The Case for a Die Hard Antidote
Jan. 26th, 2015 04:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastDie Hard is very entertaining. If you want a good movie, go ahead and go there. It's going to be some good fun. It's also going to be problematic in a way that needs an antidote.
The lead antagonist is the evil Hans Gruber and, at the climax, the main character, John McClane kills Hans Gruber. But, John McClane does not kill Hans Gruber because Hans Gruber is evil. That's something you always have to keep in mind.
By way of evidence, let's look at one of the trailers for A Good Day to Die Hard.
McClane the father: Need a hug?
McClane the son: We're not a hugging family.
McClane the father: Damn straight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_0K7ZfU2e0
As an aside, I'd like to compose a response to this little exchange. I'd like to address this to the writers who wrote those words, the editors who approved them, the director who also approved them, and the actors who completely unironically spoke them while playing completely un-ironic heroes.
My response is as follows: Fuck you all.
What this exchange says is that tenderness in one's soul is unacceptable weakness and that the only legitimate way to be is to be tough. To preempt some defense, they're not identifying their way as different but equally valid. The exchange trumpets the failing that is tenderness as a means of expressing affection and their lack thereof. Hence my response, "fuck you all".
What that exchange makes clear is that the Die Hard franchise, like many others, is an escalating fantasy of toughness and strength. And, who doesn't like to feel strong on occasion? Go ahead and enjoy the movie. But, that toughness and strength that we feel by watching Die Hard is primarily expressed through killing.
That leads me back to the killing of Hans Gruber. John McClane does not kill Hans Gruber because Hans Gruber is evil. Hans Gruber is evil so that John McClane can kill him.
We could argue that this is a harmless fantasy. We could argue the same when the Winchesters torture a demon as proof of their own toughness, incidentally getting whatever information they need. Still, enjoy the fantasy.
For all that I enjoy the fantasy, we still need an antidote.
The antidote would start out much like Die Hard or any other movie in its same vein. The location would be a largish, but enclosable space. Let's say a cruise ship. The enemies would be a powerful, organized immediate threat, let's say pirates. That would set up the classic good v evil setup of action movies.
To change things up, instead of one main character, we'll have two. They'll have the standard traits. They'll be healthy and physically capable, but be every-day enough for the audience to easily empathize. They'll both have equal credibility as action main characters and each have equal authority. Let's say, off duty police officers or ex-military.
These two main characters will start out working together, initially killing one pirate as a necessity of survival. The second kill, however, won't be an issue of immediate survival, which will prompt something like the following exchange.
"We didn't have to kill him. We could have tied him up."
"Then he could've gotten free and we'd just have to deal with him again."
There wouldn't be enough time to hash out the full argument and the excuse would have just enough of a sense of legitimacy, and the real conflict of the movie would begin. Instead of good guys against the villains, it would be one who's interest is saving lives and one who's interest is taking lives conflicting. The conflict of the "bad guys" would be the backdrop.
At the climax, the pirates would be neutralized, but their leader would be ready to escape. Life-saver would want to capture that leader and have a criminal justice system handle the issue. Life-taker would want to kill him because, being evil, it's acceptable for life-taker to take that life. The result would be a three way action scene.
The lead pirate would escape (not a win for either of the conflicting characters). In the aftermath, neither should be punished by their community, and both can be rewarded. The full resolution to that real conflict should wait for sequels.
The only thing that would be clear at the end of the first movie is that the two will come into conflict again, and soon. Life taker wants to take lives and life saver won't allow that.
The lead antagonist is the evil Hans Gruber and, at the climax, the main character, John McClane kills Hans Gruber. But, John McClane does not kill Hans Gruber because Hans Gruber is evil. That's something you always have to keep in mind.
By way of evidence, let's look at one of the trailers for A Good Day to Die Hard.
McClane the father: Need a hug?
McClane the son: We're not a hugging family.
McClane the father: Damn straight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_0K7ZfU2e0
As an aside, I'd like to compose a response to this little exchange. I'd like to address this to the writers who wrote those words, the editors who approved them, the director who also approved them, and the actors who completely unironically spoke them while playing completely un-ironic heroes.
