was wrong, but you understood it, and you as the viewer knew that made him so much more dangerous.
If he just wanted to wipe out half of everyone that'd be boring and I wouldn't feel invested.
Watch "The Dirty Dozen."
Every character has one objective; to get through the mission alive. The way the Major goes about manipulating each man's desires is what makes it a great movie.
But how do not find "justified" evil boring at this point, not every bad guy should be macbeth or dr.frankenstein
It's like that new stupid wicked witch movie that's cooming out just because they are an antagonist doesn't mean they can't just be a villian, there can be decent characters that don't need much back story or deep motivation like the joker or judge holden
The Joker has a motivation though, his worldview is that everything is chaos and he needs to prove it to everyone else. Especially Batman.
But for the joker motivation adds almost nothing
It means that when he does things, they feel like things the Joker would do. In the Dark Knight he takes all the mob money and burns half of it, because that is a Joker thing to do. Two Face wouldn't do that, because Two Face has different motivations.
That is the reason to have motivation. It doesn't need to be complex, just nuanced.
Couldn't two face just be written to have flipped a coin and ending up burning half the money as a result
He flips the coin to decide people's fate, not to deatroy money.
But you also just gave another example of a character's nuanced motivation and morals. That is what makes Two Face an interesting character in a different way than the Joker!
A villain that burns the money for no reason other than moving the plot forward would be boring.
Ooh everything is motivation and what does plot have to do with anything
No, they are two parts that interact with each other and both are necessary for the whole thing to work well.
In Alien when the guy is brought back to the ship, the captain cares about the individual and wants him taken to sick bay. Ripley is thinking about the whole crew, not the individual, and refuses to skip quarantine proceedures. This is made clear in dialogue. The plot is the alien being brought onboard the ship. They interact with each other, but without the conflicting motivations and moral nuance of how each character sees the balance of one person vs the whole crew the scene would have zero tension.
No sorry that's not how that should work
To be interesting instead of one note.
They don't need to have extremes or even contradictions, just some kind of nuance other than good/bad. Spiderman's moral code being based on not stopping the guy who then killed Uncle Ben in the early 2000s films is nuanced. Captain America standing up for doing the right thing based on his personal experience is nuanced.
It doesn't have to be moral nuance though. But that is one that gets a lot of criticism because it stands out so much for heroes and villains.
You're correct IMO, but the examples are quite tame, again IMO.
Is "films are solely intended for you to evaluate morals of the characters" the popular opinion?
Honestly I'd wager there are more people who dislike thought-provoking films than those who have to the opinion you've described. The most popular films in the world were intended to be fun
I feel like that is more of a reflection on how audiences can critique a film beyond which parts were good and bad.
Critique of cinematography requires an understanding of visual arts. Critique of sound design and scoring requires an education in music. In contrast, methods to critique characters and plot are taught in every high school literature class.
This (supposedly unpopular) opinion could have used a couple of concrete examples.
I would go further still: it is generally a bad idea in life to evaluate people's morals. Make clear what your own are, try to live up them, and leave it at that.
But that is another "unpopular" opinion altogether.