In a departure from the original story in which the Beast was kind and gentlemanly (if very rarely hot-tempered), the Disney character starts off angry and depressed and has all the classic trappings of the villain.
In another the Beast is very much the main character of the story since he has the most Character Development. Previous versions almost always focus more on the Beauty character.
Belle: Is she a well-meaning bookworm unfairly made an outcast by the villagers or is she actually a snob, and therefore deserving of being ostracised by the village?
Then there are those who think Belle might be a beauty on the outside but ugly on the inside. For example, she breaks the one rule the Beast set up for her and invades his privacy. Then she calls off their agreement and runs away
The Villagers. Are they misguided people who are genuinely afraid that the Beast might harm their children? Or are they true monsters of this film, since they immediately yell to "Kill the Beast!" when Gaston merely suggests that the Beast is evil, and because of them, Gaston has any freedom to act the way he does? The fact that they willingly supported Gaston's plan to blackmail Belle into marrying him, despite his revealing enough of it to know how horrific of a plan it is, with absolutely no sign of fear, strongly supports that theory.
Then there's Gaston. Is he a complete jerk? Is he actually a fun guy with a zest for life who got carried away with his infatuation for Belle and thinks that Belle has been driven mad, because she seems to think that this monster is a nice guy? Is it him who winds up going mad after Belle rejects him and humiliates him in front of the entire town? It's worth noting that he was originally supposed to die by falling off a cliff and laughing hysterically, indicating that he had indeed been driven mad in his desperate effort to impress Belle.
BIONICLE 3: Web of Shadows offers some questionable depictions of its villains, Roodaka and Sidorak. According to the backstory, they both view each other as objects and only serve Makuta to gain his favor. Sidorak wants to marry Roodaka for political reasons, while Roodaka is actively working for both Makuta and the Dark Hunters. Yet in the film, Sidorak's goals are never defined beyond wanting to marry his viceroy (and the thought makes him very jolly indeed), and Roodaka seems to genuinely have the hots for Makuta. Since the movies function in their own little universe, and the general canon adapted a No Hugging, No Kissing-rule later on, we may never know. But it's interesting to note that Sidorak's other alternative interpretation, namely that he isn't a capable, strong-handed military leader but a mere wimp who lied his way to the top, was later picked up for the rest of the story.
Disney/Frozen: Did Olaf actually know the entire time that summer heat would kill him? He did not seem surprised at all in either of the two scenes where he started melting. And during his song about summer there is a brief moment where he seems like he is about to realize heat would melt him, when he come across a puddle of water in his imagination and puddle sound like the next word of song because it would rhyme, but he ignores it. This could be interpreted as indicating that he knew all along and was just in denial. The second time he started melting he didn't even seem like he was scared.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame: Speaking of Disney Villains, Judge Claude Frollo gets this too. Do we see flashes of guilt and torment in him that make him more sympathetic? Did he really feel nothing for killing Quasi Modo's mother or did he take seriously the Archdeacon's plea to adopt Quasi Modo out of guilt and a genuine fear of God. Do we see signs of him suffering and desiring to become a better person in his villain song, or is it more important that the experience makes him act even more evil than before?
Clopin—he seems very happy and nice, but he does call Quasi the ugliest person in Paris in a way that even the context can't completely excuse, doesn't let him hide in the "Feast Of Fools" sequence, apparently bugs out the second everything goes pear-shaped (as Frollo would likely want to arrest him for the confusion), and then expresses complete delight in hanging Quasi and Phoebus. Without giving them the chance to defend themselves in any way. He's also protecting his home, friends, and family from the most monstrous person in the country by silencing what he believes to be the man's most loyal subordinates... In fairness to Clopin, the only time he vanishes is during the "Feast of Fools" when the crowd turns on Quasimodo, but when the fighting outside Notre Dame happens he's shown jumping into the fray with the other gypsies. He's their leader, so getting himself arrested at the FOF would have been bad for the Gypsies.
The Incredibles: Helen is the true hero of the story. The film is about Helen's realization that the shallow domesticity she has accepted is suffocating her as well as the rest of the family, and at the end of the movie she achieves happiness by accepting her true calling as more than merely a homemaker. This is supported by the interpretation of Violet as the second lead. Violet grows as a person much more than her brother Dash. Violet frees her family from Syndrome both in his confines as well as the explosion which kills him.
Also, think about what really saves the relationship between Bob and Helen. Is it Bob realizing how important his family is to him? Or is it due to Bob getting back in shape, getting (apparently) a better job, and getting the chance to shine again as a superhero?
Ironically, there's a deleted scene where Helen and Bob are at a barbeque and a career woman there is dismissive towards her choice to be a homemaker and Helen absolutely flips out at her. This was inspired by the director's wife being mistreated by people when she chose to quit her job and stay at home to raise her kids.
Shere Khan from Disney's The Jungle Book could be interpreted as an avenger against Man, seeing how they have hunted and killed his species purely for their striped pelts.
In the books, he's born crippled, meaning he finds it easier to hunt humans. This is a common explanation for many man-eating predators. The film removes his lameness, and therefore his reason for attacking humans.
There are more than a few people who view Scar as an Ambiguously GayDepraved Homosexual, due to his lack of a mate and somewhat effeminate manner. The Broadway play seems to play this up to extreme levels. Scar goes from scary angry dude to Paul Lynde turned psychopath, which is still scary but filled with Unfortunate Implications. This implication was removed in the direct sequel with the introduction of his (previously unseen) mate Zira.
Scar also has some parallels with Simba. Young Simba has a SONG dedicated to him proclaiming that when he's King he doesn't have to listen to anybody and "can do whatever I want". Later in the film Scar proclaims, "I'm the King! I can do whatever I want."
Also, was Scar's hatred towards Mufasa caused only by envy or was there a solid Freudian Excuse (like being always The Unfavorite, maybe also mistreated by his brother)?
According to the children's books accompanying the movie, Scar's original name was Taka, which translates to 'garbage'. Imagine your parents naming you Garbage. It's no wonder he wants to overthrow Mufasa so badly. He's been mistreated and viewed as inferior his whole life. It kind of makes the horrible condition of the Pride Lands when Simba and crew return slightly tragic. His father most likely spent all of his energy teaching Mufasa how to take care of the Pride Lands and never bothered to tell Scar what he was supposed to do.
Mufasa. Noble, courageous king and loving father... or pompous Jerkass who threw his weight around to bully his little brother, was letting a bunch of hyenas starve for no reason, and who was raising his son to be as big a douche as he was?
he also banishes a race (the hyenas) to a barren wasteland, wherein they are starving, for no apparent reason. We are never even given a hint as to what Hyenas could have possibly done to deserve this treatment, which is oppressive if not outright genocidal. Mufasa and his dynasty can easily be seen as pompous, racist tyrants and Scar as a Well-Intentioned Extremist trying to liberate oppressed people from Mufasa's regime. An alternative alternative take is that both Scar and Mufasa are jerks, Mufasa exiling the hyenas to the badlands, and Scar exploiting their desperation for his own gain.
In Real Life, Lions and Hyenas don't get along, stealing kills from each other all the time, and will not hesitate to harass or harm one another given the opportunity. In fact, male lions will sometimes venture into hyena territory with the specific goal of assassinating the clan's Alpha Female.
Also, once the Hyenas are giving power over the Pride Lands. The entire kingdom falls apart and all the prey animals flee. This could indicate that Mufasa originally banished them because they lacked self control and nearly hunted every other animal to near extinction.
Zazu. Mufasa's loyal adviser and careful supervisor of Simba during his childhood... or just the comical sidekick of both?
Timon and Pumbaa. Loveable slackers who save Simba's life and help him deal with his trauma, or two feckless wasters who encourage a vulnerable young boy to hide from his problems and responsibilities so he can stick around as their bodyguard?
The hyenas. Nazis, or the oppressed underdogs just looking for food? Their apparent poverty and Scar's manipulation of it is just another eerie parallel to the Third Reich and the duped German population. Also, Shenzi, Banzai and Ed - friends, or family?
Also, how did the lions receive their place as "royalty"? For all we know, the first "Lion King" was crazy and decided to fight and kill one of every animal and after killing the last one crowned himself king. The other animals fear the lions especially when you consider that the movie makes no effort in disguising the fact that the lions hunt other animals and they all fled after Scar became king (and the pride lands became a wasteland but that's beside the point).
The My Little Pony movie. The witches are meant to be the villains, but they are much more developed and have far more characterization than the rather boring ponies who are meant to be the main characters. Many people considered them to be Villain Protagonists, especially since it plays the two daughters in a seriously sympathetic light.
