why does there have to be 'good guys' and 'bad guys' in movies???

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

why do people insist that characters have to be either good or bad in order to be able to enjoy a movie.why are people caught up in these archetypes??,why can't the characters just be people or Grey area characters??

[EZMOHR]

Aren't all Quentin Tarantino movie like this.

[Monty_Cristo]

why do people insist that characters have to be either good or bad in order to be able to enjoy a movie.why are people caught up in these archetypes??,why can't the characters just be people or Grey area characters??

same reason cars explode when you shoot them in movies. reality is kind of boring. of course, there are a lot of movie bad guys who are gray upon closer inspection.

[Sanagi]

This is one of the things I love about Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon... While there is a villain in the film, most of the conflict is between characters who could all be described as protagonists.

[StoneGold]

There are. Just not in films produced by Jerry Bruckheimer.

[Comic_Mobsta]

same reason cars explode when you shoot them in movies. .Which is fine in my opinion.But i think as far as characters/people are concern theres nothing wrong with having deep complex characters amidst all the explosions.

[Chiasm]

Lucky Number Slevin

Even mentioning it in this thread is a spoiler so I won't say more lest I utterly ruin several twists this pretty good movie takes.

[Tazirai]

This is one of the things I love about Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon... While there is a villain in the film, most of the conflict is between characters who could all be described as protagonists.


I agree. That's why It is still one of my favorites.

[Armless Penguin]

There are. Just not in films produced by Jerry Bruckheimer.

This statement is made of truth and should be quoted as such.

[mattx110]

Which is fine in my opinion.But i think as far as characters/people are concern theres nothing wrong with having deep complex characters amidst all the explosions.

good people can be deep and complex. so can bad.
grey isn't always necessary.

[Gilda Dent]

why do people insist that characters have to be either good or bad in order to be able to enjoy a movie.why are people caught up in these archetypes??,why can't the characters just be people or Grey area characters??

Sometimes people come to movies solely for the entertainment value, and having things simplified to the point that you don't have to think much can serve for some brainless entertainment.

Insisting that all films be so simple is silly, I think, but so would insisting that all characters be complex, three dimensional characters.

[StoneGold]

This statement is made of truth and should be quoted as such.

Oddly enough though, it isn't completely. The characters in the Pirates series, even if the later movies weren't all that good, flipflopped between "good" and "evil" pretty regularly. I'm not saying the movies were Taxi Driver or anything, but they had a decent amount of moral ambiguity.



Although now that I think about it, I can't think of a Steven Spielberg film where the lines of morality weren't clearly delineated. Well, except Munich. The whole point of that one was death begets death.

[Toku King]

why do people insist that characters have to be either good or bad in order to be able to enjoy a movie.why are people caught up in these archetypes??,why can't the characters just be people or Grey area characters??

Because sometimes the most exciting movies are about rivalries.
I mean, look at "Spider-Man" and "Spider-Man 2". As great as the romance and characters were, can you honestly say that they would be as good as they were without the Green Goblin and Dr. Octopus? No.
The Green Goblin and Dr. Octopus added a lot of surprise and excitement to the movies through their entertaining 'moments' and badass fight scenes. Without them, the movies would be worthless.
Same goes with "Spider-Man 3", and other huge big hit movies that everyone loves.

[Thorlief]

simple deduction:

The most succesful movies of all times feature good people versus bad people, or good vs bad if you wish.

People (the masses) love to watch a movie in which a good guy triumphs over a bad guy, and expecially a very epic bad guy. It's very relaxing.

watching a bad guy losing to a good guy couldn't be that deep (thats not necessarly true) but it sure helps us to break from our daily reality much better than, just for example, if we watched The insider.

There are some grey good guys, but ultimately, they are "white". They aren't really gray, it's just a pose/ mistake/ something that will be explained later in the movie, and corrected before the end.

[Alex]

Some movies don't have heroes and villians, some have normal characters.
Other movies have anti heroes.
I don't really see any problems in film in reguards to this.

[Jmacq1]

A lot of films simply have "antagonists" and "protagonists." Not necessarily "Good and Bad."

