Movie "heroes" who are actually low-life scum. Why do we watch them?
- Thread starter Laspector
- Start date
Richard Baker
Sr Member
My Father told me I was named after Richard III- he said the loser always gets a bad press...
Richard Baker
Sr Member
IIRC 'Falling Down' (William Foster) is Michael Douglas's favorite role
Richard Baker
Sr Member
KIRK: Name, Khan, as we know him today. (Spock changes the picture) Name, Khan Noonien Singh.
SPOCK: From 1992 through 1996, absolute ruler of more than a quarter of your world. From Asia through the Middle East.
MCCOY: The last of the tyrants to be overthrown.
SCOTT: I must confess, gentlemen. I've always held a sneaking admiration for this one.
KIRK: He was the best of the tyrants and the most dangerous. They were supermen, in a sense. Stronger, braver, certainly more ambitious, more daring.
SPOCK: Gentlemen, this romanticism about a ruthless dictator is
KIRK: Mister Spock, we humans have a streak of barbarism in us. Appalling, but there, nevertheless.
SCOTT: There were no massacres under his rule.
SPOCK: And as little freedom.
MCCOY: No wars until he was attacked.
SPOCK: Gentlemen.
KIRK: Mister Spock, you misunderstand us. We can be against him and admire him all at the same time.
SPOCK: Illogical.
SPOCK: From 1992 through 1996, absolute ruler of more than a quarter of your world. From Asia through the Middle East.
MCCOY: The last of the tyrants to be overthrown.
SCOTT: I must confess, gentlemen. I've always held a sneaking admiration for this one.
KIRK: He was the best of the tyrants and the most dangerous. They were supermen, in a sense. Stronger, braver, certainly more ambitious, more daring.
SPOCK: Gentlemen, this romanticism about a ruthless dictator is
KIRK: Mister Spock, we humans have a streak of barbarism in us. Appalling, but there, nevertheless.
SCOTT: There were no massacres under his rule.
SPOCK: And as little freedom.
MCCOY: No wars until he was attacked.
SPOCK: Gentlemen.
KIRK: Mister Spock, you misunderstand us. We can be against him and admire him all at the same time.
SPOCK: Illogical.
VonMagnum
Sr Member
Nope. Greedo said Jabba might just take his ship. Han was a cold blooded murderer. I don't know why people (including Lucas himself) fight this. He's a flipping smuggler, the equivalent of a galactic drug dealer (what do you think a "spice run" is? It's a drug.) Han Solo is a humanoid POS. Why do people like him? The same reason they like certain famous people in human history, even ones alive today. "Most" people are not "good" at all. They're self-serving often depraved ego-maniacs that love when people praise them or their deeds (i.e. worship).
These are the "light" ones (i.e. what you see is what you get) like the Jedi (who are not good at all, but scum bags with magical powers that are the enforcer's of the Old Republic. The trade federation had legitimate concerns about taxes on their trade routes. They are not part of the Republic, but the Republic wants their thumb on their necks too and sent too Jedi (one is Obi-Wan himself, the most depraved Jedi of all time who watched his "almost brother" Anakin burn alive and didn't lift a finger to help him or even end his pain. He let him BURN. He's the "light" side? Holy crap Batman. The Jedi religion says the so-called "dark side" must be avoided at all costs, even if that means murdering the Dark Jedi in question. This is akin to burning witches in Christianity. They FEAR so they KILL. There is nothing "good" there. Light just means they don't hide in the dark. They put their war crimes up front and personal and DARE anyone to oppose them, the keepers of the so-called "peace". That someone smarter than them (Palpatine) would take advantage of their hubris and use it against them to destroy them only makes sense when they brainwash these "Jedi" from such an early age that even Anakin was "too old" to begin the "training" (i.e. brainwashing). No attachments. No love relationships? Total celibacy? How well did that policy work for certain groups here? You end up with people so backed up they have sperm swimming in their brains and some do horrific things. They're the "light" side mind you.
