To help cool everyone off for the weekend, here is an intelligently written article about why movies are so bad. Suprisingly, it is from Crakced (the Mad magazine wannabe from back in my younger days).
I've always thought that movies in which the villain is actually "correct" in some fashion are the most memorable. In many ways, it makes their conflict and loss to the "heroes" a much more tragic, almost inevitable outcome, as if to say "these forces are opposing by nature and this is always the logical result".
I'm also surprised Watchmen didn't make the list. Now THERE is a movie in which, by the end, I genuinely didn't know which side I was on. I could see both Rorschach's perspective, and Ozymandias (who has been paraded around as a villain, but is in reality saving billions of lives).
Movies where the villain is too sympathetic or too justifiable tend to be controversial movies though, and (according to the beancounters) the general public doesn't want to see too many controversial movies. Which is why, for example, the vast majority of movie adaptations of comicbooks aren't adaptations of morally ambigious titles like "Watchmen" or "V For Vendetta".
And why half of the ones that are adaptations of morally ambiguous titles will end up removing the ambiguity and creating movies that have nothing in common with the source material except character names and costume design. Which is how we got the Hollywood versions of "Judge Dredd" and "Aeon Flux"
Posts: 503 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |