The Big Picture: Destined for Disappointment, Part 1

[daibakuha]

What's the context? Recasting a white guy for a black guy happens all the time? Okay, that's fine. The other way around is fine too, if it works for the movie. I'm just saying that we should apply the same standards to everyone.

Also, why does it fundamentally change Shredder? Are there no white martial artists who might turn to a life of crime?

The context is that most roles in films and tv shows are white roles to begin with. Taking a role typically played by an Asian actor, and then casting and making the character white is horrible because there isn't enough Asian roles in films today.

It's not the same as casting a POC in a traditionally white role, because most roles are filled with white actors. Diversity is a good thing, white-washing is bad.

It completely changes Shredder's back-story to have him be a white guy.

 

[Ickabod]

I think Star Wars Prequels work because the movie is about destiny and how that can be interpreted incorrectly by the characters within the movie.

 

[twosage]

Was there a prophecy? Was there a prediction?? Was there a grand scheme? NOPE.

You're confusing "destiny" with "prophecy". Destiny does not have to be known to any of the characters or the audience before the events themselves happen. It does not have to handed down by a gray-bearded mystic (though by the upcoming quotes, you'll see Jor-El acting as one anyway). It doesn't have to be narrated at the beginning of the film. It only needs to have been seemingly intended by circumstances beyond normal plausibility. This is certainly a squishy concept, and subjective, and debatable. One could say that Bruce Wayne was destined to be Batman (because the writers would somehow have contrived a way for him to be Batman), but in most incarnations his parents' murder doesn't appear to be anything more than a random act of violence that sets him on that path. Once it happens, though, you can contrive some rationale that being Batman was his destiny all along. Since these are all fictional characters whose fate is being controlled by authors, the question is less about destiny and more about the appearance of destiny.

What sets me off about Man of Steel is that is has so many the trappings of a mythological birth and fate (Superman already had many to begin with), as well as repeated and constant inflation of Superman's importance beyond his actual choice in the matter. He has a unique birth, even among Kryptonians:

Jor-El: "Your mother and I believed Krypton lost something precious, the element of choice, of chance. What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society had intended? What if a child aspired to something greater? You were the embodiment of that belief Kal. Krypton's first natural birth in centuries. That's why we risked so much to save you."

At birth, Kal-El is already having his greatness thrust upon him. Was the choice to send him to Earth (where his immense power sets him apart) just good fortune or intended from the start?

Lara Lor-Van: He will be an outcast. They'll kill him.

Jor-El: How? He'll be a god to them.

Granted, that one isn't unique to Man of Steel, but it reinforces that Jor-El intended Superman for greatness beyond his son's control.

Jor-El: You will give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun, Kal. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders.

Read that again: "You WILL... They WILL..." Jor-El isn't saying "you can lead them if you are worthy", which is what he should be saying. No, He is saying that Superman is already worthy by virtue of his birth, by virtue of his legacy. This is not being presented as Superman's choice, but his destiny. You can make the case that Jor-El is trying to guide his son toward his preferred outcome, but nowhere in this film is there ever a suggestion that Superman might fall short of it. In Man of Steel, the greatness of Superman/Kal-El/Clark Kent is always assumed, and the Hope that you're talking about is always hope that mere humans will accept him and his greatness.

Pretend otherwise if you want. Like I said: destiny and fate are squishy ideas to begin with, but the origin of Superman that Man of Steel presents is one where he has been prepared by two sets of parents, from birth, to be the hero he becomes. They sacrifice for him, prepare him, guide him toward it. The only choice he ever has is whether to fulfill all of that (by becoming Superman) or... or what? Walk away?

In case this is news to someone, just because it's a character's destiny, doesn't mean they don't waver or have to buy in at some point. That's actually the whole drama of a destined character. "Will they accept their fate or not?" And that is pretty much the only major decision Superman makes in Man of Steel (though he makes it several times in different contexts). That doesn't mean the movie is somehow about his personal choice to become a hero.

The choices you highlight in your post are primarily the choices and desires of Jor-El. His intentions, his desires, his hopes. That's great, except he's not (supposed to be) the protagonist. There's nothing wrong with a movie about a character who is controlled and haunted by his father's choices. The Godfather is basically about Michael becoming his own man from out of his father's shadow. But never once do we see Superman disagree or protest or conflict with Jor-El's choices or commands. He ultimately just does what he is told. When talking about "destiny" in particular, Jor-El's decisions are even more problematic as he is very obviously allegorically the God to Superman's Jesus. After all, Zeus and the Olympians are shown arguing and making choices about the fate of Perseus in Clash of the Titans.