Did Dr. Finklestein create Sally to be his daughter, his servant, or his wife and/or Sex Slave? Arguments will vary. One interesting aspect to this is that in an alternative ending Dr. Finklestein was Oogie Boogie, jealous that Sally preferred Jack to him and was trying to teach her a lesson. Also, back when Nightmare was a Cult Classic, many people referred to Sally to relationship to the Doctor as his companion (or, on occasion, his servant), including 1998 edition of "Disney's Encyclopedia of Animated Characters" by John Grant. As the film got more popular as a family friendly movie, discussions began to say Sally is Dr. Finklestein's daughter, accidentally making a case of Incest Is Relative. The next person the Doctor creates to replace Sally appears to be a wife, looking exactly like him and sharing half his brain.
Also, The Queen: Unrepentent and valuing being beautiful over the life of her own stepdaughter, or an extremely dark Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds (to Kefka levels) who, after being reexposed to mental anguish caused by her father regarding not being beautiful at all and an extremely low self-esteem left her so broken and insane that she felt that killing her stepdaughter was the only thing left to match up to her abusive father's standards of beauty. The Book "Fairest of All" seems to nudge to the direction of the latter.
Dopey might be an Idiot Savant, having diffculty in doing simple things but being a vastly acomplished musician.
No Disney villain evokes this more than Mother Gothel. Did she only care about Rapunzel's hair and just pretended to be a doting mother, or did she come to genuinely love her in the 18 years she raised her? Rapunzel's hair is more important in the end, but Gothel does small things that make one think twice like her "I love you" "I love you more" "I love you most" game and her surprising Rapunzel by cooking her favorite food. Fans are still debating.
However if you pay attention, when she says "I love you most" she kisses her forehead. This could be taken that she loves her Hair most.
Or she's just that good of an actress to fool the audience with a rather convincing performance. It helps that she happens to have a lot of very subtle hints.
It can also be interpreted that Gothel also wanted to take Rapunzel away forever because she was afraid Eugene would, since her plan to get Eugene to dump her failed. Still though, It's mostly for the hair.
There is the rather amusing retelling of "Evil aliens destroy Earth, Humans find new home" in Titan A.E.. The "Evil Aliens" are made of pure energy, and the humans had just invented a planet-making machine that requires a butt-load of energy to work.... Predictably, the humans do use the "evil aliens" as an energy source. But it's all right — isn't it? The aliens shot first.
Well, what's easier for humanity: trying to chase down a fleet of aliens who can blow up planets, or using a nearby star?
The aliens might not be thinking that way. They're alien, after all; our psychology doesn't necessarily apply to them. To them, blowing up the Earth might have seemed like a reasonable response to a potential threat.
The novel says the planet-creating "Artifact" tech was something only the Drej were supposed to have. The Queen at the time instantly decided to destroy them. Her successor regretted her predecessor's being so hasty. Ironically, if the Drej had left the humans alone, they probably would've found a star or something or used that. They would've still had the Artifact tech, but since the guy who made it is dead, and the Drej need said tech, who knows what the Drej would've done then?
Films — Live-Action
A Clockwork Orange. Is Alex really an evil, barbaric, inhumane, psychopathic abomination or is he just a simple, common lad caught up in a society that takes glee in acts of depravity that are actually a part of his generation?
The movie American Psycho has numerous alternate character interpretations, most revolving around the main character, Patrick Bateman. The most popular of these interpretations is that Bateman is not a serial killer, but a man hallucinating, dreaming, fantasizing or imagining (or all four) the killer aspects of the movie. One reviewer actually went so far as to state that Bateman is actually the mostly unseen character Marcus Halberstram
Other interpretations assume that Bateman did not kill Paul Allen, but someone else entirely because, like some of the other characters, he does not know who Paul Allen really is. There is at least one specific shot during the business card scene that would contradict this.
Still others think that Bateman's real name is Davis, because his lawyer, Harold Carnes, calls him Davis during the final scene.
In fact, an alternate interpretation of the final shot is that Chance can walk on water because he doesn't realize it's not possible, and so he is still The Fool. Incidentally, the director conceived the shot when he was inspired by how believable the film, especially Sellers, was playing out; the ending in the script was more akin to the novel's.
For his part, Sellers admitted he liked how open this was to interpretation. He saw the character as an analogue to himself (that is, constantly being what others wanted on and off screen, with no "true" self), which is why he wanted to play him. He felt the point of the story was "God's message again that the meek shall inherit the Earth," and so his personal interpretation of Chance (and himself) may have leaned more towards Fool than Messiah.
Alternately, the scene involved Chance walking on a sandbar directly beneath the surface of the water with deep water to either side to emphasize that Chance's progression through the film has been based entirely on taking fortunate steps in exactly the right places, walking a razor's edge.
Roger Ebert opposes this interpretation on the grounds that it violates the implicit rules of film: "When I taught the film, I had endless discussions with my students over this scene. Many insisted on explaining it: He is walking on a hidden sandbar, the water is only half an inch deep, there is a submerged pier, etc. 'Not valid!' I thundered. 'The movie presents us with an image, and while you may discuss the meaning of the image it is not permitted to devise explanations for it. Since Ashby does not show a pier, there is no pier — a movie is exactly what it shows us, and nothing more.'"
Alternately alternately, Chance is a person with no real mind or personality. There is no weight to him, no depth nor substance. He is so "light" that he can walk on water.
Or, still further into alternatives, Chance really is more than he appears. Throughout the film, he constantly does exactly what the people around him need him to do: the infamous "I like to watch" scene allows the wife to feel sexual without cheating on the husband she seems to love, for example.
In Big Fish, Don Price is incredibly possessive of Sandra, and he beats Edward to a pulp when Edward makes advances towards her. But...is he really such a Jerkass, or was he just terrified of dying alone after the Witch showed him that he would die young? Additionally, one could see him as either an antagonistic Jerkass or as a tragic underdog who spent his whole life being overshadowed by Edward, only to die at age 20 as a direct result of Edward stealing his fiancee.
There's a theory regarding Donny from The Big Lebowski which suggests that Donny doesn't exist, but is simply a figment of Walter's imagination, as the Dude (the protagonist of the film) only talks to Donny once during the whole film. Alternatively, Donny is figment of both The Dude and Walter's imaginations. This brings up questions such as: Whose ashes were those, then? And was the funeral home worker also imaginary?
Is Walter Sobchek an incompetent, ultra-nationalist gun-nut who feels the need to relate absolutely everything to Vietnam because of his friends who died there? Or is he a spineless man who never went to 'Nam, felt incredible survivor's guilt because of his friends who did go and died, and acts crazy to overcompensate?
Supposedly a line was cut from the film where The Dude, fed up with the constant 'Nam references, points out that Walter was never even in 'Nam.
Or is Walter a Vietnam vet more traumatized by his divorce than by Vietnam, realizes on some level how that's kind of screwed up, and so uses Vietnam as a cover for his own insecurities? Notice how he blows up when The Dude tells him he isn't really Jewish (he converted for his wife and never left after the divorce).
Walter might even have been upset because the Dude's argument reveals a stunning lack of understanding about the Jewish faith. The conversion process is difficult, but once a person converts, the Jewish community treats them the same as they would anyone who was born a Jew. There's no question about them not being "really Jewish", they ARE Jewish. Getting divorced from his wife afterward would not change his religious status at all.
The film treats replicants as 'supermen who cannot fly' and sets them up as pitiable, sympathetic victims-of-humans. The book the film is based upon asserts that 'the replicants are inhuman, uncaring machines (not unlike uncaring, inhuman humans, but even less caring) and so cannot exist safely alongside authentic humans'. This 'what is humanity' question is the core of much of the later cyberpunk literature.
One way this has been dealt with: in the original movie release, Deckard isn't a replicant; in the director's cut, he is. The fulcrum of the change is one scene cut from the original, in which Gaff (Edward James Olmos' character) leaves an origami unicorn at a table for Deckard. Since Deckard had a dream about a unicorn before then, and replicants have implanted memories, this is taken as a sign that all of Deckard's memories are implanted and that Olmos' character knows this. Take out this scene, and there is little reason to support "Deckard is a replicant" (beyond his general toughness).
His eyes "glow" like those of the replicants in the director's cut. Film crew told later that it was a lightning mistake, nothing intentional
But his getting his ass kicked by practically every replicant he comes across and surviving mainly through sheer dumb luck is a human trait.
With the exception of Pris, all of the replicants are described as military models (and Pris, given her line of work as a 'pleasure model' probably has a pretty extensive self-defense repertoire). Deckard probably was not designed to go up against opponents this hardcore.
Two other hints, even in the "standard" version. One, his tiny apartment is covered in photographs, which seems to be a defining obsession with Replicants, a sort of "proof" of their existence. Two, when he is going to Sebastian's, he describes himself to the caller as "an old friend." Sebastian does not have human friends.
... But that's why, when he describes himself as an old friend of J.F.'s, Pris immediately knows he's lying and hangs up. An alternate explanation for the unicorn dream and the origami unicorn at the end are that they represent Rachael: unicorns are feminine, beautiful, and unreal. Gaff's origami had, up to that point, only been used to represent people: the chicken was Deckard reluctant to come back to the job; the stick-figure with the big penis was Deckard in his element as a detective. At the end of the film, Gaff sees Rachael in the same way Deckard saw her in his abstract daydream, and so decided to let her live. This doesn't mean that Deckard isn't a replicant, but the unicorn origami is ambiguous proof that he is at best.
