The guy spent most of the series ruthlessly hunting down Jon Crichton. Some of his more memorable methods include
mind-controlling a guy and making him bite his own finger off, buying a shipment of thousands of slaves because one of them was important to Jon and having the others killed, casually killing the doctor who was performing brain surgery on Jon to get easier access to Jon, implanting Jon with a mind-probe that eventually took control and killed Aeryn, and abandoning his men in the middle of a battle to certain death the second he got information on Jon's location.
The reason for this? Jon has knowledge that will help him design a weapon that can turn the tides of a losing war between the evil militaristic empire he sided with, and an even more evil alien empire that would have enslaved and genetically-modified every race in the galaxy (including humans) to serve their needs and slaughtered those races they considered too weak.
I don't know if Veidt is a clear cut villain though. Sure, killing millions of people is definitely wrong, duh. But in the comic book it's pretty clear that nuclear war was indeed imminent. Again, sure the war was imminent because he made Jon go away. But, on the other hand, Jon was indeed distancing himself from humanity as a whole more and more with each passing day. His departure was going to happen sooner or later.
So how much of a villain Veidt really is when he saved the human race from Armageddon? The whole "gordian knot" speech is there for a reason. It's funny how he is accused of being a "liberal" and "too soft" by Rorchasch and Blake, and how he actually suffers with every evil thing he does.
I'm not saying he's nice and that his actions are easily excusable. But how to label what he did?
Fuck, Watchmen is the best comic book I ever read. I've been reading it for 25 years. It never ceases to amaze me.
The V government also exterminated all non-white and non-heterosexual people. Well, the killed everyone who wasn't an average anglo-saxon white hetero person.
Moore himself admits that V was too heavy handed and idealistic on the TPB's introduction.
And, in retrospect, Moore kind of looks like a freaked out nutjob. The government in V reflected his fears of where the Thatcher government was taking the country. That's eye-rollingly funny,
Though, he was kind of right about how surveillance cameras would become incredibly common in the UK.
He wrote in the commentary that it would have been easy to transition to a police state in the thatcher years - for instance, politicians advocating special camps be built for homosexuals.
Brutal dictatorships often rise on the persecution of a hated minority.
Sure, it's a valid point. I'm just saying, in retrospect, his fears turned out to be incredibly overblown. Heck, in the UK today you can be arrested for voicing anti-homosexual views, so the repression seems to have gone in the opposite direction.
The V government also exterminated all non-white and non-heterosexual people. Well, the killed everyone who wasn't an average anglo-saxon white hetero person.
Moore himself admits that V was too heavy handed and idealistic on the TPB's introduction.
And, in retrospect, Moore kind of looks like a freaked out nutjob. The government in V reflected his fears of where the Thatcher government was taking the country. That's eye-rollingly funny,
Though, he was kind of right about how surveillance cameras would become incredibly common in the UK.
He wrote in the commentary that it would have been easy to transition to a police state in the thatcher years - for instance, politicians advocating special camps be built for homosexuals.
Brutal dictatorships often rise on the persecution of a hated minority.
Sure, it's a valid point. I'm just saying, in retrospect, his fears turned out to be incredibly overblown. Heck, in the UK today you can be arrested for voicing anti-homosexual views, so the repression seems to have gone in the opposite direction.
Watchmen is awesome because each character could be a hero or a villain, depending how you see them.
Nite-Owl and Silk Spectre don't do anything that could put them in the villain camp, IIRC.
Tell that to those punks they beat up!
But seriously, they're probably the closest thing to the reader's surrogates. They're about as clueless as us, and most of the time (not all) we learn about things through them.
Nite-Owl and Silk Spectre don't do anything that could put them in the villain camp, IIRC.
They become accomplices to mass murder. (Well accomplice isn't the precise word I'm looking for but whatever )
By the time they find out about it, it's already happened. The only thing they could have done is tell the world what happened, which probably would have made the situation even worse. They picked the least shitty of the decisions available to them.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Some of my favourites have already been mentioned here (Ben Linus, Frank Scorpio, the villains from Die Hard 1 and 3, etc), but one I haven't seen yet is a character from a series of Star Wars novels by Timothy Zahn; Grand Admiral Thrawn.
He's an alien that rises to a position of immense power and clout within the Emperial ranks, despite a strong xenophobic stance from the Emperor and his lackeys. This is done through strategic brilliance and being efficiently ruthless against all who oppose him. After being "exiled" for decades, he returns to find the Empire in shambles and in risk of being squashed by the New Republic that's on the verge of tearing itself apart, but likely not before they stomped out the remainder of the Empire, who has always represented a strong uniting force for those systems/races.