I don't agree with Bob about everything in his video. Regardless of the rationalizations, the Matrix's Neo is presented as the prophesied One (particularly in the sequels). I understand those rationalizations (and they can be fun to think about) but I think the movie presents it in a pretty straightforward way. As far as Amazing Spider-Man, Bob is right about the destiny stuff, but I overall thought the movie was mostly fine (and the problems with it weren't primarily related to this topic).

 

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

I'm gonna bet that the destiny thing for the Star Wars prequels works because he actually completed his predestined action, except every wise mentor figure who looked at the damn prophecy completely misread it.

Anakin was supposed to bring balance to the force. Everyone thought that this meant he'd destroy the dark side, which just exemplifies how little they understand the concept of balance. At the beginning of Star Wars I, there are hundreds of Jedi and two Sith. At the end of Star Wars III, there are two Jedi, and two Sith. It's not hard to realize.

I always like the heroes who rise to the occasion more than the destined ones. Xenoblade, Dragon Age, Mass Effect (when the writers weren't trying to deify Shepard, anyway), the mooks you control in Fallout, they all produce that fun mix of a character who does it on their own but still shapes the world in the same way as someone destined to do so.

My problem with that theory is that.... well umm it sort of is sad. The Republic gets torn apart to be replaced with something evil and then that gets again torn asunder turning the nearly unified galactic government into a galaxy of many separate governments that'll no doubt turn on each other. So did force correct itself because the Galaxy was about to get TOO good for everyone so it had to reset things back to something like what we have now? are we doomed to nation states or future space governments to fight the same endless battles for resources and ideologues till of all of life gets snuffed out making all our endeavors meaningless!? ARE WE FUCKED FOREVER!?!?!??!?

And your right Shepard became a example of what Bob was talking about lazy writing.

Yes. The Universe WAS about to get TOO good.

See, the problem with an Absolute, is that it is an absolute. (Dragonlance explains this perfectly) You see, Ultimate Good stagnates, and quickly becomes Intolerant, Dogmatic and rigid. (see Wesboro Baptist Church) Whereas PURE evil turns upon itself through utter selfishness. (see LoTR, Orks from Warhammer 40k)
In Dragonlance, the Ultimate High Priest of Good DEMENDED of the Gods that ALL of his followers be GUARANTEED enrty to heaven, by virtue of their "self-evident" goodness. The Gods responded by Hurling a Fiery Mountain -presumably a Meteor- and nuking everybody back to fractured city states.

Put it this way, there was already so much Good in the Galaxy that "good" people were beginning truly believe that "Balancing the Force" meant Kill all the "bad" guys and ensure only OUR belief system can survive and be taught.
Doesn't sound very Good does it?

Somebody earlier SERIOUSLY agreed with this idea too. Somebody tell me by WHAT definition of BALANCE does removing the Dark Side count? Perhaps you mean to say that removing the Sith would allow people to ALSO ignore the Jedi path in favor of balance WITHIN themselves as a "Grey" Force user. This story Arc plays out wonderfully in L.E. Modesitt Jr's "Recluce Saga"
Where the Forces of Chaos and Order struggle eternally until the main character and his Uncle (a previous protagonist in the series) discover the secret: that the Balance must be maintained WITHIN EACH individual, not by oppssing extremists.

 

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

I can see where MovieBob is going with the SW prequels and their destiny thing. I always enjoyed that the jedi knew from the beginning that Anakin was "the chosen one" to bring balance to the force and it was a mayor theme of the series, but they misread the message. Instead of bringing balance by making peace between the two sides of the force, he brought balance by destroying the hegemony the light side had on the universe, pummeling the jedis to the point they have their numbers reduced to match the number of siths.

This is something people get wrong all the time, so I don't fault you for making the same mistake. Bringin balance to the Force does not mean a balance between light side and dark side. The Dark Side imbalances the force simply by existing, so in order to balance it out you have to eliminate the sith.

So Anakin does bring balance to the force, when he kills Palpatine in Return of the Jedi and then subsequently dies. The Dark side ceases to have any practitioners left and the force is in balance.

You raise SO MANY questions!

How does the Dark Side imbalance the Force by existing? EXPLAIN. Please FINISH your statement. What does Balancing the Force mean, if not equal amount of each side present / at use in the Universe?

You may be referring to what I touched on in my other post with the Recluse Saga. This being it was Anakin's Destiny to lay down the road for Luke, as the first Force practitioner to Balance the Force within himself, rather than externally. Blending both sides together to make the Yin Yan of Force inside his mind, and bringing balance.

Your statement however, does not In any way explain what the hell you weretalking about, I would like to know what you were going for there.