[Black Atom]

We're talking about action movies, right? Because, like, Bridget Jones' Diary didn't really have any "good guys" or "bad guys". There are quite a few movies that don't.

[Jared]

There are. Just not in films produced by Jerry Bruckheimer.

Ed Harris in 'The Rock' isn't exactly a clear-cut bad guy.

[StoneGold]

Ed Harris in 'The Rock' isn't exactly a clear-cut bad guy.

He is enough that he has to die, and die he does. But I agree, there are some characters in Bruckheimer films that have some shades of grey. He was just an easy target.

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

I don't really see any problems in film in reguards to this.

no but seriously i asked the question cause on other movie message boards people would always ask "who are we suppose to root for?",or "who is suppose to be the bad guy" .specifically towards films that might not have a clear definition of who's "good" or "bad".one example might be changing lanes,or the descent (these films are subjective but thats not what i'm talking about so lets not go there lol).some people can't seem to enjoy a film unless they're told who to like or not like.

[Black Atom]

no but seriously i asked the question cause on other movie message boards people would always ask "who are we suppose to root for?",or "who is suppose to be the bad guy" .specifically towards films that might not have a clear definition of who's "good" or "bad".one example might be changing lanes,or the decent (these films are subjective but thats not what i'm talking about so lets not go there lol).some people can't seem to enjoy a film unless they're told who to like or not like.

Lots of moviegoers are cognitive misers and go to movies for escapist entertainment, seeking the same sort of thrill they expect from a sporting event. In a scenario like that, it's easy to see why they might want to able to quickly identify and align themselves with a "good guy" to cheer on. And that's fine, really. I appreciate movies that encourage you to question the motives of the characters but I like a cheap thrill also.

[blackdragon6]

Lots of moviegoers are cognitive misers and go to movies for escapist entertainment, seeking the same sort of thrill they expect from a sporting event. In a scenario like that, it's easy to see why they might want to able to quickly identify and align themselves with a "good guy" to cheer on. And that's fine, really. I appreciate movies that encourage you to question the motives of the characters but I like a cheap thrill also.this actually got me thinking about wrestling if you believe that.i remember when the NWO first came about.they were suppose to be "heels" but they ended up with a genuine fan base in spite of it.which in my opinion made the storyline much more interesting.or having a heel fight another heel,or a good guy fighting another good guy.but thats where the sports analogy becomes flawed.i mean Lebron James was a hero i'm sure to clevlanders,likewise with the San Antonio spurs. neither was seen as bad guys.but there real life story was no less thrilling.

[Black Atom]

this actually got me thinking about wrestling if you believe that.i remember when the NWO first came about.they were suppose to be "heels" but they ended up with a genuine fan base in spite of it.which in my opinion made the storyline much more interesting.or having a heel fight another heel,or a good guy fighting another good guy.but thats where the sports analogy becomes flawed.i mean Lebron James was a hero i'm sure to clevlanders,likewise with the San Antonio spurs. neither was seen as bad guys.but there real life story was no less thrilling.

What I meant was people usually go to sports events to cheer their team/player/horse/whatever and deride the opposition. The pay-off is the high you get from your side's victory. Movies try to duplicate that feeling by getting the audience to align themselves, morally, with the winning side. Good/evil is more universal than which hometown the movie hero comes from, which is a big factor in sports, usually.

[blackdragon6]

Movies try to duplicate that feeling by getting the audience to align themselves, morally, with the winning side...
of course,but thats gonna happen regardless imo.so theres no need for the movie to shove it down your throat.it would be nice if the character would have a sense of moral ambiguity to them.at the end of the day people will still pick which character they like anyway.a good example would be ana lucia from lost,she was SUPPOSE to be sympathetic but a lot of people hated her.and to a lesser extent the same with kate.

[Thorlief]

I hated Ana Lucia because she was your stereotypical latina with gunns, grumpy attitude and ZOMG LAPD policegirl. Inventive.

oh well thats because your an idiot obviously...:D

no but seriously i asked the question cause on other movie message boards people would always ask "who are we suppose to root for?",or "who is suppose to be the bad guy" .specifically towards films that might not have a clear definition of who's "good" or "bad".one example might be changing lanes,or the descent (these films are subjective but thats not what i'm talking about so lets not go there lol).some people can't seem to enjoy a film unless they're told who to like or not like.