He uses cunning, imagination and insight to fend off a numerically superior foe and even take the reeling Empire back on the offensive, and isn't above using or propagating rather underhanded measures to get the job done. He isn't "evil" per se, but even as the antagonist of the story, it was refreshing to see a character in that universe that wasn't simply a mustache twirling asshole.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
This isn't quite rooting for the villain, but you know what pissed me off as a kid?
The Mindy and Buttons segments on Animaniacs.
For those of you not familiar with how it went,
Mindy was a toddler. Buttons was her dog. Each sketch would begin with their parents leaving, and telling Buttons not to do something, i.e., dig up their garden. Then they'd leave, and Mindy would find a way out of where she is, and into harms way. Buttons would spend the episode bailing her out of trouble, and the dumb kid would keep getting into it. At the END of the episode there would be one final, desperate, big save, and in the process, it would end up looking like Buttons did that thing the parents didn't want them to do. So they'd come home, have no knowledge of the dog's heroics, and then punish him for doing the one thing they told him not to.
Was this supposed to be funny? Were we supposed to laugh? It filled my elementary school self with such RAGE. The moral seemed to be no one will appreciate what you do.
I distinctly remember thinking, just once, I want to see that dog just say to hell with this, and let that kid go do whatever, and let natural selection play its course. He got nothing but pain for saving her dumb ass anyways.
ALSO, In every single iteration of Transformers, I always find the Decepticons more interesting than the Autobots. They always get the better characters.
I had since forgotten about stupid Mindy and poor Buttons. But now I am refilled with rage. That dog deserved so much better. And who lives their toddler alone with just the dog all the time like that anyhow? Someone should call protective services on those parents. Poor Buttons.
This thread is about rooting for the bad guys, not the ugly guys.
I get what you are saying but he couldn't be called a good guy. He's worse than Angel Eyes. Murder, assaulting a justice of the peace, raping a virgin of the white race, statuatory rape of a minor of the black race... derailing a train in order to rob the passengers, bank robbery, highway robbery, robbing an unknown number of Post Offices, breaking out of the state prison, using marked cards and loaded dice, promoting prostitution, blackmail, intention of selling fugitive slaves, and counterfeiting. Crimes against places of high authority include burning down the courthouse and sheriff's office in Sonora. The accused is also guilty of cattle rustling, horse thievery, supplying Indians with firearms... misrepresenting himself as a Mexican General, unlawfully drawing salarly and living allowances from the Union Army. Or maybe he just said he did all that so the reward for his capture would go up. But anyway, he's played so well that it's easy to gain sympathy for him. He's quite lovable in a certain way, actually.
I get what you are saying but he couldn't be called a good guy. He's worse than Angel Eyes.
Really none of the three can be called good, not even The Good. I mean, relative to the other two he is because he has some semblance of a conscience, but in the very first scene we see him in he murders three honest (as far as that term goes) bounty hunters so he can defraud a city with their quarry. In the third or fourth scene he's in he robs his partner and leaves him to die a slow and agonizing death in the desert.
Really, it's just that Blondie can sometimes have empathy, Angel Eyes deliberately causes suffering just for fun, and Tuco is amoral, not giving a shit at all. For that reason I couldn't say that Tuco is worse than Angel Eyes because he's not going out of his way to be an asshole.
And I really (might as well use that word for all three sections) hope you didn't have those charges memorized.
Cervetus on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I've also heard that it became a lot more directed towards to the Bush presidency. Kind of Americanized in a way.
Moore himself said something along the lines of "it was made by people too timid to critique their own country" about the movie.
Yeah, the impression I got from the film (from a political commentary standpoint anyway) was that it was about the Bush administration with some 9/11 truthing.
This isn't quite rooting for the villain, but you know what pissed me off as a kid?
The Mindy and Buttons segments on Animaniacs.
For those of you not familiar with how it went,
Mindy was a toddler. Buttons was her dog. Each sketch would begin with their parents leaving, and telling Buttons not to do something, i.e., dig up their garden. Then they'd leave, and Mindy would find a way out of where she is, and into harms way. Buttons would spend the episode bailing her out of trouble, and the dumb kid would keep getting into it. At the END of the episode there would be one final, desperate, big save, and in the process, it would end up looking like Buttons did that thing the parents didn't want them to do. So they'd come home, have no knowledge of the dog's heroics, and then punish him for doing the one thing they told him not to.
