web
counter
 

10 Movie Characters Who Should Have Died When They Had The Chance

By Rob Payne | Posted Under Seriously Random Lists | Comments (59)



pajibadieharrypotterdie.jpg

We’ve recently looked at a few movie characters who probably shouldn’t have died for the sake of their own narrative integrity , which itself was inspired by the five movie sidekicks who deserved better than sudden death. In the comments to the 10 characters who shouldn’t have died thread, essential Eloquent superasente (he of the Zombie Jumping the Shark art) suggested an evil universe version of that list. Thus, the 10 Movie Characters Who Should Have Died When They Had The Chance was born.

However, there is one key difference between this list than the others. In this one, we’re taking each movies’ own verisimilitude to task. Their relationship to reality, if you will. In even in the most ridiculous cases, if any other character in the movie would have died in these situations, then all of the characters listed below should have perished, too. So it isn’t schadenfreude we’re going for here, or a list full of characters who deserved to die for being giant buttholes (see William Zabka’s career). Instead, what we’ve got here is a list of characters who just could not have survived in the real world, no matter how high up their name is in the cast credits. Okay, fine. One is based on solely principle, but the rest are the real deal…

(Note: If you consider the opposite of outcomes in movies to be spoilers, then beware of SPOILERS, I guess?)









Jar Jar Binks (Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, 1999, 2002, 2005)
pajibadiejarjardie.jpg
Why They Should Have Died: Jar Jar Binks was an awful racist stereotype, a concoction solely for “comic relief” who made C-3P0 look suave in comparison. But also because while it’s one thing to believe that a future Jedi Master/Dark Lord of the Sith could luck into blowing up the bad guys’ starbase, it’s quite another to believe a bumbling fool who was exiled by his own people — for probably nearly causing the genocide of his own people in a “hilarious” accident — could single-handedly foil an entire army of droids that were programmed to do nothing but kill whatever their blasters happened to be aiming at.

It doesn’t matter which of three Star Wars prequels, either, as Jar Jar Binks shouldn’t have survived any of them, much less all of them. Lucas just lost his nerve after slaughtering Ewoks in Return of the Jedi. Also, there were toys and shit to sell.


Alan Grant (Jurassic Park III, 2001)
pajibadiealangrantdie.jpg
Why They Should Have Died: Alan Grant was the undisputed hero of the first Jurassic Park (all apologies to the T-Rex), so he rightfully got a chance to catch his breath and missed out on the “adventures” of the The Lost World. Sadly, his cool, calm, and collected nature left an indelible hole that apparently needed to be filled by a third film, much to his and the audience’s chagrin. For his part, everything is going pretty well for Grant in JP3, that is until the movie’s conclusion, when he’s surrounded by a clan of hungry, and apparently vengeful, velociraptor. Dr. Grant’s archenemy!

It’s a situation that not even grizzled game warden Robert Muldoon could survive, so there’s no way a weaponless paleontologist has any chance in dinosaur hell of making it out of that situation alive. Then again, Muldoon didn’t have any raptor eggs with which to trade the wild animals for his life. Which is exactly what would happen in real life, certainly. No, wait. The opposite. As much as I love Sam Neil as Alan Grant, no self-respecting raptor would turn down a free meal, whether they got their egg back or not. And, you know, being alive while they him really would have been a good death for a man who dedicated his life to proving just how badass that species of dinos were.


Tom Cruise’s Son, and by extension all of humanity (War of the Worlds, 2005)
pajibadierobbiehumanitydie.jpg
Why They Should Have Died: Dude (Robbie, if you care to know) spends two-thirds of the movie in lock-step with his sister and estranged father, beating odds every which way but loose, and survivng alien ambush after alien ambush because he’s fictionally related to Tom Cruise, and nothing too bad can ever happen to Tom Cruise. But then, in the middle of the biggest fire fight between humans and Martians in the movie, this teenage haircut decides he to be a big man and runs off to join the army right in the heat of battle. And into a giant explosion that kills basically everyone else in the scene not named Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning.

For the remainder of the movie, Cruise and Fanning are on their own, rightly believing Justin Chatwin is probably dead, only to find him safely at his mom’s house when the Martians lose the interplanetary war to the common cold, that wily bastard. Typical Spielberg schmaltz. But not all of that is the director’s fault, because no matter which version of War of the Worlds you’ve read or seen, humanity should lose every time. Every. Single. Time. The Martians are so technologically advanced that they have beams of light that incinerate human beings on contact, completely turning a former person to a current pile of dust in five seconds flat. Our nuclear devices don’t even hurt them and Jeff Goldblum doesn’t exist in this universe to create a comptuer virus that causes the alien ships to self-destruct. Basically, we’re all doomed. Doomed, I tells ya.


Henry “Indiana” Jones Jr. (Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, 2008)
pajibadieindianajonesdie.jpg
Why They Should Have Died: I didn’t say anything when he survived at least a two day underwater trek attached to a Nazi submarine. I didn’t say anything when he jumped out of an airplane with nothing but a plastic life raft, and then slid down a Himalayan mountainside. I didn’t say anything when he went over a cliff, while still half inside a Panzer tank, only to miraculously grab some rock or extended tree branch 20 feet from the spot he initially went over, and then climb back up as if nothing awesome just happened. And because of that silence, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg nuked the fridge.