I find your question a bit shady. Guys or girls asking such questions -I mean the ones you met in the other board, not you Tish ;)- are brainless idiots, or just childs. Looks like they aren't able to appreciate or recognize deep characters, they take some hints here and there and get confused. Sure, there might be some cases in which you ask yourself "The bad guy isn't that bad, he didnt deserve to die. Why?". One good example is Heat. Mc Cauley was a thief, but he was a non-violent one, and he wanted to get out the crap and start a new life. When he meets his fate you can't help thinking "Dude, that's some pretty bad luck".
Having said that, anyway, it's the masses. In my other post I mentioned the fact that most of the people want to see a straightforward good vs bad movie..and I don't mind watching em as well. It's not that I cannot appreciate a grey character tho, but sometimes it's just that relaxing to enjoy a linear flick

[JDogindy]

Cookie cutter plot. Reality sucks, and it's kinda best to showcase a "Good vs. Bad" story that are essentially the same with some little differences (Scott Adams in "The Way of the Weasel" wrote essentially the basic action movie plot that features an incompetent partner, the bulk of the movie in one line, and some bizarre way for the bad guy to be knocked out. According to him, you can change that setup he made with some minor changes, such as making the warehouse scene "have extra steam coming from the pipes" and it'd probably look different).

And that creativity is at a premium these days.

[berk]

It's a very good question. I think it's a sign of our cultural immaturity - a failure to progress beyond the old tribal worldview of our-tribe (good-guys) vs everybody else (bad-guys). We still try to imprint that pattern on everything we encounter, simplifying complicated situations so we can understand them easily. And the whole thing is reinforced by the fact that we're sort of brought up to thiink this way so the poweer structure that run things can more easily persuade us to support, say, a govt's foreign policy, etc.

[jesse_custer]

Without bad guys, we wouldn't have awesome Alan Rickman roles. That's why.

[mattx110]

It's a very good question. I think it's a sign of our cultural immaturity - a failure to progress beyond the old tribal worldview of our-tribe (good-guys) vs everybody else (bad-guys). We still try to imprint that pattern on everything we encounter, simplifying complicated situations so we can understand them easily. And the whole thing is reinforced by the fact that we're sort of brought up to thiink this way so the poweer structure that run things can more easily persuade us to support, say, a govt's foreign policy, etc.

cop vs. person who killed his family.
not a metaphor for reality.
it's the plot of 90% of modern day martial arts movies that aren't comedies.

and in the first tony jaa movie, he was the good guy, he was still heavily unlikable and killed or paralyzed people.

[Black Atom]

The exciting part of an action movie are the fights, shootouts explosions etc. You have to have faceless "bad guys" as fodder for each of these. You can't enjoy a fight as if you know the guys getting knocked out have children with cancer or something.

[BoosterBronze]

Can someone tell me what movies have clear 'good guys' and 'bad guys' that would be markably improved by more moral ambiguity?

Would "Die Hard" have been better if Hans Gruber was really this conflicted person who onyl robbed people because his dreams of being a pianist failed, and John McLain was a former wife beater?

[GrampaGen]

and in the first tony jaa movie, he was the good guy, he was still heavily unlikable and killed or paralyzed people.

Man, Tom Yum Goong (The Protector) was even worse. So many broken limbs...

[Jared]

All the bad guys in Tony Jaa's movies got what they had coming to them. It's not as if he went around in Ong Bak picking fights and breaking bones for no reason. Hell, he went out of his way to avoid fighting, initially. But the bad guys Pushed Him Too Far.

Most war movies made since the 70s have moral ambiguity.
Even within action genre, which thrives on having white hats and black hats, there are plenty of anti-heroes who have some questionable motives or methods.

[mattx110]

Can someone tell me what movies have clear 'good guys' and 'bad guys' that would be markably improved by more moral ambiguity?