Was this supposed to be funny? Were we supposed to laugh? It filled my elementary school self with such RAGE. The moral seemed to be no one will appreciate what you do.
I distinctly remember thinking, just once, I want to see that dog just say to hell with this, and let that kid go do whatever, and let natural selection play its course. He got nothing but pain for saving her dumb ass anyways.
That was a valuable lesson you learned, because it's true.
I've also heard that it became a lot more directed towards to the Bush presidency. Kind of Americanized in a way.
Moore himself said something along the lines of "it was made by people too timid to critique their own country" about the movie.
Yeah, the impression I got from the film (from a political commentary standpoint anyway) was that it was about the Bush administration with some 9/11 truthing.
I don't think that was necessarily a bad idea though.
The basis of V for Vendetta in the Thatcher government is just ... meaningless to anyone outside the UK and probably some younger types inside the UK.
You could potentially keep the basic themes and ideas of the book while changing it slightly to reflect a more modern, well-known version of the society in V.
I've also heard that it became a lot more directed towards to the Bush presidency. Kind of Americanized in a way.
Moore himself said something along the lines of "it was made by people too timid to critique their own country" about the movie.
Yeah, the impression I got from the film (from a political commentary standpoint anyway) was that it was about the Bush administration with some 9/11 truthing.
I don't think that was necessarily a bad idea though.
The basis of V for Vendetta in the Thatcher government is just ... meaningless to anyone outside the UK and probably some younger types inside the UK.
You could potentially keep the basic themes and ideas of the book while changing it slightly to reflect a more modern, well-known version of the society in V.
The interpretation, imo, is up to the viewer. I get what it was originally intended to base its background on, but I think people really need to just understand that it deals more with more than the Bush administration and really government failure.
I get what you are saying but he couldn't be called a good guy. He's worse than Angel Eyes.
Really none of the three can be called good, not even The Good. I mean, relative to the other two he is because he has some semblance of a conscience, but in the very first scene we see him in he murders three honest (as far as that term goes) bounty hunters so he can defraud a city with their quarry. In the third or fourth scene he's in he robs his partner and leaves him to die a slow and agonizing death in the desert.
Really, it's just that Blondie can sometimes have empathy, Angel Eyes deliberately causes suffering just for fun, and Tuco is amoral, not giving a shit at all. For that reason I couldn't say that Tuco is worse than Angel Eyes because he's not going out of his way to be an asshole.
And I really (might as well use that word for all three sections) hope you didn't have those charges memorized.
I don't remember Angel Eyes hurting anyone just for the hell of it. He does everything for the money. Even torturing Tuco was about getting the location of the gold. I always thought his grin was a 'winning a poker game' kind of grin, not enjoying how he was hurting people. "I've got this guy right where I want him, checkmate." Maybe Tuco isn't much worse but Angel Eyes' slyness and grin make him seem more sinister, though they're all doing the same thing. Maybe it's just my view.
I'm not sure whether or not Blondie thought that Tuco would make it back to town alive. Blondie also likes kitties, that's why he's good. Not anywhere near a hero though.
No, I don't have that memorized. Google is friend to all... Except to Yahoo.
On Animaniacs, if you haven't watched it since you were a child, watch some now. There are so many jokes and references that you were too young to catch back then.
Well torturing Tuco had a purpose, but it was made explicit that the torture was a regular occurrence for the hell of it. And the laugh he gives when it give The Bad title card stuck me at least as more evil than plain giddiness at the wealth he will soon acquire.
Cervetus on
0
Options
NocrenLt Futz, Back in ActionNorth CarolinaRegistered Userregular
When I was a child, my people talked while others prepared for war. They used reason while others used tanks, and they were destroyed for their trouble! I won't stand by and watch it happen again, I won't!
When I was a boy, I saw men executed, women and children. Each night I swore to myself 'never again,' but we must prevail.
By giving a character a sympathetic background and then year's later he's put into a very similar (if not exact) situation but this time with the means to make sure it doesn't happen again you can make him likable. It also helps that the two leads (Charles and Eric) are still friends (to some degree) and every time there's a parallel universe where Prof X is dead, Magneto picks up the mantel as "Founder/Leader of the X-men".
Plus the fact that they both want the same thing, but take different avenues to get there.