My response is as follows: Fuck you all.
What this exchange says is that tenderness in one's soul is unacceptable weakness and that the only legitimate way to be is to be tough. To preempt some defense, they're not identifying their way as different but equally valid. The exchange trumpets the failing that is tenderness as a means of expressing affection and their lack thereof. Hence my response, "fuck you all".
What that exchange makes clear is that the Die Hard franchise, like many others, is an escalating fantasy of toughness and strength. And, who doesn't like to feel strong on occasion? Go ahead and enjoy the movie. But, that toughness and strength that we feel by watching Die Hard is primarily expressed through killing.
That leads me back to the killing of Hans Gruber. John McClane does not kill Hans Gruber because Hans Gruber is evil. Hans Gruber is evil so that John McClane can kill him.
We could argue that this is a harmless fantasy. We could argue the same when the Winchesters torture a demon as proof of their own toughness, incidentally getting whatever information they need. Still, enjoy the fantasy.
For all that I enjoy the fantasy, we still need an antidote.
The antidote would start out much like Die Hard or any other movie in its same vein. The location would be a largish, but enclosable space. Let's say a cruise ship. The enemies would be a powerful, organized immediate threat, let's say pirates. That would set up the classic good v evil setup of action movies.
To change things up, instead of one main character, we'll have two. They'll have the standard traits. They'll be healthy and physically capable, but be every-day enough for the audience to easily empathize. They'll both have equal credibility as action main characters and each have equal authority. Let's say, off duty police officers or ex-military.
These two main characters will start out working together, initially killing one pirate as a necessity of survival. The second kill, however, won't be an issue of immediate survival, which will prompt something like the following exchange.
"We didn't have to kill him. We could have tied him up."
"Then he could've gotten free and we'd just have to deal with him again."
There wouldn't be enough time to hash out the full argument and the excuse would have just enough of a sense of legitimacy, and the real conflict of the movie would begin. Instead of good guys against the villains, it would be one who's interest is saving lives and one who's interest is taking lives conflicting. The conflict of the "bad guys" would be the backdrop.
At the climax, the pirates would be neutralized, but their leader would be ready to escape. Life-saver would want to capture that leader and have a criminal justice system handle the issue. Life-taker would want to kill him because, being evil, it's acceptable for life-taker to take that life. The result would be a three way action scene.
The lead pirate would escape (not a win for either of the conflicting characters). In the aftermath, neither should be punished by their community, and both can be rewarded. The full resolution to that real conflict should wait for sequels.
The only thing that would be clear at the end of the first movie is that the two will come into conflict again, and soon. Life taker wants to take lives and life saver won't allow that.
no subject
Date: 2017-05-19 04:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-05-20 01:53 am (UTC)The problem with Dragonball Z was that Season 3, the anime got ahead of the manga, and they had to wait for Toriyama to catch up (kind of like Game of Thrones that way), so Season 3 was the worst one for filler episodes, and repetitive episodes, and episodes that spend a lot of time not really going anywhere. Season 3 is not a good place to get into DBZ. Also, the early Funimation dubbing, which started half-way through Season 3, was terrible.
Starting with Season 1, I suppose, would be best. It's actually a time-skipped continuation of the last season of Dragonball, so there's a bunch of characters with deep history that you meet in the very first episode. Including Son Goku, who doesn't know that he used to be a giant were-ape until his tail was cut off. (Note: the original Dragonball was very loosely based on "Journey to the West")
There's a character development arc with Vegeta that starts with the coming of the Saiyans in S1 and goes through at least 4, maybe 5 seasons--turning from genocidal sociopathic prince to devoted father and loving husband[*], all because Goku spares him when he could have killed him.
As annoying and dragged out as S3 is, it has some of the more dramatic moments of "Goku would spare some violent murdering villain, Vegeta kills him when Goku's back is turned, Goku is Not Happy with Vegeta"
[*] Do not mess with Vegeta's wife or kids. He will destroy you. Then she will. Assuming the kids didn't take care of you first.
no subject
Date: 2017-05-20 02:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-09 12:23 am (UTC)