Yuku free message boards

Namely, many people think that the only adventure film protagonists who take lives include R-rated films starring reactionary Republicans.

Can you explain this previous sentence? It just does not make any sense. Then name one person that thinks that.
What about people from countries where there is no Republican party?

However, most film protagonists that I can think of take the lives of their opponents, or the main opponent otherwise dies at the end of the film, even in PG or PG-13 films.

There is a huge moral difference in the protagonist (hero/anti-hero) taking a life (and accepting or not the responsibility for the action) and the deus-ex-machina used by wishy washy film makers. I cannot see why you would equate them.

And the film rating has nothing to do with it: G rated films also feature the death of the villain.

If you are gonna mention Indiana Jones, the bridge instance is one thing, but also remember the guy he shot point blank in the first movie. I bet he didn't lose any sleep over that guy. In the first movie, he hardly has the moral high ground. In the second, he is helping CHILDREN (eeeeeh!) In the third, for some reason, he is supposed to be solidly on the side of morality (he does not die when drinking of the chalice,) but I simply do not see enough evidence of this. I would have though that he should have shriveled up when drinking of the chalice. Indiana Jones is suddenly equated to Sir Galahad(???) Just remember that when the member of the brotherhood asks Indy if he is ready to die (as he is,) Indy does not jump up and say YES! So, what happened to Indiana Jones in between the start and the end?

The reason most Hollywood adventure villains die has to do with with the influence of the Hays Motion Picture Production Code (for films, "No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin,") and with the Comics Code Authority, when the film stories are inspired by comics ("in every instance good shall triumph over evil". )

If you look at pre-Code, non-US and post Code films, you will see a huge difference in villains getting away with it.

Yet the Code influence is still felt.

Films that do not adhere to the code (Spaghetti Westerns, for example,) can hardly be said to be simply "adventures" anymore. The protagonist becomes an anti-hero and the overall ambiance is no longer that of the light ambiance one expects of an "adventure" film, they become studies in morality and immorality, urban decay, the impotence of authority and government, etc. Film Noir and Horror films, almost.

For example, The Three Musketeers is a straight on Adventure film (and the villains get away, unpunished,) The Four Musketeers features the punishment of some of the villains, but by then it has become a Tragedy, not an Adventure, since that punishment comes with a price.

You seem to be discussing Adventure films (such as Raiders) but then you mention one (TMNT) that is merely a Comic/Action film, and hardly anyone will classify as Adventure. Based on your stringent criteria on other threads you might wanna clarify that too.

drmedula wrote:

---

Indy survives drinking from the Grail because, although he's no saint, his motives AT THAT MOMENT (saving his father's life) are noble.

That is your theory, but I'm not buying it.

An almost angel-like knight had to be born (Galahad) because none of the others were worthy or pure enough, including Arthur and Lancelot, simply to find the Grail (according to the overall Arthurian lore.)

The motives AT THE MOMENT are simply not enough.

And why would simply saving your own father's physical life be noble, that seems merely selfish to me.

(It's similar to his closing his eyes when the Ark is opened- he's not worthy of witnessing God's power, but he KNOWS it, and that's what saves him).

Regarding that, all I've is the text from the Bible itself. The priests who carried the Ark did not simply close their eyes, they had to undergo purification rites and wear special clothing. The story goes that they stumbled and one of them tried to upright the Ark and was struck dead (regardless of his motivation, that is, to save the Ark from crashing into the ground.)
Even after the proper preparation and with pure motives (rescuing the Ark from damage) he was not saved.

The closing of the eyes always seemed like so much bullstuff to me.
And the Ark did not differentiate between righteous and not righteous, because if that was the case, then people from both Israelite and Philistine armies would have been struck dead, unless all Israelites were, automatically, righteous (which, if you are familiar with Biblical lore, is not the case, either.)

"they usually mention well-known Republicans such as Clint Eastwood, Bruce Willis, Sylvester Stallone, Chuck Norris, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc. For an example, I refer you to the book Warrior Dreams by James William Gibson."

