Many people enjoy discussing and judging the morals of characters in films, but that’s not the main point. Very few characters are entirely good or entirely evil, which tends to result in dull and poorly made movies. Regardless of whether viewers resonate with the story, they should show compassion for the characters. It’s important to interpret their motives and circumstances to understand what led them to make certain decisions and to reflect on ourselves.
Is “films are solely intended for you to evaluate morals of the characters” the popular opinion?
Honestly I’d wager there are more people who dislike thought-provoking films than those who have to the opinion you’ve described. The most popular films in the world were intended to be fun
That’s not unpopular, it’s wrong. Movies are criticized when the characters are one dimensional and lack moral nuance.
Why do characters need moral nuance though?
Because it makes them more interesting. If I kick puppies just because I’m “evil” and I like to kick puppies, thats a boring one dimensional character.
If I kick puppies because I genuinely believe that will cure cancer, then that’s more interesting.Like Thanos, his argument is stupid, but he genuinely believed in that, and was powerful enough to do it
Watch “The Dirty Dozen.”
Every character has one objective; to get through the mission alive. The way the Major goes about manipulating each man’s desires is what makes it a great movie.
But how do not find “justified” evil boring at this point, not every bad guy should be macbeth or dr.frankenstein
It’s like that new stupid wicked witch movie that’s cooming out just because they are an antagonist doesn’t mean they can’t just be a villian, there can be decent characters that don’t need much back story or deep motivation like the joker or judge holden
The Joker has a motivation though, his worldview is that everything is chaos and he needs to prove it to everyone else. Especially Batman.
But for the joker motivation adds almost nothing
It means that when he does things, they feel like things the Joker would do. In the Dark Knight he takes all the mob money and burns half of it, because that is a Joker thing to do. Two Face wouldn’t do that, because Two Face has different motivations.
That is the reason to have motivation. It doesn’t need to be complex, just nuanced.
To be interesting instead of one note.
They don’t need to have extremes or even contradictions, just some kind of nuance other than good/bad. Spiderman’s moral code being based on not stopping the guy who then killed Uncle Ben in the early 2000s films is nuanced. Captain America standing up for doing the right thing based on his personal experience is nuanced.
It doesn’t have to be moral nuance though. But that is one that gets a lot of criticism because it stands out so much for heroes and villains.
You’re correct IMO, but the examples are quite tame, again IMO.
This (supposedly unpopular) opinion could have used a couple of concrete examples.
I would go further still: it is generally a bad idea in life to evaluate people’s morals. Make clear what your own are, try to live up them, and leave it at that.
But that is another “unpopular” opinion altogether.
I feel like that is more of a reflection on how audiences can critique a film beyond which parts were good and bad.
Critique of cinematography requires an understanding of visual arts. Critique of sound design and scoring requires an education in music. In contrast, methods to critique characters and plot are taught in every high school literature class.