If our beloved archeologist/adventurer had perished at the beginning of Crystal Skull, not only would we have been excused from the ridiculousness of that phrase (and director Spielberg’s pride in helping coin it), we would have been spared CGI Shia Lebeouf swinging from trees with his monkey pals, interdimensional ancient aliens, and the gradual loss of respect one felt for Cate Blanchett as her accent became more “Rocky & Bullwinkle” the longer the movie went on. It may have been the shortest film in the franchise, but it would have been much less painful to see Indy drop dead as he watched that mushroom cloud rise over his head than the final film we got. Plus, y’know, he’s like 500 feet away from that mushroom cloud and all he needs is a 1950s scrubdown? That wouldn’t even fly in an Ed Wood movie.


Sam Witwicky (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, 2009)
pajibadiesamwitwickydie.jpg
Why They Should Have Died: Speaking Shia Lebeouf ruining things… Ah, no, that isn’t fair. The Beef isn’t to be blamed for the travesty of the Transformers movie franchise, that fault mostly lies with Michael Bay’s hard on for jingoism and big ass ‘splosions. It’s also His Baynis’ fault that Sam Witwicky does actually die in Revenge of the Fallen, go up (down? I dunno) to robot heaven, talk with some robot angels (demons? I really didn’t understand that part), and then be resurrected in time to save the world, in spite having no discernible talents or skills, while more talented and better skilled people and robots die around him. Again.

We’re talking a movie filled with highly trained and highly advanced soldiers, some of whom are giant, nearly indestructible robots, and one goofy college kid who gets by solely on his grandfather’s past achievements is the hero? Those soldiers, humans and robot, die left and right in all three movies — some in terribly gruesome ways (there might not be any blood, but ask your toaster how she feels seeing Autobots get ripped in twain). Somehow Sam is immune every time he rushes headlong into a robot smackdown, and the one time they could have used a dose of reality? Robot Heaven. Fuck you in the ear, Michael Bay. (And yes, I know this image is from Dark of the Moon, but it was too hilarious not to use. You’re welcome.)


Chev Chelios (Crank, 2009)
pajibadiechevcheliosdie.jpg
Why They Should Have Died: Chev Chelios is probably Jason Statham’s most iconic “Jason Statham” role to-date, and that means Chelios is basically a super hero in the vein of Bruce Willis from Unbreakable. But 65% less dour. The fact that Chev is alive for most of the movie at all is reason enough to suspend disbelief for a couple hours, while he runs around town at less frames per second than an 8MM camera, looking for the jerk-offs who want him dead. It’s a fantastic one-off action movie that distills the genre’s essence far better than Clive Owen’s Shoot ‘Em Up.

But once he falls out of that plane, and the expression on his face implies his heart finally stopping and he’s at peace, Chev Chelios is dead. But even if he was still alive before he hit the ground, once he does, he’s dead. Not mostly dead, dead dead. That isn’t raspberry jam coming out of his eyes and ears, that’s what is left of his brain after it exploded upon impact after reaching terminal velocity. That’s “terminal” as in “he literally can’t go any faster” without breaking the laws of physics. Hell, Chelios should be unrecognizable as a human being, much less recognizable as Jason Statham, as soon as he splatters the pavement. But then there wouldn’t be a Crank 2: High Voltage, you say? And that’s a bad thing, why?


Sid, Dewey, and Gale (Scre4m, 2011)
pajibadiesiddeweygale.jpg
Why They Should Have Died: The first three Scream movies do a pretty bang up job of showing throughout the course of their runtimes how the franchise’s three leads (Sidney Prescott, Dewey Riley, and Gale Weathers) continue making the final cut and barely missing the killers’ blade. No matter how many times you may want to root for their deaths, there’s always a pretty good reason why they’re still alive — usually due to each killers’ previously non-noteworthy stupidity in the final act wherein they spend more time telling Sid why they want to kill her than actually killing her. However, Scre4m (not Scream 4, because that would be ridiculous, right?) pretty clearly establishes that Emma Roberts’ serial murderer (confusingly named Jill Roberts) is in a class above those that came before her, even if her motives are even more laughable than those that came before her.

The movie sets up the denoument in such a fashion that it is not only believable that Jill is about to get away with murder, it’s also preferable. Of course, she doesn’t. Director Wes Craven and screenwriter Kevin Williamson walk back their own brilliance, allowing Sid, Dewey, Gale and generic storytelling another chance to live to fight another day in Scre5m. Which is a shame, because if they really wanted a new trilogy, one centering on the same killer, shifting to her perspective, and who is profoundly good at her chosen profession, would be much more interesting than anything Craven and Williamson can come up with next. Guaranteed.


Harry Potter (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II, 2011)
pajibadieharrypotterdie.jpg
Why They Should Have Died: Admittedly, this is the hardest one to write about. I was so very glad that J.K. Rowling found a way not to kill off Harry Potter at the end of the series’ last book, Deathly Hallows, because I’d been dreading it ever since she first introduced the Prophecy. As I’ve mentioned before, killing characters off for lack of a better ending rubs me the wrong way, but in this instance it makes perfect sense. Especially considering these cryptic lines from said Prophecy: “[A]nd either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives.” Obviously, Voldermort would never win, but that didn’t mean Harry had to live. In fact, for several books/movies, it almost seemed like Harry would have to die in order to save the world, and those he loved most.