The thrust of the story in V doesn't really depend on the country it takes place in. I assumed that the change in V from being an anarchist to a populist/muckraker was more about making him likable for a broad american cinema audience than about turning the film into a commentary on bush.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The thrust of the story in V doesn't really depend on the country it takes place in. I assumed that the change in V from being an anarchist to a populist/muckraker was more about making him likable for a broad american cinema audience than about turning the film into a commentary on bush.
I assumed as much as well, but it's very easy to go "olol Bush" after watching it. Tons of people did.
When I was a child, my people talked while others prepared for war. They used reason while others used tanks, and they were destroyed for their trouble! I won't stand by and watch it happen again, I won't!
When I was a boy, I saw men executed, women and children. Each night I swore to myself 'never again,' but we must prevail.
By giving a character a sympathetic background and then year's later he's put into a very similar (if not exact) situation but this time with the means to make sure it doesn't happen again you can make him likable. It also helps that the two leads (Charles and Eric) are still friends (to some degree) and every time there's a parallel universe where Prof X is dead, Magneto picks up the mantel as "Founder/Leader of the X-men".
Plus the fact that they both want the same thing, but take different avenues to get there.
I thought the dialogue between Charles and Eric at the beginning of the first X-Men movie was the best illustration of this.
"Don't give up on them Eric."
"I've heard these arguments before, Charles."
Not only do they want the same thing, but they both realize the hatefulness of their opposition and the war that's coming. The difference is that Eric lived through the same situation in the Holocaust so he's pessimistic about where it's going and wants to fight back, whereas Charles hasn't so he remains optimistic that he can win people over peacefully.
Oh yes, I’m also on the side of the “uptight straightman/women” on any MadTV sketch involving one of their recurring characters. MadTV could be pretty funny when they were doing one-off commercial parodies and whatnot, but pretty much all their regular characters have the defining trait of being as annoying as possible to everyone they encounter and making me want them to die in a fire. Hopefully one set by the normal characters in the sketch after one too many instances of “zaniness”.
The thrust of the story in V doesn't really depend on the country it takes place in. I assumed that the change in V from being an anarchist to a populist/muckraker was more about making him likable for a broad american cinema audience than about turning the film into a commentary on bush.
I assumed as much as well, but it's very easy to go "olol Bush" after watching it. Tons of people did.
I always assumed it had in part to do with nationalism as a double-edged sword. It's very easy to look at something like that story, or nationalism abroad, and the reluctance to go against one's state in spite of such grievances and go "olol foreign nationalism", but when its your own country, it's a lot harder for most people to reconcile that. It's the same reason people generally accept worldwide-held views of, say, torture or other criminal acts in war time, but when their country's record comes up, with the same criticisms, they suddenly go, "Hey! Wait a minute, you couldn't possibly understand/you're not appreciating it/well, perhaps, but the enemy was far worse...." attitude. It's rampant regardless of nationality.
Of course, the film is set in fictional England, perhaps to the point where even people in the UK would feel it was foreign, but to an American audience, there's a sense of "ololol silly English, we know it's supposed to be about us but we know better..."
Actually, I mentioned the Agents in The Matrix in my first post (at least, I'm fairly certain that I did). And it's not limited to Smith, nor is it just about the rule of cool. The Agents, at least to me, presented a sort of (circumstantial) "lesser of too evils"--wherein the rebels go about causing anarchy and havoc, and killing huge amounts of people as they go, the Agents actually protect life. Not for good reasons, though as it's revealed, everyone seems to have crappy reasons in that film. Life in the Real is shitty, no one disputes that, and it's not reasonable to expect that everyone wants to tolerate that just because you do, especially if they were never previously aware of that. Selfish or not, I sure as hell would rather stay in my fantasy life, even if I knew. Especially if I did.
Plus, watching one of the Agents bust throw Trinity through a wall, jump out of a window after her, or kick Morpheus' ass just doesn't get old.
Yeah, but I meant Agent Smith specifically. He takes on his own cause starting with the second movie, and frankly, I wanted him to achieve it. Though I don't know why--it was a pretty reprehensible thing. I suppose it's just his manner because Hugo Weaving is such a convincing asshole. But a charming one.
What makes Smith's situation interesting is that all of a sudden he had to make the same choice Neo made, and he took the red pill. So all of a sudden he's a sympathetic character too, at least a little bit.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
What makes Smith's situation interesting is that all of a sudden he had to make the same choice Neo made, and he took the red pill. So all of a sudden he's a sympathetic character too, at least a little bit.