Would "Die Hard" have been better if Hans Gruber was really this conflicted person who onyl robbed people because his dreams of being a pianist failed, and John McLain was a former wife beater?

infernal affairs (i hate that title, it's an actual pun for a serious drama!) was effective because the bad guy was only 90% bad, and pretty irredeemable, but he wanted to be redeemed. and it annoyed the hell out of me how it ended.

in die hard, he was a bad husband, he let his work run his life, his wife was hell to deal with. he was working against the police's wishes in more than one die hard movie. he didn't need to be morally reprehensible to have depth. his recklessness and humor made him likable even when he was shooting people or accidentily blowing things up.

[Comic_Mobsta]

It's a very good question. I think it's a sign of our cultural immaturity - a failure to progress beyond the old tribal worldview of our-tribe (good-guys) vs everybody else (bad-guys). We still try to imprint that pattern on everything we encounter, simplifying complicated situations so we can understand them easily. .Basically...but at the same time i always thought it was cynicism in a way too.Reason why i say that is because i noticed criminal oriented shows like justice,"In Justice",Heist,Smith,Thief etc etc...doesn't fare very well on tv,And has died a quick death.Guess people just aren't interested in that world..But if you look at all the successful Police procedural Law shows it kinda gives you an idea of what the public thinks. Because shows like CSI and Law and Order and all their spin-offs are a sure thing. Maybe that is a statement about peoples viewpoints

[Gilda Dent]

Can someone tell me what movies have clear 'good guys' and 'bad guys' that would be markably improved by more moral ambiguity?

Would "Die Hard" have been better if Hans Gruber was really this conflicted person who onyl robbed people because his dreams of being a pianist failed, and John McLain was a former wife beater?

Any movie that has the cowboys/settlers as the good guys and Indians as the bad guys.

For a good example of this more complex version, see if you can find a copy of The Unforgiven (not Unforgiven). It's a western with Burt Lancaster as a western settler and Audrey Hepburn as his adopted sister, who may be an Indian abducted as an infant from her tribe. When the Indians show up to lay seige on the settlers' house, we understand their motivation--they want one of their people back. It's the same motivation John Wayne has in The Searchers, turned backwards.

Now compare that to any western in which the Indians are faceless savages.

[jesse_custer]

The Indians may be faceless savages in Stagecoach, but it's still about 30 times better than any other western that has tried to humanize them.

The point is that you need balance. Having moral ambiguity in every movie would be tiresome, just as having clear-cut bad guys and good guys in every movie would be tiresome. Sometimes the morally ambiguous movies are better, sometimes the opposite is true.

[Comic_Mobsta]

The Indians may be faceless savages in Stagecoach, but it's still about 30 times better than any other western that has tried to humanize them.

The point is that you need balance. Having moral ambiguity in every movie would be tiresome, just as having clear-cut bad guys and good guys in every movie would be tiresome. Sometimes the morally ambiguous movies are better, sometimes the opposite is true.But the latter is way more common than the former.

[jesse_custer]

I wouldn't say the latter is way more common. The Godfather is morally ambiguous, and it's certainly better than about 99 percent of movies out there. Many other classic films are morally ambiguous: Citizen Kane, Chinatown, The Searchers, The Good The Bad and The Ugly, The Graduate, etc. I'd say that good guys and bad guys are more accessible for the general public, but that's about it.

[Thorlief]

Any movie that has the cowboys/settlers as the good guys and Indians as the bad guys.

For a good example of this more complex version, see if you can find a copy of The Unforgiven (not Unforgiven). It's a western with Burt Lancaster as a western settler and Audrey Hepburn as his adopted sister, who may be an Indian abducted as an infant from her tribe. When the Indians show up to lay seige on the settlers' house, we understand their motivation--they want one of their people back. It's the same motivation John Wayne has in The Searchers, turned backwards.

Now compare that to any western in which the Indians are faceless savages.


as much as I love Unforgiven I think the only one movie who depicts indians as indians and cowboys as cowboys is Little big man. You have good indians here, but also bad ones. You have good cowboys but also crazy ones.

and even Custer is depicted as a man. Sure, he's obviously a power hungry racist and meets his fate in pure delirium, but the movie shows it's not just that. Man, what a movie LGM is.