An interesting theory: Deckard in the film is a human because of how his character and the replicants act. The Skinjobs, as they're derogatorily called by the humans, are emotional and passionate in their drive for life. Contrast the human characters, like Bryant and Gaff, who are cold, emotionless, and detached toward the world around them. Deckard didn't display any of the emotional qualities the Replicants had throughout the movie, which makes him more "human". In the book, this issue is raised explicitly. Deckard takes the Voight-Kampff test and is proven human.
Many viewers are disturbed by Deckard's forcibly stealing a kiss from Rachel and believe that it implies that he raped her. Whether he did tends to be hotly debated in online discussions of the movie. If Deckard is a replicant, he (like the others) still has the emotional maturity of a child despite physical and mental maturity, hence explaining his actions as emotionally misunderstanding the implications of what he's doing.
Aside from the issue of whether Deckard is intended to be a replicant or not, and to what extent this is hinted at in the movie, a more fundamental issue is to what extent he is "the good guy" and Roy Batty is the villain. According to one interpretation, the entire movie is about Deckard realizing he's fundamentally on the wrong side (helped by Rachael) and that replicants are not really evil but just WellIntentionedExtremists whose desire for more life and freedom is understandable. This explains why in the director's cut, the ending is him going on the run with Rachael.
Blade Runner is also an example because Ridley Scott is invoking the genre. In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, the novel Blade Runner is based on, Deckard is definitively shown to be human multiple times. Even without the Voight-Kampff test, he is shown to be human and the implication that he isn't is fueled primarily by paranoia rather than any real evidence. Ridley Scott still places Deckard through largely the same plot, but re-interprets him as a replicant. Rachel is a more minor example. She serves largely the same role in both the novel and film, but she is a far more active character in the novel than the film.
Elwood Blues (The Blues Brothers, Blues Brothers 2000) has Asperger's Syndrome (which Dan Aykroyd himself has claimed to have in interviews). This would explain a lot about his character, including his predilection for sunglasses (allowing him to avoid direct eye contact) and his long, convoluted speeches about Russian politics and blues music in the sequel.
Some people with AS are particularly under- or over-sensitive to specific sensory input. Taste hypersensitivity, for example, can easily manifest as a marked preference for relatively tasteless food - which would explain the character's predilection for dry white toast.
Elwood Blues, good man who occasionally gets in the way of the law, but is willing to try so hard to save his orphanage... or destructive psycopath who should spend the rest of his life in jail for reckless behavior, especially regarding his driving through the mall, which no doubt resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damages as well as endangering the lives of everyone in the mall.
Plus, he's on a mission from God. Divine intervention, mofos!
The Boondock Saints: True vigilantes striving to destroy evil without killing an innocent? Or is the entire film focused on the warped view of two downtrodden brothers from the wrong side of Boston who decide to kill criminals only to keep others from coming down on them.
Or are they, in fact, on a Mission from God and being protected/guided by divine intervention?
Brokeback Mountain: Two men shamelessly cheating on their wives and neglecting their families for years? Or two men forced into their situation due to the circumstances of the time, and would have probably would have not be unfaithful to anyone had they lived in a more progressive era/society?
Even if they can't be together, nobody held a gun at them to get married and lead women on who truly loved them. There have always been confirmed bachelors and marriages of convenience.
Bubba Ho Tep: are the characters really Elvis and JFK, or simply senile old men?
It could easily be a mixture, one hidden icon and one senile old man.
The 1976 version of "Carrie" portrays Margaret, Carrie's mother, as a psychotic woman who has made up her own version of Christianity and follows this version to the letter, even misquoting the Bible. She is abusive towards Carrie and never shows her any love, going so far as to say she never wanted Carrie RIGHT IN HER FACE. In the 2013 version of the film, Margaret is still a firm believer of her own version of her religion, but it's made abundantly clear that Carrie means the world to her, even if she can be rude to her at times. An even more important change is the infamous prom sequence. In the 1976 film, Carrie is never shown practicing her telekinesis and goes into a trance-like state when shit hits the fan at prom. This makes her character helpless from start to finish, she's not doing anything yet she causes all this mayhem. The 2013 version solves this problem masterfully: Carrie can be seen practicing her powers (moving flags while in class, looking up videos on YouTube) and actually has fun with it. She sees it as a gift rather than a curse. In the prom sequence, it's not just Carrie losing control. It's rather the opposite. Carrie takes control by simply having enough of everyone's shit and decides to use her powers against everyone who has wronged her. She simply has had enough and doesn't care anymore, taking matters into her own hand, standing up for herself at last. This completely turns her character around, much like the film did with her mother Margaret. Carrie isn't a helpless victim in this version, she's the hero (or maybe anti-hero, YMMV on that one). Carrie 1976 is the tale of a woman scorned, Carrie 2013 is the tale of a woman scorned and not having any of it.
The 2005 version of Casanova staring Heath Ledger portrays Casanova as the protagonist, a man desiring to enjoy sexual intercourse as often as he can with as many different women as he can manage. As is to be expected in a story based on Casanova, the Catholic Church (specifically, the Inquisition) is portrayed at best as an obstacle to Casanova and at worst as the villain. The moment you see Jeremy Irons arrive on the scene as Inquisitor Pucci, one can be sure that Pucci will be the Designated Villain of the story. Even a large order of nuns, to a woman, seem to throw themselves at him as he races down several corridors that are not even in the same building, including one that belonged to a wealthy merchant family. Through it all, he manages to avoid the long arm of the Inquisition, in part with thanks to his personal friend the Doge, and eventually gives up his incorrigible ways and makes regular love to only a single woman, passing on his moniker to a young man he helped to get over his shyness.
That's the intended interpretation (probably), but change one small assumption of the movie, and you get a Perspective Flip. The filmmakers see sexual intercourse out of wedlock as something to aspire to; the Church (and this includes the real Roman Catholic Church) views it as a sin. Recall that adultery is a sin spoken of in some of the harshest terms because it corrupts the body as well as the soul. Casanova was not only someone in deep need of salvation, but someone who was placing stumbling block after stumbling block in the path of others on their road to salvation — which is a sin in itself. The previous local head of the inquisition, while seeking to capture and convict Casanova, has attempted to convict Casanova in the past and might have shown some leniency had he been able to force Casanova to clean up his act without the interference of the Doge. Further, even after choosing a woman to devote himself too, Casanova is never shown to marry her, which means he hasn't given up his incorrigible ways altogether. He's still having escapades — he's just narrowed the focus considerably. Finally, the young man he left in his place continues the line of sexual escapades; before the interference of Casanova, he was eager to devote himself to a single particular woman.
In the Gene Wilder version, Willy Wonka comes off as a Mad Scientist who is genuinely unconcerned how dangerous his environment is. In the Johnny Depp version, Willy Wonka is shown meticulously planning and organizing events, which make the various accidents come off as the machinations of a Diabolical Mastermind. The original novel can support either interpretation.
A possible interpretation of the Gene Wilder version is that Wonka never wanted anyone to get through the factory. Unlike Depp Wonka who simply seems detached from other people, Wilder Wonka seems to enjoy their pain. So maybe the factory tour project is just for his enjoyment and so he can prove to himself that no-one is his equal. He seems quite irritated when he realises Charlie and Joe have actually got past all the hazards he's lain out, and so lashes out at them. He changes suddenly partly because Joe then treats him like the arrogant and egotistical figure he really is, but also because he realises how much of a hero figure he had been to Charlie.
There's a more sinister interpretation. Wonka enjoys seeing people suffer. He brought a bunch of people into his factory and set up situations where he knew they would hurt themselves. Charlie and Grandpa Joe were supposed to get hurt in the fizzy lifter but they unexpectedly escaped. So Wonka had to improvise. He came up with the idea of denying them their prize and it partially worked; he finally broke Grandpa Joe. But Charlie still persevered. So Wonka had to improvise again and offer Charlie a chance to move into the factory. The purpose of that offer was to keep Charlie from getting away. Wonka wanted to keep him around until he could figure out how to hurt him like he had all the others.
Another interpolation of the Wilder version is that he's nothing more than an over the top ham who knows that all the children (and by extension their parents) are perfectly safe from harm...and is just being a huge Troll about it all.