I don't see how.
shryke on
0
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
edited May 2010
I rooted for Smith because in a world of wooden, emotionless, pretentious, leather-wearing halfwits, the guy wanting to destroy the entire world seems like the most reasonable character to root for.
In V for Vendetta the comic book the point seemed to be made that the fascist government was probably the only thing standing between England and the end of civilization, but that was kinda V's main goal.
Posts
The guy spent most of the series ruthlessly hunting down Jon Crichton. Some of his more memorable methods include
The reason for this? Jon has knowledge that will help him design a weapon that can turn the tides of a losing war between the evil militaristic empire he sided with, and an even more evil alien empire that would have enslaved and genetically-modified every race in the galaxy (including humans) to serve their needs and slaughtered those races they considered too weak.
I'm kind of surprised the Sephiroth Memorial Escape Clause from The Grand List of Console RPG Cliches hasn't come up yet:
This thread is about rooting for the bad guys, not the ugly guys.
Only because I didn't want to spoil four seasons of awesome. Thanks, Richy!
So how much of a villain Veidt really is when he saved the human race from Armageddon? The whole "gordian knot" speech is there for a reason. It's funny how he is accused of being a "liberal" and "too soft" by Rorchasch and Blake, and how he actually suffers with every evil thing he does.
I'm not saying he's nice and that his actions are easily excusable. But how to label what he did?
Fuck, Watchmen is the best comic book I ever read. I've been reading it for 25 years. It never ceases to amaze me.
And that's just one of the reasons.
Nite-Owl and Silk Spectre don't do anything that could put them in the villain camp, IIRC.
Rigorous Scholarship
Tell that to those punks they beat up!
But seriously, they're probably the closest thing to the reader's surrogates. They're about as clueless as us, and most of the time (not all) we learn about things through them.
Rigorous Scholarship
He's an alien that rises to a position of immense power and clout within the Emperial ranks, despite a strong xenophobic stance from the Emperor and his lackeys. This is done through strategic brilliance and being efficiently ruthless against all who oppose him. After being "exiled" for decades, he returns to find the Empire in shambles and in risk of being squashed by the New Republic that's on the verge of tearing itself apart, but likely not before they stomped out the remainder of the Empire, who has always represented a strong uniting force for those systems/races.
He uses cunning, imagination and insight to fend off a numerically superior foe and even take the reeling Empire back on the offensive, and isn't above using or propagating rather underhanded measures to get the job done. He isn't "evil" per se, but even as the antagonist of the story, it was refreshing to see a character in that universe that wasn't simply a mustache twirling asshole.
This isn't quite rooting for the villain, but you know what pissed me off as a kid?
The Mindy and Buttons segments on Animaniacs.
For those of you not familiar with how it went,
Was this supposed to be funny? Were we supposed to laugh? It filled my elementary school self with such RAGE. The moral seemed to be no one will appreciate what you do.
I distinctly remember thinking, just once, I want to see that dog just say to hell with this, and let that kid go do whatever, and let natural selection play its course. He got nothing but pain for saving her dumb ass anyways.
ALSO, In every single iteration of Transformers, I always find the Decepticons more interesting than the Autobots. They always get the better characters.
PSN : Bolthorn
Anyway, it does change twice, once when Elmyra takes his place and in the finale he gets rewarded instead
I get what you are saying but he couldn't be called a good guy. He's worse than Angel Eyes. Murder, assaulting a justice of the peace, raping a virgin of the white race, statuatory rape of a minor of the black race... derailing a train in order to rob the passengers, bank robbery, highway robbery, robbing an unknown number of Post Offices, breaking out of the state prison, using marked cards and loaded dice, promoting prostitution, blackmail, intention of selling fugitive slaves, and counterfeiting. Crimes against places of high authority include burning down the courthouse and sheriff's office in Sonora. The accused is also guilty of cattle rustling, horse thievery, supplying Indians with firearms... misrepresenting himself as a Mexican General, unlawfully drawing salarly and living allowances from the Union Army. Or maybe he just said he did all that so the reward for his capture would go up. But anyway, he's played so well that it's easy to gain sympathy for him. He's quite lovable in a certain way, actually.