So what about the dark? Han Solo started as a "dark" character and was "redeemed" (brought kicking and screaming into the light) by helping the rebels to murder untold thousands of law-abiding citizens on the so-called "Death Star" that were following legitimate orders from their government. The only difference between "light" Han and "Dark" Han is that light Han went and told everyone all the people he murdered and bragged about it and the Rebels gave him a medal for it, even. Dark Han kept his mouth shut. Both sides are self-serving. One side pretends it's for the "group" (by group meaning others like themselves, namely "Jedi" or the government they serve. The other side freely admits it's for themselves. NEITHER side wants anyone doing things they don't want (i.e. separating from the Republic or challenging their imposed embargos and taxes). The poor non-force sensitive guy just trying to make a living farming water on a desert planet like Tatooine gets FRIED EXTRA CRISPY by the likes of Obi-Wan Kenobi (his lying bit about Stormtroopers being "precise" shots is total nonsense! We all KNOW Stormtroopers are lucky if they can hit the broad side of a barn, let alone have ANY precision whatsoever while the Sand People clearly could make precise rifle shots during the Pod Races on Tatooine. Obi-Wan is a LYING SOB who burned Luke's aunt and uncle to a crispy extra done consistency in order to get Luke to come with him to Aldaran to challenge the legitimate voted for representative government of the galaxy! We know it's legit because we saw the Senate vote to become the Empire by putting Palpatine into a position of nearly unlimited power. You got what you voted for people! You don't like Democracy? You should have joined the stupid Trade Federation (even dumber than the Republic; they look almost plastic even!)
Han Solo shoot first? Of course he did! He did the same thing in Raiders of the Lost Ark with that scimitar wielding citizen of Cairo! He saw Indiana Jones running around murdering people in Cairo and tried to stop him, but Han shot him from over 30 feet away while the guy simply showed his prowess at juggling swords! Harrison Ford's characters are clearly shoot first and don't ask questions later kind of characters and this LIE that Lucas tries to perpetuate later on that Han isn't a cold blooded killer is brought to light in that Indiana Jones scene as he not only wanted Harrison Ford's characters to do it ONCE, but TWICE within a decade's time!!!! He can't deny the Raiders footage. There is no "wider shot" that shows the sword man pulling a gun out of his back pocket with a 3rd arm and taking a pot shot at Indiana Jones! Indy is an archeologist! He's supposed to be the good guy. Belloq even talks about it only taking a tiny nudge to push him out of the light and make Indy like himself! Well, if a cold blooded murdering archeologist who robs graves and steals national artifacts is the "light" side, I give you the Rebels in Star Wars all over again. Who even needs a dark side with evil "light side" characters like that?
But we love it! We LAUGHED when Indy shot the sword guy! I hurt mumbling in the audience of "What kind of idiot brings a sword to a gun fight?" Yes, he got what he deserved! Cold blooded murder! For bringing a noble sword to a so-called "gun fight". The same guy who tried to rob the Hovitos tribe of their fertility idol. The same guy who saw someone else discover the Cross of Coronado first and thought he'd just sneak in and take it and when the Sheriff set him straight for stealing, he just found the guy as an adult and stole it again, causing the ship to explode and kill everyone else on it. Indiana Jones. Han Solo. HEROES. NOT!
And then if that wasn't enough poor Alec Baldwin finally caught a break with The Hunt For Red October and looked to be an upcoming mega star and then jealous Harrison Ford informed Hollywood *he* wanted the role and seeing dollar signs in the sky, they obliged the "good guy" Han Solo/Indiana Jones once more and stole Alec's career!!! He was relegated to playing an idiot on a show created by Tina Faye instead just to bring bread to his starving younglings! Now he can barely muster the strength to do cheap imitations on a not-very-funny live comedy show. It was Harrison Ford by proxy of George Lucas that did this! George is the real phantom menace!!!!
Richard Baker
Sr Member
Frank Martin (Jason Statham) of the Transporter series and John Wick both are criminals who are violent, efficient and have their own strict code of behavior which does not happen to coincide with what society has determined to be moral. They break the law without hesitation and we cheer them on.
There are also 'good' men, sometimes in law enforcement, who bend and break the law for a higher cause. The Lethal Weapon films and just about anything starring Arnold Schwarzenegger fit this well.