And he should have. Because while it would have made for an incredibly down ending to the books and the movies, Harry’s death would have carried weight with it forever. Harry Potter’s sacrifice would have been felt and celebrated for the selflessly heroic act that it was in both the fictional land of Hogwarts and in our own world for many, many years. Harry would have been like so many heroes before him, and Rowling even forces Harry to make this choice, and he does so, bravely before she undercuts him by putting a big magical bandaid on the whole thing. Unlike Shia’s jaunt to robot heaven, Harry’s trip to the wizarding afterlife is a beautiful scene made all the more powerful that he was finally with the people he really loved and at peace. He would have been, like Buffy before she too was brought back from the dead, warm and happy forever.

Harry’s survival simply doesn’t sit right. He could never have a normal life, not even normal in wizarding world terms. That’s likely why the epilogue bothers so many people — it feels to easy and quaint for everything we’ve just read/seen. It simply doesn’t feel right to have Harry Potter being a happily married middle class man with kids who goes about his day not solving the world’s crises one Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, or He Who Shall Not Be Named, at a time. Harry Potter is a hero, and heroes die for the betterment of all. Or, they should, anyway.


Rob Payne also writes the indie comic The Unstoppable Force and tweets on the Twitter @RobOfWar. He completely understands if you disagree with him on that last point, but the rest are inarguable. INARGUABLE.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Hunger Games Trailer: Nailed It! | Justin Timberlake, Stand-Up Guy Or PR Super-Genius?









Comments

Thank you thank you for making me feel less like a sociopath. The end of deathly hallows for me was totally anti climactic for all the reasons you mentioned. Harry should have died to save the world. It felt like j.k walked us up to that point then back peddled furiously in fear if Joe public's reaction. And don't get me started on the ludicrous epilogue-I'm posting from my phone and typing on it gets me angry enough without giving me lengthy subject matter to get through!

Posted by: Cadence121 at November 14, 2011 12:17 PM

It felt sufficient to me that Harry was willing to die. I also felt that it seemed like a very real possibility for most of the books. She had to cut him slack somewhere. Poor kid.

In my mind, I had replaced Paul Dano as the brother in the excrementally awful War of the Worlds. If they had to keep him alive, could he at least have killed his sister so she'd stop screaming every 30 seconds?

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at November 14, 2011 12:20 PM

I read this, agreed with it, and then moved on. Then I saw the link on Facebook and it said that someone going to be getting hate mail and I had to come back and say I agreed with it.

Rowling painted Harry Potter as a messiah character for the entire series. Now, I didn't learn a whole lot of useful things while getting a degree in English, but one of the things that I did learn was that messiah characters die. Moses died. Jesus died. I can't think of any more because I didn't really learn that much.

Harry Potter's death would have affected millions. Would little kids have cried? Shit, I was 25 when Deathly Hallows came out and I wouldn't bawled like a little bitch. But it would have stuck with them, and it would've instilled a small sense of what self sacrifice and selflessness really are into those millions of people. And while they would have been bitter and angry for a while, they would have eventually become better people for having that experience.

Posted by: APOCooter at November 14, 2011 12:26 PM

Why did you hate Crank 2 and did you like most faux hipsters love Scott Pilgrim? If so, why?

Posted by: googergieger at November 14, 2011 12:30 PM

Y'all be buggin', if y'all think Harry should have stayed dead. Forget the "perfect story", it was a cultural juggernaut. It was never going to happen. She could have had some more collateral damage though. That I will grant you.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at November 14, 2011 12:32 PM

Harry died. And then he got better.

I still don't know how (I only watched the movies, never read the books). Could someone explain it to me?

Also, Sam Whatshisface should have died because he was the Jar-Jar equivalent: Highly annoying and absolutely useless.

Posted by: FabMax at November 14, 2011 12:33 PM

I agree with you RobP Harry should of died with Voldemort. Hell the trailer had it right. Harry grabs Voldy and they both plunge to their death. However you are forgetting these are kids books and it would have taken one stone cold bitch to kill Harry off after raising a generation on them. I dont blame her. Hell all the moms would of burnt her at the stake.

Posted by: logan at November 14, 2011 12:37 PM

Why did you hate Crank 2 and did you like most faux hipsters love Scott Pilgrim? If so, why?

You don't have to hate Crank 2 to acknowledge that it was pointless, especially as a sequel. And I also enjoyed Scott Pilgrim, although I do not understand what that has to do with the first part. Or faux hipsterism, for that matter.

Posted by: Vermillion at November 14, 2011 12:39 PM

Also my cold cynical heart tells me that JK wants Harry alive just in case she gets down to her last 100 million, last castle, last Faberge egg etc. Then she writes Harry Potter and the Midlife Crisis!

Posted by: logan at November 14, 2011 12:41 PM

I wanted Harry to die defending Neville. I wanted him to have some lingering doubt about who the prophecy was about. Voldemort would kill Harry and then Neville would kill Voldemort and it would be all twisted.

I think society needs to be knocked a kilter from the safe norm every once in a while.