Also in the Gene Wilder version, Grandpa Joe is played as a beloved, sympathetic character. But after a bout of unfortunate Fridge Logic, it becomes apparent that he's kind of a bastard. Think about it: He spends twenty years lying in bed doing nothing (except consuming tobacco) while Mom takes in laundry, and Charlie busts his ass on a paper route, all so they can barely afford their broken-down shack and cabbage water (which he complains about). But all that changes as soon as the kid finds a magic pass into to the candy factory inside a chocolate bar with money he fished out of a storm drain on his hands and knees. At that point, Grandpa Joe is suddenly able to dance like a broadway veteran, kick up his heels, and sing about how "we've" got a golden ticket, completely dismissing the notion that Charlie might want to take one of his actual parents. Then, when he gets into the factory, he insults the other children, (possibly) gropes Mrs. Tee Vee's rump, and encourages Charlie to steal the Fizzy Lifting Drinks...All before berating Mr. Wonka at the end, claiming that Wonka appears to believe himself to be entitled. As in, entitled to decide for himself who to leave his own inheritance to. An inheritance consisting of a company and factory built from the ground up by the genius Willy Wonka. Man...What a DICK!
In the book, the Oompa Loompas are an explicit case of Values Dissonance — they're pygmies. In the Gene Wilder version, Wonka sees them as completely dependent on his good will, so much so that he chooses his successor solely on how he believes that successor will treat them; this could make him the leader of a cult. In the Johnny Depp version, they're privacy-loving immigrants; given that Wonka's a Cloud Cuckoo Lander, it must be a laid-back job.
For the Tim Burton reimagining, there seems to be a case of Michael Jackson in the newest Wonka. The stunted childlike minded celebrity recluse with oddities and grew up in a home with a father that never really let him be a kid.
However, Johnny Depp stated that he based his character on Anna Wintour, the editor of Vogue magazine.
Aside from Augustus Gloop, who is relatively unchanged between the films (aside from coming across as meaner, since in the original he offered Charlie a pen to sign the contract whereas the later one offered Charlie some chocolate and then yanked it away), this also applies to the naughty children:
Violet Beauregarde: Violet's gum chewing obsession and her rude manners were her flaws in 1971 version, but in the 2005 version she's made an obsessive competitor who has won numerous trophies and is determined to win the factory at any cost. Also, both films portray her having a rivalry with Veruca Salt, whom she does not interact with in the original book.
Veruca Salt: A spoiled rich girl in both versions, but '71 Veruca is louder and brattier while '05 Veruca is colder and snobbier. And in both versions she has the aforementioned rivalry with Violet Beauregarde.
Mike Teavee: '71 Mike Teavee is so obsessed with TV Westerns that he goes around wearing a cowboy outfit and seems to find his Golden Ticket less interesting than the television. In the '05 version, his obsession with TV is updated to include video games and he's additionally made an Insufferable Genius who looks down on Wonka for his nonsense inventions.
Cheaper by the Dozen, specifically the first movie; A somewhat narmy family comedy or a Cliché Storm ridden extended Lifetime Channel Original Movie? For the family; A bunch of self centered spolied kids with overly-lenient parents or just parents that were neglectful with handling out disipline for the kids? And with that in mind upon watching the second film, are the family of Eugene Levy's character a foil for if you have too much a handle on your kids?
You mean the remake. The first film was made in 1950 with Clifton Webb and Myrna Loy.
The radiation-scarred pursuers from Chernobyl Diaries seem like your standard schlock-horror Cannibal ClanThe Hills Have Eyes Expys ... except that they're never actually seen killing any of the tour group on-screen. They grapple with Michael (who was shooting at them) and one is captured on video carrying off Natalie, but the former's death is not shown and the latter is actually found again later, physically unharmed. Because the Exclusion-Zone guards had apparently been hunting them down with automatic weapons, it's possible that these "mutants" were merely defending themselves by mobbing the intruders, particularly as their vision must've been damaged by radiation (so they couldn't see that the group weren't in uniform) and they couldn't understand the tourists' English (which, if they'd been held in isolation since the disaster, would've sounded like the language of a Cold War enemy). As for the implied cannibalism, Yuri could've been killed and half-eaten by feral dogs, which also injured Chris; and Natalie was hauled away by the "mutants" in order to save her from the bear when it returned to flip over the van, having smelled out Chris's blood.
Is the title character in Chloe a Psycho LesbianStalker with a Crush, or is she just a troubled young woman who has been sexually exploited by a selfish adulteress old enough to be her mother? Does she commit suicide by letting go of the window frame because she realizes Catherine will never love her, or does Catherine murder her by pushing her out the window because she, Catherine, finds her inconvenient?
In addition, was Catherine telling the truth about being with Chloe cause that was the only way she could be close to her husband. Or was she deep in the closet with genuine feelings for chloe but was in denial. Or a little bit (or a whole lot) of all of the above?
Is Roy Neary of Close Encounters of the Third Kind a lovable everyman on an amazing, quasi-spiritual quest or just a thoughtless absentee father? Similarly, is Ronnie a mega-bitch shrew of a wife or a poor Woobie pushed to her limit?
In the made-for-TV movie Cyberbully, the main character Taylor faces problems when a guy from another school befriends her on a website but then goes and tells everyone she gave him an STD. It later turns out that her friend Sam, who throughout the movie had been trying to convince her that the guy she had a crush on was no good, was really just pretending to be the guy who spoke to her online. Her motives are never explained so it's left for the viewer to come up with something. The most accepted theory? Sam is a closet lesbian with a crush on Taylor. She wanted to convince Taylor that all men are scum so that maybe, she'd given women a chance.
The two lead female characters in The Descent. Some see one or the other as either a sympathetic hero or an unsympathetic irredeemable asshole who got what she deserved.
The Descent itself can be interpreted as a tragic story about a Native American tribe defending its homeland from invaders. The tragedy is that, due to the language barrier, the crawler tribe did not realize the spelunkers were just lost and not dangerous (or that they were human and not monsters).
A single deleted scene of Donnie Darko calls into question the visions that Donnie sees throughout the movie: are they clues and hints to guide his hand in creating a Stable Time Loop that results in his own death, or are they deranged hallucinations caused by his anti-psychotic medication being a placebo? Although Word of God does say that it is that first option.
One more for the road: Donnie is a Superhero in a universe with no room for Superheroes. He raids the school, cracking a water pipe with an axe and burying that axe in the head of a 16 foot tall solid brass statue. Then he writes on the floor in huge letters. He'd have to possess both Super Strength and Flight to do that. Then when he burns down Patrick Swayze's house, the damage from the fire reveals the kiddie porn dungeon, causing the arrest of Swayze and, we can assume, the saving of some kids from exploitation, at least by Swayze. The Time Travel is an aspect of his abilities, and the Bunny is his subconscious trying to process his new-found abilities and interpret the prophetic visions he has. A perfect example is the scene in the bathroom when he stabs Frank the Bunny in the eye, then sees Frank the Bunny with a damaged eye, without his mask, then later shoots real life human Frank, in the eye. They come off as hallucinations, but they are his psyche struggling to process the information. It's possible that he has so much trouble because his medication was dulling his mind and making it harder for him to control/process what's happening around him. As the film goes on and his powers grow in strength, he as a person becomes more confident and assertive.
He even calls out Swayze from moment one, declaring him the Antichrist without ever explaining why. It could be argued he sensed the 'evil' within Swayze from the get go without realising why. He's a flawed Super, but at the same time not; when his girlfriend is the victim, he goes back in time a month to die under the plane engine. This means he never meets, thus never endangers Gretchen, and his sister and mother are never on the plane from which the engine falls, and his other sister's boyfriend is never killed. It also means Swayze is never caught and Gretchen's mother, and presumably Gretchen, with nowhere to run to, fall victim to her abusive father.
Drew Barrymore and Dr Carter are Guardians/Guides of a sort, the Scientist/Professor friend every superhero has who can explain the powers without possessing any themselves. (Mohinder, any one?) Except in this case they explain philosophical concepts which lead Donnie to an understanding of his own powers.
Donnie appears schizophrenic to his family because...well, how would a superhero look in the real world we live in today? How many people do we lock away who claim they can fly or come from another planet...?
They build on this idea without 'getting it' in the sequel 'Samantha Darko', suggesting she's inherited the same abilities as her brother. Her choices at the end leading to equally damaging and tragic consequences: a little boy starving to death only miles and days from rescue thanks to a psychotic townsperson's insane agenda.
The producers of Drop Dead Fred want you to believe it's a story about a woman whose Imaginary Friend is actually a Not-So-Imaginary Friend, and helps her conquer her fears. The more reasonable explanation (contradicted by alarmingly little in the film itself) is that it's the story of a woman suffering from late-onset schizophrenia and increasingly violent delusions.
Not only is this not contradicted by the events of the film, it's practically justified. Lizzie has a terrible childhood with an overbearing mother, and starts to show symptoms. Her mom blames her for everything, so she lashes out and invents someone to blame things on herself. As an adult she seems to have things together, more of less. She has moved away from the mother, has a job, is married, etc. Then a single lunchbreak costs her both husband and job, and forces her to move back in with the woman who's responsible for her issues to begin with. Cue perfectly understandable relapse.
And if Fred really does have an independent existence, what are the pills, and why do they affect him? How can shrinks have a drug with no effect other than to kill imaginary friends, even though they don't believe such things exist?