 

[Shjade]

Why can you argue the matrix did not rely on prophecy and fate, but statistical proability, when the oracle set neo on his path by her choice of actions, but at the same time say this is not the case when future spock, a vulcan and being capable of supreme foresight and logical calculations sends kirk and his younger self on their path? He is basically the humanoid equivalent of a supercomputer.

I'd say the difference is that Spock didn't chart their course for them due to probability or logic, but because he'd already seen how it was "supposed to be" since he came from the future. As in, he's literally seen this play out already, or what he thinks is supposed to play out. Being a vulcan is more or less irrelevant to that; it could've been done by pretty much anyone from the old crew.

 

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

What's the context? Recasting a white guy for a black guy happens all the time? Okay, that's fine. The other way around is fine too, if it works for the movie. I'm just saying that we should apply the same standards to everyone.

Also, why does it fundamentally change Shredder? Are there no white martial artists who might turn to a life of crime?

The context is that most roles in films and tv shows are white roles to begin with. Taking a role typically played by an Asian actor, and then casting and making the character white is horrible because there isn't enough Asian roles in films today.

It's not the same as casting a POC in a traditionally white role, because most roles are filled with white actors. Diversity is a good thing, white-washing is bad.

It completely changes Shredder's back-story to have him be a white guy.

So? Most Bollywood roles go to Indians, and most Hong Kong flicks have Chinese roles. I'm not an expert on films or anything, but I'd venture to say that the American film industry and Hollywood are probably the most racially diverse in the world. There are a plethora of actors that can fill those roles.

I still don't see how making Shredder white totally changes the character. He's a guy with kitchen knives taped to him who holds a grudge against the turtles and Splinter. Considering that they are changing the backstory a lot, it doesn't seem like there is no way for him to fit in as white. What if they make him a black guy? Would it really change it that much?

I see where you are going here, but if you watch lots of foreign movies, they DO have white people cast as white people. All the way back to crappy 50 Japanese movies, even in Gamera. Sure they're nobody actors, but the effort was made. As for Shredder being Black, nice try at moving the Goalpost. The complaint is "Not Japanese" and should remain so. Even if you take Utrob Shredder, his Identity IS Japanese. Crashed in Japan, hid there as a feudal Immortal Ninja Lord named Oroku Saki.
Or, he is a human Ninja, again, Oroku Saki, who has Ninja beef with Iamato Yoshi.
On the surface there is nothing wrong with Oroku being Black, aside from it serving no purpose. Also this movie has its own problems without getting made fun of for being Afro Samurai Vs TMNT. (Which, actually sounds pretty sweet)

You see the purpose of casting a Black Actor in an Asguardian role, serves the purpose of distinguishing Marvel Asguard from proper Norse myths. They are Aliens, and therefore different physiological rules will apply. Doing so also allows for the Inclusion of a great actor who utterly nailed the part to do so, without having to undermine ANYTHING about the character because of reasons.

I also would like to re-iterate that I think the makers of this are drawing from a VERY finite pool of "creativity," ALL of which they seem to be spending on the back-story as opposed to the actual one.
[edit] Can you find me a Bollywood movie where a white guy is played by an Indian one? I think it's probably awesome

 

[Gridlock]

Hmm if i should pick out an episode where destiny is played out right it would be Code of a Hero from Beast Wars.
Dinobot having studied the golden discs knew he was destined to die at the hands of Megatron.
And yet Megatron proved that destiny isn´t something that´s set in stone, the future could be changed.

But at the very end Dinobot chose his destiny and fought for the human race and died just as it was his destiny to do......and then the writers brought him back through cloning.

 

[MaddKossack115]

Let's see... first the Intermission article on "Divergent" was about how Young Adult novels/movies are blatant symbolism for high school life to appeal to easily-duped, angsty teenagers...

Then this Big Picture video was about how destiny is used to shoehorn plot progression without character development, actual conflict, or even paying attention to common sense...

...Is it just me, or is Hollywood taking its entire playbook from "TEH BESTEST MARY SUE STORY GUIDE EVAAARRRR!!!!1!1111!!!" these days?

 

[Dastardly]

Destined for Disappointment, Part 1

MovieBob looks at the overuse of "Destiny" as a plot point in recent superhero movies.

Watch Video

While I do hate the whole Destiny-Ex-Machina problem, that isn't the most problematic part of what they do with things like Spider-Man and Ninja Turtles. Whether or not it's "destined," I just hate the fact that everything in each universe has to be tied together.