Personally I think that while breaking the law but still having a higher code to adhere to is what makes these films work.
There are also 'good' men, sometimes in law enforcement, who bend and break the law for a higher cause. The Lethal Weapon films and just about anything starring Arnold Schwarzenegger fit this well.
Personally I think that while breaking the law but still having a higher code to adhere to is what makes these films work.
Why don't you tell us how you really feel?
VonMagnum
Sr Member
I'm joking/exaggerating for goodness sake, especially the bits about Harrison Ford and Alec Baldwin (not that it isn't true; Harrison did steal the part out from under him, but that's not the reason his movie career faltered.)
My real point is that too much realism kills the movie. It's one of the reasons why the sequels to the Matrix sucked. The machines, it turned out, weren't "really" the bad guys after all. They were preserving humanity until we grew up. But then who are you supposed to root for? Smith is just an unbalanced equation. They were better off with the battery concept. It at least let you know which side to root for. The Star Wars prequels turned the good/evil Jedi/Sith on its head as you learn the Republic was already falling apart at the seams and Palpatine just gave it a little push. Obi-Wan's idealized vision of the Republic was not true and he wasn't very good himself either (he really did let Anakin burn to death). What made the ORIGINAL Star Wars great was you knew who the bad guys were (and what better bad guys in Indiana Jones do you get than the Nazis?) These movies with bad guys and more bad guys... I don't know. I don't like them as much. Even if it's well done they leave you feeling dirty/depressed a bit at the end (or maybe it's just me). I used to wonder why the bad guy never won watching old movies and when I finally saw some newer ones where they did, it was kind of awful. Do you really want the serial killer to get away with it and everyone else dies? It turns out I'd rather see a happier or more just ending.
Axlotl
Master Member
Tl;dr
"He may just take your ship."
"Over my dead body."
"That's the idea. I've been looking forward to this a long time."
Greedo has just told Han that he's going to kill him, that he's wanted to kill him for some time, and that he's going to enjoy killing him.
What would you do? Sit there and let yourself die? Or kill the guy with a blaster pointed at your face, who's just said, in no uncertain terms, that he's going to kill you?
VonMagnum
Sr Member
It's a bit of a straw man. Han already told him he'd rather die than let Jabba take his ship (or implied go back with Greedo). Greedo had orders to take him back. Greedo might enjoy killing Han and taking him back dead rather than alive, but Han forced the situation by making the ultimatum. It is Han that stopped negotiating. It's Han that made death the only option. It's Han that shot first. Han didn't even blink and eye after doing it ("Sorry about the mess" as he flips the bartender a coin). Clearly, Han was used to killing people in cold blood.
Thus, the question is not whether Han shot first. He did as far as I'm concerned (revisionist crap be damned). But I'm not trying to make Han into a good guy. He's not a good guy. He's a smuggler. A criminal. He runs drugs. Harrison Ford has charisma, so you want to like Han. But if you prefer nice guy Han, then you should prefer Greedo shooting first. That doesn't explain the smuggling or anything else, but hey, Han gets a medal so he must be a hero in some people's minds. But then is the rebellion a good thing? Was the Empire THAT bad to live in (the Senate sure seemed to like the idea ~18-20 years earlier. Frankly, the Old Republic didn't look that good in the Prequels. The Death Star seemed to be there to make sure you understood that the Empire was EVIL (in case the evil looking stormtroopers and Vader's outfit wasn't scary enough). The Jedi didn't seem too be too concerned about things like slavery on Tatooine in the prequels. Obi-Wan didn't seem to mind slicing up some walrus and pig-nose guy in A New Hope either (lightsabers seem to be hard to use on "stun" after all unlike the Stormtrooper blasters that actually have a stun setting). JEDI are apparently judge, jury and executioner and thus Mace's decision to kill Palpatine was like JUDGE DREDD. I am the law! (that requires a Stallone accent). Apparently, Anakin both hated that idea and then immediately adapted to being the law, if not the Emperor of the Galaxy shortly thereafter in his own mind (given his little speech to wifey). That good little kid is THAT Anakin? I clearly missed something along the way...