[Black Atom]

I generally expect a little more consideration from films depicting real-life, historical conflicts in this regard. But then, I question the ethics of someone who'd use real world battles in which people fought and died for a mindless action flick in this day and age.

[StoneGold]

The Indians may be faceless savages in Stagecoach, but it's still about 30 times better than any other western that has tried to humanize them.


I don't know if I'd say that. The best part of Stagecoach didn't feature John Wayne. Yakima Canutt did all the hard work.

[jesse_custer]

Thomas Mitchell is the best role in Stagecoach. John Ford's revolutionary filmmaking is the best part about it.

[Deep_Sleeper]

I love Firefly. All the guys you root for are actually looters. But they are just so damned loveable.

And most of the "badguys" are law abiding citizens.

[Forefinger]

Can someone tell me what movies have clear 'good guys' and 'bad guys' that would be markably improved by more moral ambiguity?

Would "Die Hard" have been better if Hans Gruber was really this conflicted person who onyl robbed people because his dreams of being a pianist failed, and John McLain was a former wife beater?

No. But it might have been a bit more interesting if McLain was in the building to steal the same thinkg htat Gruber was, and started fighting with them; all the while acting like he was a cop to the police outside.

Some of my favorite movies and TV shows feature people who are the scum of the Earth, but are the protagonists. Tony Soprano immediately springs to mind.

[jesse_custer]

That idea about McClain wanting to steal the same thing would have made the movie lame. McClain is already a different kind of action movie hero in that he never shuts up.

[mattx110]

That idea about McClain wanting to steal the same thing would have made the movie lame. McClain is already a different kind of action movie hero in that he never shuts up.

plus... hudson hawk covers the thief with a good heart vs. other eviler thiefs thing. though, there haven't been 3 sequels to that and a series of video games... wonder why.

[Gargus]

I dont know anyone, ever that wanted there to be clear cut good and bad folks all the time.

There alot of movies where there arent, even back in the 1940s they had film noir type movies (which I personally loved) where no one was a good guy, even the cops were crooked.

Even the original entertainers before movies like william shakespear had stories of folks that did bad stuff to eachother only to get screwed over by the other folks.

But really people like to see struggle, conflict and fighting, nothing brings those together more than polar opposites.

[Johnny_Luck]

I just watched a chopped up version of Payback with Mel Gibson on TnT, I own the dvd and the movie is amazing, but we root for both the bad bad guys and the bad guy/good guys at the same time.

What I mean is Mel Gibson comes back from being shot multiple times in the back by his partner in a robbery, Mel character was also a murderer and was dating a drug addict.

Comes back not for revenge on people(which he ends up getting anyways, but to get back the money he helped steal. Which the guy who shot him in the back no longer has. Him and the prostitute chick he likes are the lead so called good guys.

Then we have the other thief, Lucy Lui and her gang of Asian assassins/whom the money was stolen from in the first place, a group of crooked cops who want the money for themselves, some bad drug dealers/gamblers, etc.

The movie really doesn't have a clear cut good, good guy to root for, you basically root for the bad/evil guy whose just less evil than everyone else.

[mattx110]

I just watched a chopped up version of Payback with Mel Gibson on TnT, I own the dvd and the movie is amazing, but we root for both the bad bad guys and the bad guy/good guys at the same time.

What I mean is Mel Gibson comes back from being shot multiple times in the back by his partner in a robbery, Mel character was also a murderer and was dating a drug addict.

Comes back not for revenge on people(which he ends up getting anyways, but to get back the money he helped steal. Which the guy who shot him in the back no longer has. Him and the prostitute chick he likes are the lead so called good guys.

Then we have the other thief, Lucy Lui and her gang of Asian assassins/whom the money was stolen from in the first place, a group of crooked cops who want the money for themselves, some bad drug dealers/gamblers, etc.

The movie really doesn't have a clear cut good, good guy to root for, you basically root for the bad/evil guy whose just less evil than everyone else.

well, you don't feel that good no matter who shoots someone. and you don't feel as bad when they get shot.

[The Zapper]

Without bad guys, we wouldn't have awesome Alan Rickman roles. That's why.

Great line of thinking. I approve.