(I was conflicted when I saw the title of this post and the photo and was prepared to be angry with you, but I think you made your case about Harry Potter beautifully and thoughtfully.)

Posted by: Sbrown at November 14, 2011 12:47 PM

Rowling painted Harry Potter as a messiah character for the entire series. Now, I didn't learn a whole lot of useful things while getting a degree in English, but one of the things that I did learn was that messiah characters die. Moses died. Jesus died.

You realize that Jesus did that whole rising again thing, right? That THAT is what made him the Messiah? So Harry coming back after sacrificing himself like that actually makes it more messianic rather than less.

Posted by: KatSings at November 14, 2011 12:47 PM

For the record, I think the article makes a good case for Harry dying, but I agree with Mrs.Julien that that was never going to happen. And I'm ok with it.

Posted by: KatSings at November 14, 2011 12:48 PM

googergieger:

Does your continuous failure at trolling bother you? If so, why?

Posted by: TylerDFC at November 14, 2011 12:48 PM

I disagree that Harry needed to die. He had made so many sacrifices as it was, especially at such a young age, that it wasn't necessary for him to die too. I think sending a message to kids that you can sacrifice a lot for the greater good, and still make it out alive--and not have your life suck, is a good message to convey.

Also, by keeping him alive you get to avoid all that Jesus bullshit that would have otherwise been attached to Harry Potter's story. In fact, you could argue, that by keeping Hary alive, Rowling made her story less predictable. And that's a good thing in my book.

Posted by: tamatha at November 14, 2011 12:50 PM

I just watched Scream 4 and really enjoyed the big reveal that Emma Roberts was one of the killers. You're absolutely right that her character was a league above the others. She totally deserved her victory and subsequent fame. There is no reason that the franchise characters should've lived, and I think I would've enjoyed the movie more (and the whole franchise, for that matter) if the killer had taken home the victory. If her plan worked and the heroes died. Her plan was flawless, and only because Sydney has veins and organs lined with titanium was the villain finally foiled.

Great list man. Glad you left off Han Solo.

Posted by: superasente at November 14, 2011 1:03 PM

I saw "Old Yeller" as a kid and have been unable to watch movies with animals as main characters ever since. It would've been another "Old Yeller" for me if Harry would've stayed dead. Hell, I cried during the movie when he took that walk through the woods - after I had read the book and knew how it was going to end! The others are right - J.K. would've had to go into hiding if she'd killed that boy for good.

Posted by: My Buddy Keith at November 14, 2011 1:03 PM

KatSings has a pretty good point.

Posted by: Amanda6 at November 14, 2011 1:03 PM

This list makes a lot of interesting points, but I beg to differ regarding Harry Potter's resurrection. I saw it as a very good thematic mirror of the Sorting Hat; the story was always heavily about choice and the sacrifices those choices entail. It was hardly a field of roses that Harry woke back in to - requiring him to choose, one more time, to do the hard and frightening thing was quite consistent with the series themes.

Posted by: The sheriff is near! at November 14, 2011 1:18 PM

Here's one more vote that Harry's death would've been the right thing to do, storytelling-wise.

When he was heading into the forest accompanied by the ghosts of his parents, Sirius, et al., I started to feel emotional, thinking that this was it. As much as things seemed to have derailed after the fifth book, this was going to work!

Nope. So it goes.

That said, I liked the epilogue.

Posted by: Adam at November 14, 2011 1:22 PM

George Lucas should have offed Lando and the Falcon when the 2nd Death Star blowed up.

Just sayin.

Posted by: Some Guy at November 14, 2011 1:29 PM

Wasn't it a helicopter at the end of Crank that he fell out of?

Posted by: Kargoyle at November 14, 2011 1:39 PM

First off, l33t fail, dude. It would be Scr5am not Scre5m.

Thank you thank you for making me feel less like a sociopath.

Poseur. Sociopaths don't feel like sociopaths. It's the rest of you us who feel bad about death and stuff. However, we they do look just like everyone else.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at November 14, 2011 1:39 PM

Ron should have died. It would have made up for his defection, and given him the depth of sacrifice. He should have died saving Harry's life, thus giving him the attention and immortality he always desired. It would have been selfless and awesome. The only death I really felt in the 7th books was Snape and Fred. All of the others lacked any emotional weight.

Posted by: Haystacks at November 14, 2011 1:44 PM

Voldemort didn't technically kill Harry. Voldemort killed the piece of his own soul that he didn't realize was inside Harry. Dumbledore gave Harry the choice: take the train and be dead, or go back to face Voldemort one more time. Arguably, being dead was the easier thing to do, and Harry chose the harder option. He chose the harder thing twice: First to die, and then to live.

Posted by: Three-nineteen at November 14, 2011 1:49 PM

You know what would have been the best payoff for me in Harry Potter? If it turned out that Harry wasn't the Chosen One after all. It really wouldn't have required much alteration. Stay with me on this.