(or perhaps Lucas shouldn't have portrayed Anakin that way in the first place)I would have jumped into Episode II and spent more time on the Clone Wars and Episode III rather than turn him into Darth at the very end and that's it. I think the audience wanted to see more of Darth Vader being Darth Vader. The best part of Rogue One was that little bit of Vader kicking butt. Imagine some movies where he actually takes on and hunts down the remaining Jedi. THAT is the movie I would have liked to see (and not as a cartoon).
Oh I agree with you! I was just teasing. ; )I'm joking/exaggerating for goodness sake, especially the bits about Harrison Ford and Alec Baldwin (not that it isn't true; Harrison did steal the part out from under him, but that's not the reason his movie career faltered.)
My real point is that too much realism kills the movie. It's one of the reasons why the sequels to the Matrix sucked. The machines, it turned out, weren't "really" the bad guys after all. They were preserving humanity until we grew up. But then who are you supposed to root for? Smith is just an unbalanced equation. They were better off with the battery concept. It at least let you know which side to root for. The Star Wars prequels turned the good/evil Jedi/Sith on its head as you learn the Republic was already falling apart at the seams and Palpatine just gave it a little push. Obi-Wan's idealized vision of the Republic was not true and he wasn't very good himself either (he really did let Anakin burn to death). What made the ORIGINAL Star Wars great was you knew who the bad guys were (and what better bad guys in Indiana Jones do you get than the Nazis?) These movies with bad guys and more bad guys... I don't know. I don't like them as much. Even if it's well done they leave you feeling dirty/depressed a bit at the end (or maybe it's just me). I used to wonder why the bad guy never won watching old movies and when I finally saw some newer ones where they did, it was kind of awful. Do you really want the serial killer to get away with it and everyone else dies? It turns out I'd rather see a happier or more just ending.
Axlotl
Master Member
It's a bit of a straw man. Han already told him he'd rather die than let Jabba take his ship (or implied go back with Greedo). Greedo had orders to take him back. Greedo might enjoy killing Han and taking him back dead rather than alive, but Han forced the situation by making the ultimatum. It is Han that stopped negotiating. It's Han that made death the only option. It's Han that shot first. Han didn't even blink and eye after doing it ("Sorry about the mess" as he flips the bartender a coin). Clearly, Han was used to killing people in cold blood.
Thus, the question is not whether Han shot first. He did as far as I'm concerned (revisionist crap be damned). But I'm not trying to make Han into a good guy. He's not a good guy. He's a smuggler. A criminal. He runs drugs. Harrison Ford has charisma, so you want to like Han. But if you prefer nice guy Han, then you should prefer Greedo shooting first. That doesn't explain the smuggling or anything else, but hey, Han gets a medal so he must be a hero in some people's minds. But then is the rebellion a good thing? Was the Empire THAT bad to live in (the Senate sure seemed to like the idea ~18-20 years earlier. Frankly, the Old Republic didn't look that good in the Prequels. The Death Star seemed to be there to make sure you understood that the Empire was EVIL (in case the evil looking stormtroopers and Vader's outfit wasn't scary enough). The Jedi didn't seem too be too concerned about things like slavery on Tatooine in the prequels. Obi-Wan didn't seem to mind slicing up some walrus and pig-nose guy in A New Hope either (lightsabers seem to be hard to use on "stun" after all unlike the Stormtrooper blasters that actually have a stun setting). JEDI are apparently judge, jury and executioner and thus Mace's decision to kill Palpatine was like JUDGE DREDD. I am the law! (that requires a Stallone accent). Apparently, Anakin both hated that idea and then immediately adapted to being the law, if not the Emperor of the Galaxy shortly thereafter in his own mind (given his little speech to wifey). That good little kid is THAT Anakin? I clearly missed something along the way...
I would have jumped into Episode II and spent more time on the Clone Wars and Episode III rather than turn him into Darth at the very end and that's it. I think the audience wanted to see more of Darth Vader being Darth Vader. The best part of Rogue One was that little bit of Vader kicking butt. Imagine some movies where he actually takes on and hunts down the remaining Jedi. THAT is the movie I would have liked to see (and not as a cartoon).
Tl;dr (again...)
Not a strawman.