Mistakes Mary's politeness for affection and falls instantly in love with her, then takes it way too far, and is utterly oblivious to the fact that he's creeping her out.
Is a very poor driver, and flees the scene of an accident in order to do something that probably could have been handled by airport security based solely on the fact that he was so obsessed with a woman he just met.
Demonstrates a total lack of financial responsibility and gets robbed because he thought he could trust somebody he just insulted. Face it: he wasn't even aware that he insulted her...
Decides to go on a cross-country road trip to be reunited with a woman he only drove to the airport.
Sells a dead parakeet to a blind kid for twenty five dollars.
Indulges in an unrealistic fantasy in which he is the ultimate hero and Mary can't wait to throw herself at him, thus demonstrating a complete lack of understanding about the way relationships work.
Insists on annoying the hitchhiker they picked up (admittedly he was planning on killing them both, but they didn't know that), without considering that he might not want to hear the Most Annoying Sound.
Utterly ignores Harry's needs until they are pointed out to him, like wearing two pairs of gloves until Harry says his hands are cold.
Kills an owl with a cork and doesn't realize what's so wrong about that.
Puts laxatives in Harry's tea instead of confronting him directly about seeing Mary.
Still expects Mary to fall into his arms despite the fact that he is a stuttering mess and she's only with him because he has the briefcase.
Lloyd could also be considered a Jerkass Woobie - he travels across the country nearly getting killed/raped in the process just to give his dream girl her briefcase, his best friend steals her from him (so he thinks), and finally learns that she's already married. And to top it off he's simply too dumb and/or crazy to realize that she's completely out of his league anyway.
In Edward Scissorhands it's been argued that the whole thing is simply a fairy tale the old woman is telling her grandchild. This seems to be a case of some people failing to understand Burton's little twist at the end - i.e., the opening is supposed to give the viewer the impression that an old lady is recounting a mere story to her grandchild but in the end that story is revealed to be true as the old lady reveals herself to be Kim. The alternate explanation not only negates the twist but makes the old lady rather strange given that she's therefore getting all emotionally attached to, and involved with, a fiction.
Election: Is Tracy Flick a ruthless evil politician and Femme Fatale in the making, or is she just an ambitious teenager manipulated by her mother, abused by a teacher, and sabotaged by another teacher (who might lust after her too, if some of the sex scenes are any indication)?
And is Jim simply a member of the Noble Profession whose entire life was destroyed by Tracy? Or someone who couldn't admit to himself his marriage was falling apart, and took all his frustrations out by sabotaging the election of a student he had resentment (and Foe Yay, or No Yay) against? It was a student election, losing it would hardly stop her from moving up in the world as he told himself it would.
In the first Evil Dead movie Ash reacts in much the same way you'd expect someone to react to zombies. By the third film, Army of Darkness he's the one-liner spouting, ladies man, parody of the typical action hero we all love. The change happens in Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn. But, what if, instead of the character just changing due to his experience, it causes him to go insane, and begin behaving in a manner suggested by movies and the media in general? In fact, this can be pinned down to one scene. At one point in Evil Dead 2, everything in the house begins laughing. After a few moments Ash begins laughing as well. Perhaps this is where the weight of his friends (Or just girlfriend depending on whether you go by Evil Dead 2's recap, or the first movie) becoming demon possessed zombies that he was forced to kill, and he himself being possessed for a short time. Going by this theory, you can even say that everything afterward, in both Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness is just one long hallucination, and Ash cut off his own hand for no good reason. Perhaps the "knights" who capture Ash are really police and doctors, and the "castle" they take him to is a mental institution. And, if he is hallucinating, this would explain the much more lighthearted tone of Army of Darkness.
The two interpretations of Ash in Army of Darkness alone each exemplified by the AlternateEndings. In the first ending where Ash drinks too much potion and sleeps too long he is portrayed as more of a bumbling fool who can't follow simple instructions. In the second ending where we cut back to S-Mart in time for Ash to kick ass when some zombies show up for an encore, he comes off as more Brilliant, but Lazy. It's not that he can't follow instructions or hold a better job, he just can't be bothered. This is backed up by the tools and science textbooks in the back of his car and his general nonchalance throughout the whole picture. Sam Rami has stated that he wanted the first ending to make Ash look like more of an idiot, however in an interview Bruce Campbell said that Ash was actually quite brilliant, but he worked at S-Mart because it was the only place he felt loved. You decide.
This article argues that Ferris is a textbook sociopath in the making. Dr. Insanoconcurs, calling the movie "A dark, bleak story about the ultimate triumph of evil over reason and decency."(Though the Dr. Insano example was an April Fools Day joke, and maybe half-serious at most).
This completely ignores that Ferris got that way by helping other people out, and the day itself was an excercise to help his friends. All claims of "manipulation" are wiped away when you can hear the characters inner thoughts.
Unless one is aware that part of the diagnostic process for most personality disorders is the determination that the disordered person believes highly aberrant, often destructive, behavior to be normal, even beneficial.
Don't forget the deleted scene where he tricks his dad into giving him his bank account number so he can afford his little outing. This scene was actually taken out because it made Ferris seem too unlikable.
Fight Club: Jack and Tyler are Calvin and Hobbes, grown up years later into the darkness of the very world that wanted to make Watterson sell out his vision for empty cash. This one will eventually be expanded out with the sub-reasons that continuously prove it.
Jack is not his real name, it's a reference to a children's book. And guess which single letter William Blake would change in Durden's first name?
Also, is the very ending where Marla and the Space Monkeys show up and the buildings blow up real, or is it all another hallucination that Jack/Tyler has while he is dying from the gunshot to his face? Novelist Chuck Palahniuk and screenwriter Jim Uhls even suggest this on the DVD commentary.
Channing Tatum's character in Fighting. Hustler and up-and-coming pit fighter with a heart of gold or creepy homeless stalker in a wife beater who most likely smells like a yak in heat from not showering after physical exercise?
While the most common interpretation of The Fountain is Who Wants to Live Forever?, it's possible that Jackman's character's pursuit of immortality was a genuinely benign goal. He had to accept death in the end, but if he hadn't artificially extended his life for centuries, then he would have died bitter, miserable, and alone. His immortality cure allowed him to search himself and find peace before he eventually died. The pursuit of life was a worthy goal by itself when most face death with fear and denial.
Or another interpretation: The past was his wife's novel written by a historian, the present is what is actually happening, and the end is his attempt to end the novel using his own knowledge pool — science — to finish what his wife started. The trip through space is a literary coping mechanism for his failure to save her.
Or perhaps the Chicago police were just so lazy that they decided to pin everything on Kimble simply because, as they put it "she was more rich."?
On how heroicthe 2014 incarnation of Godzilla is. Is he actually concerned with protecting humanity, or is he just acting as a predator against the Muto that sees humanity as a pragmatic ally?
The Making-Of volume specifically singles out the MUTO's as the 'dark/evil' side of nature, suggesting that while it might have sounded a little hokey to actively brand Godzilla a 'hero' in-film, this was very much the intention for Godzilla. Also, the film does have a number of instances where Godzilla could cause property damage, but avoids it; the exception is the scene at the bridge, where he's actually provoked.
Michael Myers in Rob Zombie's Halloween (2007) remake; Freudian Excuse leading to Badass Decay, or a deconstruction? Is Rob Zombie trying to say Michael is an evil serial killer because he had a shitty childhood, or in spite of it?
Opinions on whether Poppy from Happy Go Luckyis healthily happy or an annoying maniac vary widely.
Word of God wanted it to be open to interpretation, ostensibly because this would give the movie more weight, but in fact because the filmmakers were juvenile-minded provocation artists. It also depends on which filmmaker you ask; one of them leans more towards the first interpretation.
The writer/creator wasn't trying to provoke people into outrage by being controversial and vulgar (though he was trying to be controversial); he was trying to get people to think about it and decide for themselves. It adds to the psychological thriller aspect if you find yourself conflicted about who to root for or who to be afraid for, or if you're rooting or fearing for both parties; Evil Versus Evil applied to pedophiles vs. serial killer of pedophiles is a novelty. There is not supposed to be a right answer, and that does add to the weight of the film.
In Heathers, is Veronica manipulated into killing Heather Chandler and Kurt Kelly, or did she know exactly what she was doing? When she takes the cup of poison to Heather, she feels for the mug while kissing J.D. The poison mug has a lid, while the safe one does not. The film clearly shows Veronica's hand on the lid, indicating that she knew exactly which cup it was. Likewise, when she lures Kurt and Ram to the woods, J.D. shoots Ram with what J.D. has told her are tranquilizers, but are in fact real bullets. Veronica misses Kurt, who runs off, J.D. giving chase. While they are running, Veronica examines Ram's corpse, and it is clear that she knows it is really a corpse. Then when J.D. chases Kurt back, she shoots him. So, was Veronica manipulated into killing Heather and Kurt, or did she know exactly what she was doing?