Everything happens they way it does, except that when Neville Longbottom kills the Snake, it's discovered he was actually the chosen one (since they did say that technically he qualified in the Prophecy too.) It would have been perfect, Voldemort would have had Harry cornered and would have all set to dispatch Harry once and for all- convinced his troubles were over, when nobody Neville, who has been growing up in Harry's shadow, safe from suspicion, steps in and shocks the bejesus out of the former Tom Riddle. It turns out Harry's role in the Prophecy was a great exercise in interference; everyone on both sides mistakenly assume Harry is the One. Harry is naturally gifted enough to eradicate Voldemort's plots and his forces, but still it wouldn't be the end of the world if he had in fact died along the way. Neville is the Bastian to Harry's Atreyu. He learns by experiencing what Harry & Company do. When the time comes, Neville goes from the meek and ghost-like, to the brave hero he was destined to be (which he kind of did anyway, we just take it a step farther). And he then willing sacrifices himself and kills Voldemort- who still can't believe he screwed up all this time. Harry, however, is so shaken from the experience that he walks away from everyday magic, opting instead to stay on as a wizardry police officer, keeping tabs on those who wrongly use magic in the Muggle world. Harry never forgets Neville's sacrifice to save him, and names his son after him.

This way you don't alienate your readers by killing the character they were following all this time. Harry is still a hero, he just isn't the one who has to die. I think it could've worked, and it would have partially eliminated one of the more aggravating elements of HP in that the whole "Boy Who Lived"/deity mantle that was always put on him. Now he's is just a "normal" wizard. He isn't a magic Boy Jesus Christ. He still does extraordinary things, but doesn't have all the history thrust upon him to live out the rest of his day like a former child star now grown up without purpose. And that's just fine by him.

Then again, I'm just a struggling screenwriter filmmaker who still on occasion rolls pennies for gas money- so what the Hell do I know?

Posted by: bleujayone at November 14, 2011 2:04 PM

Sbrown is right: "I wanted Harry to die defending Neville. I wanted him to have some lingering doubt about who the prophecy was about. Voldemort would kill Harry and then Neville would kill Voldemort and it would be all twisted."

Posted by: An Atlantan at November 14, 2011 2:08 PM

That was poetry, bleujayone.

By the by, Mr. Julien is a script consultant. Coverage or notes. www. scriptguy.com. He has phenomenal references.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at November 14, 2011 2:22 PM

I agree with everyone saying that Neville being the true hero of the Prophecy, of half of it, or whatever, would have been an ending altogether as good as Harry's self-sacrifice/death would have been. I always wondered if Rowling might do that, too. Instead she went with the least predictable outcome, which just so happened to be the most predictable outcome. Ho hum.

@googergieger: I'm far too large and wear too many pieces of clothing that match to be a hipster, thankyouverymuch.

Posted by: RobP at November 14, 2011 2:27 PM

The Neville angle could have worked if Rowling didn't go to great lengths to assure readers that Harry was, in fact, the chosen one. She made a large point of the fact that Voldemort, by choosing to kill Harry and his parents on that fateful night, chose his own nemesis. Maybe this didn't come up until the last book. The later ones especially get a bit muddled in my mind, and I guess it still wouldn't have taken much to alter the approach to the prophecy.

As it is, I think it's a pretty neat look into how someone else's choices can have a profound and even fundamental impact on someone's life. I would have probably preferred the Neville twist for it's wow and cool factor, but the story as it was presented was satisfying to me as well.

For the record, I also didn't mind the epilogue as much as most people did. I especially liked how she showed that Harry and Draco had buried the hatchet and even if they weren't necessarily friends, they still respected each other.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at November 14, 2011 2:28 PM

Thanks, Three-Nineteen. But that doesn't make any sense. We see V killing Harry himself, not just some part of Harry. He shouldn't have been able to come back. I like Bleujayone's version better.

Posted by: FabMax at November 14, 2011 2:40 PM

"You don't have to hate Crank 2 to acknowledge that it was pointless, especially as a sequel. And I also enjoyed Scott Pilgrim, although I do not understand what that has to do with the first part. Or faux hipsterism, for that matter."

Pretty nothing statement, yo. Was as pointless as countless other movies. In my experience people champion Scott Pilgrim for what Crank 2 accomplished. Actually making a video game kind of movie. Not by screaming video game references at you. Still it managed to combine the two rather well. Again, why did you like Scott Pilgrim and why didn't you like Crank 2? Outside of, "hipsters seemed to like one and not the other", nobody seems to answer that.


TylerDFC, you are trolling me with that comment harder than I have in any comment I have ever made. It has been established that I don't troll. Do I disagree? Sure. Do I single out people that comment and accuse them of trolling when they ask why someone doesn't like one movie and why they like another movie? No. Cause I'm not a troll. Nor an idiot. Grats on successfully trolling me with that, though?

Ma'am.

Posted by: googergieger at November 14, 2011 2:42 PM

I believe Dumbledore talked to Harry about Voldemort effectively choosing him as his nemesis in Book 5.

Posted by: Three-nineteen at November 14, 2011 2:47 PM

In the train station, there is that little ugly baby thing under a bench that cries and then (I think) dies. Dumbledore makes a comment that neither he nor Harry can do anything for it. That is the piece of Voldemort's soul. Since Harry comes back from the train station, that suggests (to me) that Harry didn't technically die. He could have if he chose to, but he chose to live. There was no magic that kept him alive. There is nothing in the station scene that suggests that any magic brings Harry back to life. It was Harry's will that brought him back.