I declared Han shooting Greedo was self defense, you refuted, I argued my case.
Totally on point.
VonMagnum
Sr Member
If you can't be bothered to even read an argument, I'd suggest you already lost the argument. You can't argue against what you didn't read. Period. Declaring your case totally on point is like declaring yourself the winner of a contest you didn't actually participate in.
What you REALLY were saying is that if a 'bad guy' (Han in this case) doesn't want to go to jail/prison (or whatever awaits them that they brought on themselves for whatever reason; in this case dumping Jabba's cargo and not paying him back for it), then they are totally justified in murdering the law enforcement officer that comes to take them in (in this case Greedo). So the law officer or bounty hunter is armed. So what? Apply that to the real world with the police or even Dog the bounty hunter taking a criminal in for the justice he has coming to him. Your argument invites the notion they are totally justified in murdering the police or bounty hunter.
(i.e. It's only self defense if Greedo fired first. Han is the one that basically said he'd only be taken in over his dead body, after all. Otherwise, Han murdered poor Greedo in cold blood). So if you like Han as a self defense guy, you like Lucas' revisionism as that's the only way Han isn't a cold blooded killer.
In reality, they're both killers as Jabba isn't the law, but a criminal himself as well. They both have it coming by Judge Dredd or the nearest self-righteous Jedi.
Last edited:
Axlotl
Master Member
If you can't be bothered to even read an argument, I'd suggest you already lost the argument. You can't argue against what you didn't read. Period. Declaring your case totally on point is like declaring yourself the winner of a contest you didn't actually participate in.
What you REALLY were saying is that if a 'bad guy' (Han in this case) doesn't want to go to jail/prison (or whatever awaits them that they brought on themselves for whatever reason; in this case dumping Jabba's cargo and not paying him back for it), then they are totally justified in murdering the law enforcement officer that comes to take them in (in this case Greedo). So the law officer or bounty hunter is armed. So what? Apply that to the real world with the police or even Dog the bounty hunter taking a criminal in for the justice he has coming to him. Your argument invites the notion they are totally justified in murdering the police or bounty hunter.
(i.e. It's only self defense if Greedo fired first. Han is the one that basically said he'd only be taken in over his dead body, after all. Otherwise, Han murdered poor Greedo in cold blood). So if you like Han as a self defense guy, you like Lucas' revisionism as that's the only way Han isn't a cold blooded killer.
In reality, they're both killers as Jabba isn't the law, but a criminal himself as well. They both have it coming by Judge Dredd or the nearest self-righteous Jedi.
I read the parts of your novellas that pertained to the points of our argument.
First you accuse me of strawmanning, when you're the one meandering off onto unrelated tangents, then you want to claim my opinion is invalid because I can't be bothered to read your wall-of-text off-topic blathering, and now you're proclaiming yourself victorious while introducing yet another strawman.
I'm done here.
VonMagnum
Sr Member
How is comparing a real world bounty hunter (i.e. Dog) to one in the movie a straw man? You can't really justify shooting an arresting bounty hunter or enforcement officer because you don't want to brought in. "I didn't want to be arrested so I shot the bounty hunter" is not a valid defense in court.
That is why George Lucas wanted to alter the footage to show Greedo had no intention of bringing him in alive regardless and so Han had to defend himself. That makes Han a smuggler, but not necessarily a cold blooded killer.
Add to that version the restored scene in that version with Jabba (that was thrown out because "Jabba" looked ridiculous) that made it clear that Jabba actually was going to give Han one more chance so Greedo had to be there to kill him.
The problem is if Greedo were just going to kill him no matter what, why would be bother talking to Solo in the first place or suggest to Solo that Jabba might just take his ship as payment? Greedo might have preferred to shoot him, but I don't think you can assume he was absolutely going to. He gave Han a chance to pay up or come with him first. Han also acts like he shoots people all the time when he tosses the bartender the coin. These are arguments against Lucas' explanation of the changes. Whether they're valid or not is a matter of opinion, clearly.
My opinion (which no one has to agree with) is summed up like this:
1> I don't agree Han was actually "justified" in the original footage in shooting Greedo first. That doesn't mean I think the footage should be changed. I just figured that was the kind of guy Han was when they met him (and was only after money at first) and later he changed to join their rebellion.