Really none of the three can be called good, not even The Good. I mean, relative to the other two he is because he has some semblance of a conscience, but in the very first scene we see him in he murders three honest (as far as that term goes) bounty hunters so he can defraud a city with their quarry. In the third or fourth scene he's in he robs his partner and leaves him to die a slow and agonizing death in the desert.
Really, it's just that Blondie can sometimes have empathy, Angel Eyes deliberately causes suffering just for fun, and Tuco is amoral, not giving a shit at all. For that reason I couldn't say that Tuco is worse than Angel Eyes because he's not going out of his way to be an asshole.
And I really (might as well use that word for all three sections) hope you didn't have those charges memorized.
Yeah, the impression I got from the film (from a political commentary standpoint anyway) was that it was about the Bush administration with some 9/11 truthing.
That was a valuable lesson you learned, because it's true.
I don't think that was necessarily a bad idea though.
The basis of V for Vendetta in the Thatcher government is just ... meaningless to anyone outside the UK and probably some younger types inside the UK.
You could potentially keep the basic themes and ideas of the book while changing it slightly to reflect a more modern, well-known version of the society in V.
I don't remember Angel Eyes hurting anyone just for the hell of it. He does everything for the money. Even torturing Tuco was about getting the location of the gold. I always thought his grin was a 'winning a poker game' kind of grin, not enjoying how he was hurting people. "I've got this guy right where I want him, checkmate." Maybe Tuco isn't much worse but Angel Eyes' slyness and grin make him seem more sinister, though they're all doing the same thing. Maybe it's just my view.
I'm not sure whether or not Blondie thought that Tuco would make it back to town alive. Blondie also likes kitties, that's why he's good. Not anywhere near a hero though.
No, I don't have that memorized. Google is friend to all... Except to Yahoo.
On Animaniacs, if you haven't watched it since you were a child, watch some now. There are so many jokes and references that you were too young to catch back then.
By giving a character a sympathetic background and then year's later he's put into a very similar (if not exact) situation but this time with the means to make sure it doesn't happen again you can make him likable. It also helps that the two leads (Charles and Eric) are still friends (to some degree) and every time there's a parallel universe where Prof X is dead, Magneto picks up the mantel as "Founder/Leader of the X-men".
Plus the fact that they both want the same thing, but take different avenues to get there.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I assumed as much as well, but it's very easy to go "olol Bush" after watching it. Tons of people did.
I thought the dialogue between Charles and Eric at the beginning of the first X-Men movie was the best illustration of this.
"Don't give up on them Eric."
"I've heard these arguments before, Charles."
Not only do they want the same thing, but they both realize the hatefulness of their opposition and the war that's coming. The difference is that Eric lived through the same situation in the Holocaust so he's pessimistic about where it's going and wants to fight back, whereas Charles hasn't so he remains optimistic that he can win people over peacefully.
I always assumed it had in part to do with nationalism as a double-edged sword. It's very easy to look at something like that story, or nationalism abroad, and the reluctance to go against one's state in spite of such grievances and go "olol foreign nationalism", but when its your own country, it's a lot harder for most people to reconcile that. It's the same reason people generally accept worldwide-held views of, say, torture or other criminal acts in war time, but when their country's record comes up, with the same criticisms, they suddenly go, "Hey! Wait a minute, you couldn't possibly understand/you're not appreciating it/well, perhaps, but the enemy was far worse...." attitude. It's rampant regardless of nationality.
Of course, the film is set in fictional England, perhaps to the point where even people in the UK would feel it was foreign, but to an American audience, there's a sense of "ololol silly English, we know it's supposed to be about us but we know better..."
That is one grainy-ass picture. I like it.
Actually, I mentioned the Agents in The Matrix in my first post (at least, I'm fairly certain that I did). And it's not limited to Smith, nor is it just about the rule of cool. The Agents, at least to me, presented a sort of (circumstantial) "lesser of too evils"--wherein the rebels go about causing anarchy and havoc, and killing huge amounts of people as they go, the Agents actually protect life. Not for good reasons, though as it's revealed, everyone seems to have crappy reasons in that film. Life in the Real is shitty, no one disputes that, and it's not reasonable to expect that everyone wants to tolerate that just because you do, especially if they were never previously aware of that. Selfish or not, I sure as hell would rather stay in my fantasy life, even if I knew. Especially if I did.
Plus, watching one of the Agents bust throw Trinity through a wall, jump out of a window after her, or kick Morpheus' ass just doesn't get old.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I don't see how.
Of note, his line about cursing in French being equivalent to wiping one's ass with silk. Gold.