Posted by: Three-nineteen at November 14, 2011 2:52 PM

Again, why did you like Scott Pilgrim and why didn't you like Crank 2? Outside of, "hipsters seemed to like one and not the other", nobody seems to answer that.

I didn't say I didn't like Crank 2, or even that I liked it more or less than Scott Pilgrim. I simply said I liked Scott Pilgrim, and asked what did that have to do with hating Crank 2.

I enjoyed both Crank movies. They were utter and complete nonsense, but it it was fun nonsense. And I felt the same way about Scott Pilgrim. If anything, they are quite similar in their "video game"-ness and breaks from reality. To be honest, they emulated the arcade games they were based on fairly well, but weren't the best "just like a video game" kind of movie (for me, that would be The Last Starfighter).

So I don't really understand why someone feels that both are mutually exclusive. And again, I do not see why liking Crank 2 somehow prevents me from acknowledging that, from a thematic and a story viewpoint, the sequel had no real purpose. Everything to be said was said perfectly in the first one, and the sequel was no real escalation or improvement. And I certainly don't see where this "hipster" thing, real or faux, comes in.

And please don't use that "other movies are _______ too" cop out. I really hate that. That is lazy and requires no real attempt at considering either my viewpoint or your own. You can feel however you like about a film, but if you can't come up with a better defense than "other movies are pointless too", then you are passively insulting both my and your own intelligence.

Posted by: Vermillion at November 14, 2011 2:57 PM

You realize that Jesus did that whole rising again thing, right? That THAT is what made him the Messiah? So Harry coming back after sacrificing himself like that actually makes it more messianic rather than less.

Yes, but he didn't get to stay around after he had risen again. Imagine how much lamer the New Testament story was all like, "I now die to cleanse mankind of it's sins."

/fade to black

/12 hours later

"Yo! Peter, Paul! What's up! Dude, you would not believe what happened to me. Hey, where's Mary Mags?"

/Jesus went on to live a long, happy life. He married Mary Magdalene and had 13 children; Peter, Paul, Andy, James, Jimmy, Bart, Phil, John, Matt, Tom, Tad, Simon, and Judy.

Posted by: APOCooter at November 14, 2011 3:02 PM

I didn't use that. You did, when you didn't clarify what you meant. You said it was pointless. That was all. I felt it did improve on the first, as the second one embraced the ridiculousness of it all. The first Crank I felt tried to play itself too seriously in some bits, or at the very least not take advantage of it's stupid yet clever idea.

With that said, my problem is with people that hate Crank 2 and love Scott Pilgrim. I felt Scott Pilgrim relied on Family Guy style of things. References to things as an excuse for humor and/or cleverly referencing something. Crank 2 felt like Saints Row almost. Scott Pilgrim felt like fauxhipsters talking about Zelda and laughing about them remembering things. Again problem is more liking one and hating the other. Especially when the other tried to do what the one actually did.

Moving on from that. Neither Crank nor Crank 2 had real purpose outside of, unstoppable man runs amok.

So when you say pointless, it's like saying you expected more from something that lived up to it's potential. Point of both was setting up scenes. Second one did it better by not letting, "audiences can't get behind this unless" get in the way.

Posted by: googergieger at November 14, 2011 3:26 PM

No post is immune from a ridiculous shit storm.

Tomorrow at Pajiba: Pizza - Why It's Awesome.
No it isn't!
It will be awesome when I smash your pizza face!
RACE WAAAAAAAAR!

Posted by: superasente has started his share of fights at November 14, 2011 3:42 PM

I just hope no one gets involved in a land war in Asia.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien Wants to Play Too at November 14, 2011 4:14 PM

I hope Googoogaga hasn't built up a tolerance to iocane powder.

Posted by: Pinky McLadybits at November 14, 2011 5:51 PM

We can all agree that JK is pretty hot and she has like 17 gajillion dollars so if she's looking for a middle aged engineer for a man-toy I'd be an excellent choice. Surely we can all agree on that.

Posted by: logan at November 14, 2011 5:59 PM

So when you say pointless, it's like saying you expected more from something that lived up to it's potential. Point of both was setting up scenes. Second one did it better by not letting, "audiences can't get behind this unless" get in the way.

See now, that is an actual discussion there. It isn't a simple "other movies are pointless too" excuse. You felt Crank 2 wasn't pointless. You explained why you felt that way. And I am grateful for that.

Now that you have said that, I can craft a direct response. As far as I saw it, Crank 1 did the video game meta-commentary excellently. And I didn't see any real point of expansion for a sequel. Even ignoring the logical problems (which you yourself said was one of the sequel's strengths), I simply did not see anything that either a) wasn't already done in some form in the first one, or b) couldn't be done in the first one but had to wait for the sequel. It seemed like a retread to me, even with the crrrrazier action. Operative words: TO ME. It doesn't mean I didn't like it. It was good, and I agree the wackiness and utter abandon of sense works in its favor.

My only objection were the assumptions you were making based on the statement that I, and at least the writer of the Crank entry on the list if no one else, apparently hated Crank 2 because we didn't like it enough.

By itself, that was kinda rude, but not offensively so. Everyone (especially on Pajiba) has their moments of cinematic judgment. But you continued with this assertion, and somehow related this to liking Scott Pilgrim and making the two feelings exclusive.