2> I'm not sure George Lucas is being honest about his original intent as Han plays the character in a way that suggests he's used to shooting bounty hunters and the like (the casual "sorry about the mess" and coin toss to the bartender). He and Spielberg do virtually the same thing again with Harrison Ford in Raiders of the Lost Ark (He just shoots the sword guy from a distance).
3> Why even ask WHY a pirate kills in the first place? They're pirates! You don't need to justify pirates. Captain Blood wasn't guilty of the crimes he was accused of, but he sure as hell was guilty of being a pirate. Han is a smuggler. He clearly isn't going to be taken alive if he can help it. He can't justify any of his actions because he's not about justice. He's about smuggling. You don't ask the bad buy why he's bad.
That is why George Lucas wanted to alter the footage to show Greedo had no intention of bringing him in alive regardless and so Han had to defend himself. That makes Han a smuggler, but not necessarily a cold blooded killer.
Add to that version the restored scene in that version with Jabba (that was thrown out because "Jabba" looked ridiculous) that made it clear that Jabba actually was going to give Han one more chance so Greedo had to be there to kill him.
The problem is if Greedo were just going to kill him no matter what, why would be bother talking to Solo in the first place or suggest to Solo that Jabba might just take his ship as payment? Greedo might have preferred to shoot him, but I don't think you can assume he was absolutely going to. He gave Han a chance to pay up or come with him first. Han also acts like he shoots people all the time when he tosses the bartender the coin. These are arguments against Lucas' explanation of the changes. Whether they're valid or not is a matter of opinion, clearly.
My opinion (which no one has to agree with) is summed up like this:
1> I don't agree Han was actually "justified" in the original footage in shooting Greedo first. That doesn't mean I think the footage should be changed. I just figured that was the kind of guy Han was when they met him (and was only after money at first) and later he changed to join their rebellion.
2> I'm not sure George Lucas is being honest about his original intent as Han plays the character in a way that suggests he's used to shooting bounty hunters and the like (the casual "sorry about the mess" and coin toss to the bartender). He and Spielberg do virtually the same thing again with Harrison Ford in Raiders of the Lost Ark (He just shoots the sword guy from a distance).
3> Why even ask WHY a pirate kills in the first place? They're pirates! You don't need to justify pirates. Captain Blood wasn't guilty of the crimes he was accused of, but he sure as hell was guilty of being a pirate. Han is a smuggler. He clearly isn't going to be taken alive if he can help it. He can't justify any of his actions because he's not about justice. He's about smuggling. You don't ask the bad buy why he's bad.
Han is a criminal. No contest there. Though I disagree that Han is totally cold blooded. Egotistical and greedy, perhaps but not entirely heartless, otherwise he wouldn't be as revered as a character as he is.
The way I see the situation with Greedo, is that it's clear Greedo intended to kill him from the start. He walks up to Han , gun drawn and literally jammed into his chest. He keeps it pointed at him through the entire interaction.
"I've been looking forward to this for a long time.""
He was about to shoot Han. Han was just defending himself. Criminal or not, self defense isn't necessarily cold blooded.
I mean the people fighting in these movies are two sides in a war. The Empire is shown murdering civilians so I'd say arguing the rebels are just as guilty of murder is ridiculous.
This isn't the Nuremberg trials. Star Wars revisionist nonsense be damned!
All that aside I bet this thread will light up when Joker gets released.
The way I see the situation with Greedo, is that it's clear Greedo intended to kill him from the start. He walks up to Han , gun drawn and literally jammed into his chest. He keeps it pointed at him through the entire interaction.
"I've been looking forward to this for a long time.""
He was about to shoot Han. Han was just defending himself. Criminal or not, self defense isn't necessarily cold blooded.
I mean the people fighting in these movies are two sides in a war. The Empire is shown murdering civilians so I'd say arguing the rebels are just as guilty of murder is ridiculous.
This isn't the Nuremberg trials. Star Wars revisionist nonsense be damned!
All that aside I bet this thread will light up when Joker gets released.
Last edited:
Similar threads