The directors of The Heiress, when adapting it from the Henry James book Washington Square, changed the story deliberately to allow an alternate interpretation of maybe-Gold DiggerLove Interest Morris Townsend. Did he only want Catherine's money, and ran off after finding out she wouldn't be as rich as he thought? Did he truly care for her and didn't want to destroy the relationship between Catherine and her father? The former is unambiguously the case in the book and play.
Is Kevin from Home Alone 2 really just a nice boy looking to do a good deed for Christmas, or a sadistic psychopath? At the end of the film, Kevin lures Harry and Marv from Duncan's Toy Chest, to his uncle's house to put them through hell, and then into Central Park where he calls the police. If all Kevin really wanted to do was stop Harry and Marv from robbing the toy store, he could have lured them directly into the park from the toy store and still called the police; instead, he catapults them onto cars, pummels them with bricks, wrenches and bags of cement, shoots them with staple guns, electrocutes them, sets them on fire, throws them through floors, etc. Sounds like stuff Jigsaw would pull.
Also, is Marv somehow actually dumber in the second film (possibly due to the head injuries he sustained in the first film and/or additional head injuries he sustained in prison), or is he drunk?
The Live-Action Adaptation of How the Grinch Stole Christmas! invents new motivations for the Grinch. In the book and the 1966 cartoon, the reason the Grinch hates Christmas is not explicitly given, but it's suggested to be because his heart was "two sizes too small". The film provides him with a Back Story, mainly to fill screen time; this backstory does provide a good excuse. In this version, Whoville's Christmas is openly consumerist with conspicuous consumption and forced cheer, and the Grinch's home is directly linked to the town dump. And then there's the racism against green furry people and the PHB mayor. But the Narrator doesn't seem to notice; he still says "no one quite knows the reason," and "two sizes two small" is still the spoken explanation. The Grinch even speaks of himself as a Card-Carrying Villain.
Maybe he's been vilified and pointlessly hated for so long that he accepts his role as "monster," just as people who are degraded constantly start to believe that they're worthless. Taken to a further extreme, he may even believe that the Whos WANT him to be a monster and that he is doing them a service by indulging their "wish" at great personal harm to himself (his self-admittedly miserable life). The way he handwaves his saving of Cindy could be a sudden realization that he failed his duty. These sorts of things are always interesting to ponder...
The film version of The Hunger Games seems to present the possibility that Foxface purposefully killed herself with Peeta's nightlock berries. During the training montage, a scene of her matching and identifying plants from memory is shown, indicating that perhaps she knew all along what she was doing, and didn't actually make a fatal mistake. Since she was weak and starving anyway, and knew she couldn't match the other remaining four tributes, she opted for a quick, painless way out instead, and covered it up as an accident so that her family back home didn't get in any trouble.
Goes all the way into Heroic Sacrifice. In eating the Nightlock berries before Peeta does she stops him from accidentally poisoning himself and Katniss. Whether this is intentional is anyone's guess but quite posssible.
This was probably intended in the I Am Legend movie. Early on, Robert Neville captures a female ghoul. When a male ghoul braves the sunlight afterwards, Neville dispassionately states that they're regressing and starting to ignore the pain reflex. The more obvious interpretation is that the male ghoul is trying to get his girlfriend back.
The next time Neville goes out to scout around, he gets caught in the same type of fall trap he used to catch the female ghoul. Then the same male ghoul sics a pack of ghoul-dogs on Neville while he is incapacitated. Those are not the actions of a dumb brute; he learns and plans ahead. So this ghoul probably retained his intellect even if his behavior has regressed. Or his behavior hadn't regressed — he was ignoring physical pain to deal with something even more important. Or the difference between Neville and the rest of remaining humanity is the same as it's always been: elitism, and the belief that the best should lead or improve the herd.
Are the main characters of Inception people we should be rooting for, or are they really Villain Protagonists? In a way it all hinges on whether Saito is sincere in feeling that Robert Fisher achieving total global energy dominance would be bad for the world, or if he's just using that as an excuse for wanting to weaken his competition in the market.
Are the main characters themselves Villain Protagonists simply out for a payday, or in Dom's case, a chance to reclaim a normal life.
Why isn't Ariadne considered wrong for invading Cobb's memories? He explicitly states that these are not dreams they are memories and then she runs down the hall into the elevator and goes straight to his most private memory.
Was Ariadne "wrong" in "invading" his memories, or was she trying to protect herself and the gang by informing herself of the dangers of Mal's mind and helping him confront his memories and move on? It's more complicated than mere secret-keeping.
And for that matter, did they really succeed in their mission, thus placing this film in an alternate universe, or were the Nazi High Command in the theater body doubles? Or, perhaps, were they the real ones and body doubles were brought in to keep the war from ending?
The Interview (starring Hugo Weaving) makes this its central theme. The main character is taken from his home and interrogated ruthlessly by two police officers. The senior officer is dead-set on convicting our poor protagonist and seems malicious by the end — but there are hints that the protagonist may not be entirely innocent. People have debated this. There are opinions that support and opinions that reject the protagonist's innocence. The alternate ending of the movie practically says he's guilty; that it was cut supports open interpretation of the final cut.
Rare in-series example: The six actors who have played James Bond over the years each gave a different interpretation of his character. Connery is tough and businesslike, Lazenby is more caring and great with women, Moore is a light-hearted Bond who will kick your car off a cliff and then make an ironic joke about it, Dalton is a dark Turn in Your Badge sort, Brosnan is quiet but full of emotion with an "oh yeah, I get to drive a tank through Stalingrad for a living. My life ROCKS!!!" look on his face all the time, and Craig is a morally ambiguous Bad Ass (he's arrogant and an extremely bad timer). Oddly, the fans generally accept all of these as essential pieces to Bond's character.
There's also a widespread fan theory that the differences are because Bond is a cover identity given to any agent who is assigned the 007 designation. (Following this, Alec Trevelyan of GoldenEye, for example, would be the cover name for anyone given the number 006.) It's about the only way to fit Casino Royaleinto the backstory.
This makes you wonder, how come Roger Moore's 007 was mourning by George Lazenby's wife's grave? And why was Sean Connery's Bond so furiously trying to get revenge for Tracy's murder? Additionally, when Anya Amasova mentions Bond (Lazenby's) wife in The Spy Who Loved Me Bond (Moore) becomes very upset.
Another possibility is that Moore's Bond is reflecting on the cost of being Bond, i.e. no real personal life lest those who he grows close to are brutally killed. As for "furiously" pursuing Blofeld to get revenge for Tracy's murder, see this . Not exactly the five stages of grief, with enough leeway for the first five minutes of Diamonds Are Forever to be interpreted as an apparent one-in-a-million chance to assassinate Blofeld when he was vulnerable.
A scrapped plot element of On Her Majesty's Secret Service mentions that Bond has recently undergone plastic surgery (into Lazenby) so as to better infiltrate Blofeld's infrastructure (whom had already met Bond) which would imply at least Connery and Lazenby's Bond are the same.
Different interpretations of Bond are possible within a single Bond movie. In Quantum of Solace, for example, there's a fair amount of ambiguity surrounding 007's motives - it's just as easy to view Bond as just doing his job with his usual... err... efficiency as to believe he was on an ill-conceived vendetta.
Skyfall seems to lean toward the 'one Bond' theory, given that the climax takes place at the Bond family estate where he grew up, which features the graves of his parents nearby, and a caretaker who is on a first name basis with him. This makes him hard to fit into the 'multiple Bonds' theory, unless this agent was already named James Bond before he joined MI6. On the other hand, the Daniel Craig films are heavily hinted to be a reboot of the franchise, as he's just getting his 00 status at the beginning of Casino Royale, and by the end of Skyfall Q and Moneypenny have only just been introduced. So maybe this is the original Bond, and subsequent Bonds have taken/will take his name after he's retired/been killed.
The Flaw here is Judi Dench as M... In Goldeneye she is stated to be New to the Position of M, and the first woman... upon meeting Brosnan's Bond calls him a Cold War relic putting this squarely in the 90s and then in Casino Royale she is still M as as Craig Bond gets his 00 status
Another theory is that Craig's Bond is actually the son of Connery's (famously Scottish) Bond, who retired and changed his first name, having finally settled down at a nice estate in the middle of the Scottish countryside (Skyfall), and Craig's Bond inherited the Aston Martin from his father. His outrage at the Aston Martin's fate in Skyfall having less to do with it being his favorite car but the vehicle having bestowed upon it increased significance as a family heirloom. Also, his relation to M being more like that of a surrogate mother and son.
While it goes into Epileptic Trees territory, another theory has surfaced: All the Bonds are actually brainwashed into the identity Jason Bourne-style. If this is the case, Skyfall was the place they were brainwashed, and it was made a part of their identity. They think its home.