Again problem is more liking one and hating the other. Especially when the other tried to do what the one actually did.

And again, my problem is the assumption that everyone feels this way, even when I am telling you directly that I don't. Just because you do. This is another thing I don't like very much: people telling me how I should feel about things.

It is not just you, though. It is a bad habit of Pajibans, or any community-based website. This is why I withdraw from this place for so long.

So yes, I may have expected more from Crank 2, if only by virtue of it being a sequel, and I enjoyed what I got, but I still agree with the entry on the list. I am not saying Crank 2 should not have existed. I am saying that like the last line in the entry, I am wondering: why should I care? What about Crank 2 was so needed? I mean, I like it while it is here, but would I really miss it if it was gone? The answer I am coming up with is "no". And that is fine.

And honestly, if I held any sway in Hollywood, that is how I would choose all sequels. But I don't, so that is why "other movies do it" never works on me. Because I don't give them any leeway either, at least when it comes to viewing them.

Incidentally, this is how I felt about IM2 as well.

Posted by: Vermillion at November 14, 2011 6:14 PM

@Pinky M
Get used to disappointment.

@logan
Get used to disappointment.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at November 14, 2011 6:27 PM

I just can't let the slight against Raiders of the Lost Ark slide.

WW2 submarines only went underwater when they were actively engaged in combat or evasion. Otherwise they were above water. Engines that burn oxygen make you have to do that. Modern military subs are nuclear powered and do not need oxygen for propulsion.

Also the amount of time that passes from when Indy boards the sub to when it docks is not clear. It could have been just a few hours. It's safe for you to maintain your suspension of disbelief.

Otherwise, good list. :-)

Posted by: Stiv Bators at November 14, 2011 7:16 PM

First off, l33t fail, dude. It would be Scr5am not Scre5m.

Bierce, wouldn't it be 5cream?
(The third one was sometimes referred to as Scr3am. But with the '3' backwards.) And I think the idea is to replace the letter with the number that most closely resembles it, yeah? I'm not really hip to you kids these days and your lingo, so.

Posted by: Anna von Beav at November 14, 2011 7:23 PM

"How is the Coyote still alive after falling off the cliff so many times?"

"How did Superman just blink away that bullet to the eye?"

^Biggest problem with that entry.

When Crank 2 came out people shat on it for the same reasons they praised Scott Pilgrim later on. Not for nothing, but I think we can all rightfully assume several people on this here site fall into that camp. Hence why I brought it up.

To me Crank 2 is the closest thing to a Grand Theft Auto(Saints Row at this point) brought to the movie screen. Successfully at least. It did it better than the first. It did it better than Shoot Em Up. It did it better than Versus. Different strokes for different folks? I'm fine with that.

"Why come the man who had poison coursing through his body that should have killed him early on in the movie survive in the end?"

Not so fine with that. Movies make their own rules and if they follow them, then I'm good with that. Crank 2 did that. More of the same? Alright. I honestly think you'd be better off watching the first one and the second one and coming back. As to me the second one did what the first one promised. Well what they both promised.

If I had any sway in Hollywood I'd let South Korea take over all movies.

Posted by: googergieger at November 14, 2011 8:00 PM

When Crank 2 came out people shat on it for the same reasons they praised Scott Pilgrim later on. Not for nothing, but I think we can all rightfully assume several people on this here site fall into that camp.

That is simply playing with probability. But that wasn't what you asked. You made three highly suspect assumptions in your initial question:

a) the writer hated Crank 2
b) the writer loved Scott Pilgrim
c) the writer had to be a hipster for a and b to be true

All three of those pretty strong assumptions, which you subsequently plastered over everyone. If you met people who crapped on Crank 2, okay then fine. But it is a bit of a leap to assume Scott Pilgrim somehow escaped such criticism, whether due to hipsters or anything else. And really, seeing their respective box office figures, you can't pretend like it was a majority opinion. Hell, both films got a positive review here on Pajiba from different people, and similar positive receptions in the comments. So this dichotomy you are convinced exists is pretty much all in your head.

As far as the rest, that is fine and dandy. But it is also your OPINION. Which you are free to have. Just don't stick me or others inside of it, marking off arbitrary boundaries and setting up strawmen without any consideration of who you are actually taking to.

Posted by: Vermillion at November 14, 2011 8:20 PM

"Why did you hate Crank 2 and did you like most faux hipsters love Scott Pilgrim? If so, why?"

^Huh. Nope, don't see B and C there, friend.

IMDB is where I am basing this on. Comic Con conversations as well. I'm a little late to this Pajiba party. Oh and lets not forget reviews on the movies as well.

"Which you are free to have. Just don't stick me or others inside of it, marking off arbitrary boundaries and setting up strawmen without any consideration of who you are actually taking to."

Huh. I guess I can see how I did that with my original comment where I asked point blank, did they like a movie and why. If only to see if their reasons for liking that movie would contradict any possible reason for hating Crank 2. Where yes, you pointed out they could easily like it, just hate the idea that a cartoon character survived. Alright.

Posted by: googergieger at November 14, 2011 8:29 PM

I could have sworn that I once read that Rowling HAD planned to kill Harry off but was forced to pull a Dickensian "Great Expectations" change. Or maybe I just dreamt it. I can't remember. And I actually preferred Luna as a potential love interest. The Ginny thing seemed a tad too forced. But say what. Decent books they are.

