Syth vs Jedi

[whatta]

The question arose from a quote from some movie where, describing negative character, someone says, that he is one of those who always support bad guys in movies.

 

[J77]

Ahem...

It's Sith

Jedi are still coolest tho' - cos they have always have that inner dark side which they're fighting against.

 

[arildno]

If you say so?

 

[light_bulb]

you have two types of bad guy, real bad guy who everyone hates and wrong place wrong life bad guy. and if you notice in movies or real life the person who always seems to get the real bad guy is a wrong place wrong life bad guy.

good examples of this would a steven segal movie where he's been a bad guy but out there is a worse bad guy he's after. the new starwars :yuck: movies have anakin selling out the jedi's before rejoining them yet at the end of the movie no one questions how much damage was done from that act. as opposed to say scarface who lays out everything and acts on a code. when what you need is people who don't lie you will respect that. then you have the atomic train type of villain who just kills everyone around him who is in his way.

back to the jedi, he was born like that? and so was the syth? ok you know the jedi's story but the syth is just being a bad sport . anyhoo, bad guys who try to be good guys but can't get a break don't really change after being bad guys. then after the break for some reason things always spin out of control 'in the movies', but some of the audience wants to see the bad guy win knowing he was not a bad guy to begin with. one thing is for sure when you take someone to a few of the right movies and ask some questions you'll where they stand on pretty much everything.

 

[light_bulb]

double post

 

[J77]

"sometimes it would be better with unhappy ending"

ummm...

Empire Strikes Back.

The best of the whole saga

 

[whatta]

some of the audience wants to see the bad guy win knowing he was not a bad guy to begin with

let's push this a bit. what about every villian being once nice good kid, probably (unless it is sort of "spawn of satan" monster who kills its mommy). why don't they sympathize all bad guys on that basis?

 

[Panda]

It is a cultural thing. In my experience American films very rarely have a sad ending, whereas British films are not so scared of letting the world end. I know that Terry Gilliam had battles over both Brazil and 12 Monkeys because in his endings the good guy lost and everything you did in the world was futile (Very British) but the American backers wanted a happy ending so that the audience wouldn't leave the cinema and kill themselves.

 

[light_bulb]

the closest movie i can think of with a bad seed with no undue influences from the outside world was "the good son". but realistically the bad seed will come with the baggage of mommy smoking crack with her pimp boyfriend and such but at the end of the movie he has to die with a buckshot to the face because you can't have a story where the kid grows up to be anything better than a better paid repeat of what came before athough i don't know why, don't inspirational movies sell? lol i can also see that lots of people wouldn't like that someone got away with something that they probably wouldn't and got away scott free in the end.

off topic: i recommend "city of god"

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The Usual Suspects is a good one, all of them aren't exactly good people, but the evilist one gets away scot free at the end, after going on a killing spree for most of the movie, damned good film that.

Anyway I vote let the Sith win.

 

[radou]

You all turned to the dark side. Master Yoda shall punish you.

 

[whatta]

^aint Yoda dead?

 

[moose]

I still don't understand how killing the Syth or the dark side or whatever restores the balance. Do they know what BALANCE means?

 

[whatta]

having just one sith already means imbalance, because sith were more powerful than jedi. that's why in episode vi jedi (luke) chopped sith (vader) arm off only because he almost turned to dark side (and it started to give him some powers). that's why he stopped fighting (to not become sith). and that's why it was sith (vader) who could actually kill another sith (palpatine).

 

[SynapticSelf]

I always got the impression that the difference between Jedi and Sith wasn't really the goodness or evil within the individual, but the tendency to use the force for selfless or selfish acts. The Jedi never seem to use their power for their own benifit, whereas the Sith readily do. Even within the framework of the original trilogy, we can see that the "value of good" is in the mindset of the character, as opposed to the specific acts of the character. This can be seen when Vader saves Luke in the the episode VI - it couldn't possibly be argued that that one act negated all of the horrible things that we can be sure Anakin had done. If one can repent, much like Christianity, then one is not evil by nature or good by nature.

If this is the case, I would definately be Sith. I see the Jedi in the same light as I see many religious groups; their moral structure is sound and admirable, but if you're not with them, then you're against them. Master the force and make your own decisions, or limit yourself and join a dogmatic cult? Hmmm....

 

[SynapticSelf]

The question arose from a quote from some movie where, describing negative character, someone says, that he is one of those who always support bad guys in movies.

By the way, this sounds soooooo familiar, and it's driving me nuts! Which movie was it? Goodfellas keeps popping into mind...

 

[whatta]

maybe "snatch" but I dont really remember