A lack of loose ends makes for a neat and tidy product... but also a small, limited, boring one. Look at how all of the more recent Star Wars "extended universe" stuff seems to have a quota system that dictates, "You must make X references per chapter to a person/planet/device/slang term from the source material."

Yeah, you want the universe to have a certain flavor to it... but how big is this so-called universe if I keep running into the same eight people everywhere I go? Or if everyone talks the same?

Connection to cannon is the seasoning that ensures a certain connection between the flavor of several stories. But overuse it, or allow it to override anything distinct, and the flavor gets boiled down to "salty."

 

[Justin1221]

Damn, I thought for SURE he was gonna say Harry Potter!

 

[Dire Sloth]

I was hoping for some discussion on the new look for the turtles (which I personally love so far).

 

[skylog]

I would have guessed that the Harry Potter series does the destiny thing pretty well. There is a prophecy but it is kept ambiguous, it's even possible that Harry Potter shoved his butt into another guy's destiny inadvertantly while himself struggling a whole lot with it.

Exactly, I was gonna say that. I don't remember if the movies got into it, but the books make a point of reiterating that our own choices govern our lives. Harry CHOSE to not go to Slytherin, Voldemort CHOSE one of two different babies to attack.

On another note, would April turning out to be Splinter's daughter really be that bad? In the new cartoon,

Spoiler

Karai turns out to be Splinter's daughter. Hell, it also turns out that April is a human/Krang mutant hybrid

, so why is what the movie is doing any worse? It's just how this turtle dimension worked out.

 

[MovieBob]

Why is it okay to criticize them for making Shredder a white guy but, when people oppose making Heimdall black, we jump all over them?

Maybe if it's racist one way, it should be racist the other way too?

In a perfect, ideal world where there is absolutely zero current presence or history of racism and inequality favoring white/western persons over others in power, wealth and social influence? Yes, it should and probably would be. However, we do not inhabit an ideal world. We inhabit this real one, where the history of the West and the United States in particular regarding power, presence and priviliges among differing races is... well, what it is.

And within that context, no - a black actor getting a major role the type of which black actors not named Will Smith are often shut out of is not a "bad" thing in my estimation, largely because whichever hypothetical white actor "lost" the role of Heimdall (or Johnny Storm, or whoever) has hundreds of thousands of other "prominent white guy" parts to go for instead. On the flip side of that: Quick! Name as many major lead hero or villain roles of Japanese descent in huge movie-ready franchises like TMNT (or Marvel/DC comics, or whatever) as you can off the top of your head. Not that many, right? So if you're a Japanese (or any variety of Asian, really) actor in Hollywood... the big-money parts waiting for you are kind of limited compared to the THOUSANDS of big-money parts available to, say, Shia LaBeouf. Well, now thanks to White Shredder, there's now one LESS.

 

[Gunnyboy]

Why is it okay to criticize them for making Shredder a white guy but, when people oppose making Heimdall black, we jump all over them?

Maybe if it's racist one way, it should be racist the other way too?

The problem with this line of thinking is that it completely ignores the context of race in Hollywood. Recasting a white guy for a black one doesn't exist in an industry that constantly does just that.

Furthermore, Heimdall being black doesn't change his character at all, while white washing Shredder actually changes who the character is.

Heimdall is known as the Whitest of all the gods, and the fact Idris is the only black guy in Asgard makes it even weirder.

 

[daibakuha]

You raise SO MANY questions!

How does the Dark Side imbalance the Force by existing? EXPLAIN. Please FINISH your statement. What does Balancing the Force mean, if not equal amount of each side present / at use in the Universe?

You may be referring to what I touched on in my other post with the Recluse Saga. This being it was Anakin's Destiny to lay down the road for Luke, as the first Force practitioner to Balance the Force within himself, rather than externally. Blending both sides together to make the Yin Yan of Force inside his mind, and bringing balance.

Your statement however, does not In any way explain what the hell you weretalking about, I would like to know what you were going for there.

It's not defined well within the universe, and the canon of the material which does try to define it is questionable at best. But this is probably the best I can do:

Dark side practitioners imbalance the living force by corrupting to serve there own selfish intentions. In essence they corrupt the living force. So in their destruction the Jedi bring the force back to it's natural state.

So Vader does bring balance because he kills the last of the Sith and then dies, bringing the force back to it's natural state.

 

[GodzillaGuy92]

Glad to know I wasn't the only one reminded of The Amazing Spider-Man in a terrible way by the Ninja Turtles trailer. Anyway, here's hoping that next week's episode also addresses your statement about how the original Star Wars trilogy was never about destined heroes to begin with (not that I don't agree, but I'm eager to hear some elaboration on that point).