Posted by: Four Eyes at November 14, 2011 8:44 PM

FWIW, kiddos, I don't mind Crank 2, I just think Crank was good enough all on its own. I liked Scott Pilgrim better when it was a Manga series, but the books don't have Kieran Culkin or Tom Jane, so I'm torn. And as I said previously, I can't wear skinny jeans and I wouldn't even if I could.

But don't mind me, this is not an unenjoyable diversion.

Posted by: RobP at November 14, 2011 9:23 PM

What's a "faux hipster" and how does it differ from a "real hipster"?

As a followup question: Who cares?

I disliked Crank 2 because the shit was already done in Crank 1, not to mention the fact that, as the RP points out, you don't fall 5 million feet and not die. I disliked Crank 2 because it was stupid, contrived, repetitive and did I say stupid? I didn't really care too much for Crank 1 for most of the same reasons, but it was a novelty at that time.

Which brings me to Scott Pilgrim. Not a sequel. Novel idea. Decent writing. Kinda the opposite of Crank 2. I'm not even sure how you came to the conclusion that these two movies are similar and therefore "faux hipster" material.

Harry Potter should have died the first time a death eater was in the same room as he was. He should have died at the hands of like 17 different people who had him in their hands. The whole "Voldemort must kill him!" is the lamest excuse for a plot device ever. Of course, this has nothing to do with why or how he didn't die in the end. I'm fine with him not dying, the damn messiah thing has been done to death. ha.

For the record, I could care less about that pie-faced idiot in War of the Worlds, but Sam Limpdicky should have died so many times. How is it that a metal creature that's essentially a flying rack of knives can't kill one short-ass moron let everyone else dies in 2 seconds?

Posted by: Protoguy at November 14, 2011 9:26 PM

Faux hipsters are Quebecers. But they tell people they're French.

Posted by: superasente at November 14, 2011 9:47 PM

Faux Hipster is someone not good enough to be a real hipster. Someone that painfully tries to be one but isn't. Which is a bit hilarious as hipsters are known for trying hard as it is. Basically elitist>hipster>faux hipster. Elitists dictate what is cool, hipsters follow it, faux hipsters follow it late as fook.

Again, a cartoon character not dying is your big complaint? Brilliant. What shit was already done in Crank 1? I mean really, did you people watch both movies? The first Crank was rather reserved for what it was. Focused way too much on it's "story" to move the movie along. Where as the second embraced the idiocy of it all. Set up really clever scenes and was a video game come to life. Scott Pilgrim was lets talk about video games and be painfully self aware.

I mean again both had the goal of a video game in movie form. Yes one was based on something, awesome. Still Crank 2 succeeded where Scott Pilgrim failed.

Then again, people think Family guy is funny and clever for mentioning things that happened or redoing things that happened in cartoon form. Then again, you don't see any similarities between Scott Pilgrim and Crank 2.

Posted by: googergieger at November 14, 2011 10:02 PM

I think I would have enjoyed the Harry Potter Series more if Harry died in the end. It would have made more sense and totally set him up to be one of the greatest tragic heroes in all of fiction. The end could have then focused on a collage of perspectives from all the characters about what the world would be like without Harry Potter.

Posted by: Muteki at November 15, 2011 6:06 AM

^Huh. Nope, don't see B and C there, friend.

They why would you ask him why he hated Crank 2, if you weren't assuming he hated Crank 2? That makes no damn sense. The word "why" only works a certain way.

IMDB is where I am basing this on. Comic Con conversations as well.

As a wise man once said "well, THERE'S your problem!"

Then again, you don't see any similarities between Scott Pilgrim and Crank 2. I'm a little late to this Pajiba party.

Beyond the whole "using video games as a gimmick" conceit? Not really. They used different games, different approaches, different goals, with different results. Just because two movies use a similar gimmick, it doesn't mean they necessarily compete with each other.

Posted by: Vermillion at November 15, 2011 9:16 AM

Whoops misread that first line as A and B. Rest still applies.

Know what? Don't worry about any of it. Forget it. I quit. I am going back over here in my hole for a while. Carry on how you all usually do.

Posted by: Vermillion at November 15, 2011 9:46 AM

I always hoped that Harry would survive the ending, but would be forced to make a great sacrifice to protect his friends: destroy the Horcrux that was inside him, which wouldn't kill him...but would obliterate his magical abilities and his memory, severing his connection to this world he had just saved.

Rowling always said that Harry's story would 'definitively end' in Book 7; this gets you there and, in some ways, is more poignant than death.

/fanfic
/dork

Posted by: Kate at November 15, 2011 5:10 PM

Someone to add to this list is Froddo. I think LOTR would have been better if he'd died in the end. Of course I also think that Samwise was the true hero--he kept Froddo going the whole time, and, made more sacrifices since he wasn't unhappy/restless with his life in the first place. But maybe that's just me.

Posted by: taylor at November 16, 2011 12:02 PM

iuiuyiyuyuyouuoiuoiu

Posted by: Jesenia Zonker at November 22, 2011 3:33 AM

great blog

Posted by: Ariana at December 12, 2011 4:42 AM