I think I now see where you are coming from, even if your post is confused and meandering.

The first item is that you call Adventure Films that which is known normally as Action Films, but also seem to go into Vigilante/Police/Justice/Court Drama territories, since it seems your focus is whether a villain should be capitally punished or not, not in whether there is Aventure or even Action involved.
"Adventure novels and adventure films are both prominent genres in their respective media, although the latter has fallen out of the spotlight with the rise of the modern-style action film." (see wikipedia.)
Therefore I will NOT be using the term Adventure Film, and your whole premise is badly phrased and should be something like: Do Modern Action Films Where The Villain Is Not killed Reflect An Anti-Death Penalty Stance? Or something like that.

But even that is absolutely simple minded question, as sometimes I can argue for my point by using something called Irony. (Irony (from the Ancient Greek εἰρωνεία eirōneía, meaning hypocrisy, deception, or feigned ignorance) is a situation, literary or rhetorical device, in which there is an incongruity, discordance or unintended connection that goes beyond the most evident meaning.)
An example of this is Starship Troopers, which audiences and critics have construed either way, though the director claims it is an anti-fascistic satire.

So the fact that the villain dies or does not die would not be able to show anything of the politics involved if this event is taken out of context, which you have done.

The second item is that you confuse and equal stories in which the wrongdoer is done in by the hero ( a human justice seeker,) or by the hand of God (deus-ex-machina.) In the former there is an underlying philosophy that man should have the right to judge others, in the latter the philosophy is that we cannot judge others without staining ourselves in some manner, thus justice is only to be meted out by God: A hero cannot kill someone else without becoming somehow less heroic. I will correct this error on your part by differentiating these two aspects properly, as they should be.

The third point is that the actual death of the villain is more audience satisfying and has more dramatic impact than the villain merely being taken into custody. Also it addressed the failures of the judicial system in actually stopping the villain once and for all (or in the Spaghetti Westerns, the absolute lack of one.) A typical story of this type is that the villain is taken into custody and then released on bail. Thus the hero must actually kill him to stop him.
Therefore films will more often end with the death of the villain one way or the other, regardless of what the politics of the filmmaker or of the audience, which makes the film a success, may be.
The villains death does not simply provide closure to the story, it is a reasonable part of the story's arc, and is a widely accepted dramatic climax.

The next point is that you are apparently only focusing on a single particular aspect of political discussion, that is, the legality or morality of the death penalty. In the REAL WORLD it would be naive to say that all Republicans are in favor of the death penalty, or that all Democrats oppose it.
While films often paint a black and white world, the REAL WORLD is most likely different shades of gray. I've already mention that other countries do not have a Republican party, or if the name is used it has nothing to do with the American Republican Party.
However the issue of the death penalty is still of political value in all other countries, whether it may or may not be legally applied.
In point of fact, the very act of the hero having to kill the villain likely indicates a failure of the political body in power, thus the Rambo films, a success during the Reagan era while seemingly showing a "Republican" attitude overall attitude in fact point out that the government has failed to provide the necessary elements required for social justice (an abandonment of the war veterans, for example.)
I would argue that Action films in which the hero needs to kill the villain (outside of the political system) are not proponents on any political party, unless that party be the Anarchy Party.

"Other countries have not produced too many stars of R-rated adventure films..."

I need not list the endless action movie actors from non-US countries. You really need to go out more. Just cause you don't know them, or are ignorant of political issues in international film does not mean they do not exist.

"...therefore they have no claim to following the "rules according to Hoyle"..."

???
What are you even talking about?

"people seemed to associate stars of PG or PG-13 adventure films, whose protagonists one would expect to more sparingly if at all take lives, with a liberal Democrat position."

Thus, it follows, Snow White is a Liberal Democrat film (the villain is killed by lightning) and Sleeping Beauty is a Republican film (the villain is killed by the hero's hand.)
What do you make of Treasure Island? The hero kills some of the villains, but lets Long John Silver (the main one) escape? Mixed messages?
Or, maybe you completely misunderstood Gibson's book and your whole discussion premise is ridiculous?