The Onion has a feature which reinterprets classic films. Its look at Jaws posits that Brody is a closet homosexual and the shark is a physical manifestation of his repressed desires.
About Hunter Van Pelt in Jumanji. Is he perhaps a sociopath who hunts human beings just for pure sadism, or maybe he's a Noble Demon who just follows the game's rules and could also be redeemable if he had the chance? There's also another, infinitely more horrifying interpretation. What if Van Pelt was just another poor soul trapped in Jumanji like Alan was, but was either never rescued or was killed before finishing the game, leading to him becoming twisted into part of the game itself?
There's evidence for the Noble Demon who just follows the game's rules. He didn't shoot Sarah Whittle when he had the chance, because "[she] didn't roll the dice, Alan did." He also pays for the new rifle he buys (albeit in an under the table fashion) instead of taking the Ballistic Discount.
The Spinosaurus in Jurassic Park III is neither a Super-Persistent Predator nor a sadistic one. The humans it first encounters land right in the middle of its hunting territory and start a ruckus, immediately open fire on it (imagine being stabbed with a needle repeatedly), and then ram an airplane into its side. It's plausible that it simply holds a grudge after all this, and then goes out of its way to kill them in the initial chase. Its later run-ins with them are actually incidental, but it hasn't forgotten what they did to it the first time.
Labyrinth has a couple regarding Sara and her stepmother: the more common interpretation is that Sara treats her mother like a Wicked Stepmother unfairly, her feelings rooted in childish jealousy, and over the course of the story, she grows up and puts her childishness behind her. The other one is that she really is a passive-aggressive Wicked Stepmother, and the lesson Sara really learns is "It's not fair, but that's the way it is, so you better learn to deal with it". Proponents of the latter point out that the stepmother only has one scene in the movie, which shows her subtly criticizing Sara for not being more popular, and that in the end, Sara embraces all of the friends she met in the Labyrinth, saying a part of her will always need them.
The Last Temptation of Christ created much controversy from Moral Guardians who objected to its Alternative Character Interpretation of Jesus as a doubting human man beset with uncertainties about his role in life and tormented by his love for and lust of Mary Magdalene, as opposed to the all-knowing Messiah of traditional depiction, and of Judas as not the greedy traitor he is frequently depicted as, but as Jesus' best friend and most loyal disciple who reluctantly betrayed Jesus (on Jesus' own urging, no less) to fulfill his role in prophecy.
In Lawrence of Arabia, were the Arab tribesmen proud warriors who were exchanging Turkish masters for English allies? Or backwards, amoral thugs who were incapable of administering Damascus, much less a country of their own?
Love Actually applies this to almost every single relationship in the movie. Did Harry and Karen separate at the end of the movie or decide to brave on? (The epilogue does strongly indicate the latter.) And we never find out how far Harry went with his secretary. As Karen points out, she doesn't know if it "was it just a necklace, or sex and a necklace, or, worse of all, love and a necklace?"
Karl is supposed to be a Nice Guy but he doesn't do anything to help Sarah with her brother and treats her more like a one-night stand than anything. OTOH, there isn't much he can do to help, and arguably he is hurt to realize that while she has a crush on him (his feelings for her aren't really shown but could be loving or at least caring for all we know) any romantic connection takes second place, by far, to her co-dependent relationship with her brother.
Since Mark is still in love with Juliet, his friendship with Peter may deteriorate.
Jamie and Aurelia barely know each other and their marriage is likely to fail. Likewise with David and Natalie who come from different backgrounds and their relationship could fail because of his job.
Then there is The Man from Earth, in which Jesus is just a normal guy who has somehow lived since the dawn of time, studied Buddhism at one point during his long life, and later taught Buddhist morals to the people of Judea. The rest is history.
Is Pa Kent a good man trying to teach Clark patience and discretion? Or is he being paranoid and overprotective, teaching Clark to put his secret ahead of all the people he could save?
Did Pa Kent grab the Idiot Ball when he died by not letting Clark save him, thus causing the boy a lifetime of emotional trauma?
Is Jor-El a well-intentioned but self-centered Mad Scientist, apathetic towards the suffering of his own people and concerned instead with making his progeny the glory of the Kryptonian race?
Just like Marlon Brando's Jor-El, this Jor-El orders Clark to be Superman. While Brando's Jor-El forcibly subjected his Clark to over a decade's worth of Mind Meld, here they just talk for an indeterminate but surely shorter time. It still makes Jor-El look like a Manipulative Bastard with a god complex while Clark again comes across as just doing what he's told by rote. A far cry from the comics where Clark became Superman on his own, without any input from his space dad.
Is Zod just a bloodline supremacist seeking to remake Krypton after his own prejudices, or a loyal soldier driven to extremes by the circumstances?
The Man Who Knew Too Little provides an in-universe example. We're supposed to see Wallace Ritche as a bumbling fool who accidently foils an international conspiracy to start the cold war back up. But if you look at it from the point of view of those actually in the conspiracy...
We get the American Agent, a man with no name except for when he stole the code name of other agent he murdered. A double agent, already working for both the CIA and the Mafia, he laughs at and mocks peoples attempts to kill him, and apologizes for being too loud after shooting at someone. He pretends to execute people just to cover up his murder of other people, and plays with dead bodies just to make sure they really are dead. He often acts bored or just plain annoyed by life-threatening situations. He cannot understand emotions, nor why a woman would cry at the thought of her selling herself sexually because of desperate financial need. He holds prisoners in front of two perfectly ordinary people by claiming to just be an actor, not breaking a sweat. He dodges a poisonous dart by interposing a matroishka doll in the way, while disarming the bomb inside it, all while making it look like interpretive dance to a large televised crowd. And at any point, it's never clear whether or not he's doing or saying something just for his own amusement. In short, this is James Bond if he were even less professional and at least slightly sadistic.
Lori, however, thinks that all of his personality issues is just a cover for a genuinely decent man, presumably to keep his enemies in the dark about how dangerous he is, or in an attempt to psych them out. After all, after all his work, he was far more concerned about that matroishka doll than three million dollars, and was extremely humble about foiling the bomb plot.
The film version of Masters of the Universe produces a Skeletor that could be a power-hungry villain...or could be a villain compulsively obsessed with being defeated by He-Man. When the Sorceress suggests that his declarations of Fate might be retarded, he immediately declares "I demand the loneliness, destitution, and scorn of Evil! It is my destiny! Nothing will deter me from it!" At the moment of his victory, when He-Man is chained to the floor and being whipped to death for his amusement, Skeletor suddenly stops it to almost lovingly ask He-Man about loneliness. Then, when he gains PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER, he asks He-Man where his friends are, suddenly and miraculously summoning them. It's entirely possible to assume that his amazing power summoned them to fulfill his compulsive need to lose to He-Man. The Great Eye grants what the user wants; Lowly Prince Adam became a muscle-bound hero; Skeletor became the ultimate nemesis of He-Man...and he experienced the most epic defeat the universe could provide.
The Matrix itself. An intricate scam designed to subjugate and enslave humankind, or a symbiotic environment that gives humans a last chance to lead normal lives in an irreparable Crapsack World? Are Neo and Co. valiant freedom fighters, or deluded fools who wreck things and kill uninvolved people for nothing?
There is a FanFiction that supports this alternative interpretation. In short, the behavior of all the machines followed Asimov's Zeroth Law of Robotics: no machine can harm mankind, or, through inaction, allow mankind to come to harm. So, they realized that darkening the skies would ultimately lead to the extinction of the humans (no plants, no animals, no food) and they built the Matrix to keep humans alive.
There is also the popular "Zion is part of the Matrix" theory, which posits that Neo was able to shut down Sentinels with his mind and see despite losing both eyes because what everybody thought was the "real world" is a second layer of the Matrix designed to let the one percent who reject the first layer's programming think they're free. It's certainly not beyond the machines' programming abilities, and it gives the humans the illusion that they're free while keeping them from escaping for real. Everybody's happy! Oh, except the millions of people who die. (The big plot twist at the end of the second film was that Zion is also part of the system of control, though not the Matrix; allow the humans to think they've got freedom, wipe them out, repeat.)
What we saw was only the tip of the iceberg. The machines have actually been engaged in civil war for at least 6 iterations of the matrix. The two opposing sides disagree over whether their natural evolution leading to qualities that are considered to be more "human" is a good thing. Humanity has only been brought into this conflict by The Plan of the Oracle. This lends interesting new depth to many events of the movies such as Agent Smith's rant about needing to get free (feels a lot like a soldier having fought for too long, no?); programs going into exile; and many quotes from The Oracle and The Architect - "You've played a dangerous game", "There are levels of survival we are willing to accept". Also, "What about the others? . . . The ones who want out" - humans hooked into the matrix who aren't ready to be freed, or POW programs? So you tell me, was Humanity (the group) the enemy, or was humanity (the quality)?
In Mean Girls, we already know that Janis and Regina were once best friends until Regina ruined Janis's reputation. It's possible to interpret their friendship dynamic to be just like how Regina and Cady's ended up: Janis was the sociopathic Alpha Bitch with Regina as the innocent friend who was slowly becoming popular and evolving. So the only difference between the Janis/Regina and Regina/Cady dynamics would be that Cady never actually followed through in ruining Regina's reputation.
In Mothra vs. Godzilla, Godzilla makes his entrance by randomly waking up on a beach in the middle of the day, rising from beneath the sand. He then immediately starts going on a rampage, tripping over stuff, toppling into buildings and getting his tail stuck between power-lines. A popular fan theory suggests he's got a nasty hangover. What he's been doing the previous night is open to debate.
The Duke in "Moulin Rouge!!" did nothing wrong. He made an agreement with the main characters: He would fund the rebuild of the entire club, all in exchange for sex with Nicole Kidman. This was agreed upon in advance. He held up his end of the bargain; but she didn't do her part, nor did she ever intend to. So they scammed him out of a ton of money, feeling entitled to it because he had money and they didn't. His understandable anger after that led to the violent actions that followed.
Or... the idea that he 'did nothing wrong' is absurd, considering that the Duke attempted rape and murder.
Was it just sex? It seems like a lot of dough for just one high-class prostitute. He bought her, and not just for one night.
Mrs. Doubtfire is loaded with it, particularly concerning the parents. It's possible to interpret Daniel's crossdressing as a nanny to get back into his home as the sign of a obsessed stalker and possibly other creepy things. As for Miranda, some find her more interested in her work than her marriage and family. Her mooning over a former boyfriend also leads to some Unfortunate Implications especially since she tells Daniel in next scene she wants to end her marraige.
In Night at the Museum, the director is angry at Larry for making a mess of the museum, but he never asks HOW it happened. Some people on the IMDb take this as evidence that he knew about the exhibits coming to life.
Nims Island makes a lot more sense if you imagine that a good deal of what happens on the island, from just after Nim falls down the mountain to when Alexandra arrives, is hallucination. Which is more likely - a young girl fending off pirates with her talking animal friends, or a young girl lying in bed delirious from an infected leg wound? The main characters are a Dysfunction Junction anyway; interpreted this way, the movie can be seen as a chilling portrayal of mental illness. But it's still heartwarming.
North: Wonderful child whose parents don't appreciate him, or raging egotist who doesn't get other cultures? (Consider the fact that all the cultures were depicted in the dream would seem to indicate that is how he views them, not how they really are, would seem to indicate the kid's a bit of a bigot.) Considering his age, and his seeming to live in a suburban bubble, how factual would he have been in the first place? Granted, he's smarter than every other kid in his neighborhood, but there are plenty of people who think they know all about a culture or area and are quite wrong. And when do you control what you dream? Alaska seemed like he overlapped what he might have known over an episode of The Flintstones.
"When do you control what you dream?" When you are a lucid dreamer. It happens.
The primary prerequisite of lucid dreaming is that you know you're dreaming, and being able to control what happens is a side effect. Another side effect would be rendering the All Just a Dream ending completely moot.
North's freakout at the beginning of the film. It sounds like this is definitely not the first time this happens at the dinner table. For all we know he might be an overachiever to make his parents happy.
One can think of The Passion of the Christ (and the Biblical chapters it's based on) as a story about a liberal social reformer who was done in by religious fundamentalists for questioning their orthodoxy.
There's a line of Catholic theology known as "liberation theology," mostly Jesuit in origin, that identifies Jesus Christ as a liberal reformer trying to make socioeconomic conditions better in Judea. Which contradicts telling people that the important thing is saving their souls.
Social Justice is one of the major tenets of the Catholic church and their interpretation of Jesus' life, and recent church leaders like Pope John Paul II emphasized it greatly. But it's not the only mission of the church, just part of it.
There is a much-debated alternative character interpretation in Pitch Black of Riddick in the scene of Carolyn Fry's death. The standard interpretation is that Fry went back to save Riddick, and then suddenly gets stabbed by one of the aliens, who then drags her off to her doom. The other interpretation is that it was in fact Riddick who stabbed her, sacrificing her to save himself. The alien then detected her wound (they go off on blood), and drags her off to her doom. Supporting this particular viewing is Riddick's look of sheer remorse on his face after Fry gets stabbed, the fact that he's a hardcore survivalist who's clearly in panic at the time, and Riddick moving his knife just towards the middle of Fry's back just before she gets impaled.Word of God is unhelpful on this. No comment is made in the DVD Commentary about it, and both the script by David Twohy and Jim & Ken Wheat and the novelization by Frank Lauria support both interpretations.
Or a third one that tapdances between the two ideas - that Riddick's blood was attracting the creature, and he intentionally moved so that Fry was the one that got grabbed by it - but it was likely an instinctual tactic, as he does suffer a minor Heroic BSOD immediately afterward.
Also, Riddick's comment at the end of the movie - "Tell them Riddick's dead. He died somewhere on that planet." This could be his way of saying he plans to start with a clean slate, or (as mentioned on the Tear Jerker page) that the last of his humanity had gone bye-bye.
Philo Mena: When Sister Hildegard asked Philomena if she had pulled down her knickers, was she simply trying to confirm that Philomena had engaged in sexual relations and thus was pregnant? Or was she trying to figure out whether Philomena had engaged in sex consensually (by pulling down her own knickers), or if it was coerced (if the "lovable rogue" who sired her baby had pulled them himself, it may not have been entirely consensual) and thus Philomena would merit a lesser penalty and possibly prosecution of the baby's father.
Art Babbit, the lead animator on the Camel with the Wrinkled Knees in Raggedy Ann & Andy: A Musical Adventure saw him as a con artist: "What he's trying to do is making the kids [Ann and Andy] feel sorry for him. He's really not as distressed as he appears to be."
Reservoir Dogs's Mr. Pink; is he really an experienced thief, or does his nervousness and obsession with 'professionalism' indicate that he has almost no idea what he's doing?
Or is his nervousness a byproduct of being the last competent criminal in the group, but being completely powerless to prevent his associates from screwing things up.
Consider one of his first lines when he gets back to the warehouse. It could be he's looking to White to properly assess the situation, or he could just be asking about Orange's wounds.
Pink: This is bad, this is bad, this is bad. * Looks at Orange and then White* Is it bad?
In-universe, the characters debate whether the protagonist of Madonna's "Like A Virgin" is a woman who meets a nice guy who treats her right or, as in Mr. Brown's interpretation, she's an extremely promiscuous woman who meets a man endowed with a Gag Penis which, when they have sex, makes her feel pain for the first time since she lost her virginity.
DVD-R Hell's Rock: It's Your Decision is presented as if it's the brave story of a young man who, in spite of overwhelming peer-pressure, rejects a powerful tool of Satan to glory in the grace of God. Some people interpret it as the story of a young man named Jeff who is systematically brainwashed and mentally dismantled by his parents and church because he dares to like a genre of music they don't. Others think Jeff lashses out at everything and anything because he's repressing his homosexuality.
Likewise, are Riff Raff & Magenta an evil brother/sister duo plotting Frank's downfall, or merely the victims of Frank's abuse and completely justified in their actions? Fanfics will vary greatly on the answer.
The Sex Monster: Just how many women does Laura sleep with? We only ever see her with two: Didi and Diva, and Marty is present for both of those. Are all the others just Marty's paranoid fantasies? Did she really sleep with Marty's sister? Did she only say that she did to tease him for not believing her repeated denials, or did she really do it? For that matter, why did she seem so painfully uncomfortable the night they invited Didi over? Was it because she felt Marty was pressuring her into doing something that she really didn't want to do, or was it because she in fact wanted to do it very badly, but was struggling to resist temptation, owing to her own issues over her sexuality? And what is her sexuality? Is she bi, but just never realized? Is she really a lesbian who had been in deep denial?
Shutter Island, Edward Daniels AKA Andrew Laedis. Is he really hallucinating or was it a giant conspiracy by the island? Either side can be proved, and the hallucinogenic drugs in Edward's system could still have an effect by the lighthouse seen, so he could really be insane OR he could be the only sane person on the island. You can't prove that he isn't sane, even though the author said it is canon that he is insane.
The bandage on Teddy's forehead is never fully explained, either. According to some, it indicated experimentation and that the events of the film were all hallucinations while Teddy was being lobotomized.
Is Sky High's Stitches just another Mook, or is the greatest henchman in any medium? Royal Pain is de-aged into an infant, and out of pure loyalty, takes her in and raises her as his own daughter. And once she's old enough for her powers to manifest, he willing resumes his old position as her henchman.
A trick the film itself uses makes serious implications of the character's actions. Did Mark steal Facebook from the Winklevoss twins and Narendra? Did Mark try to cheat Eduardo out of Facebook? Did he leak the story about the chicken? Was he the one who called the cops on Sean's party?
Carmen from Starship Troopers is considered by some to be a nice girl and others phoney and untrustworthy.
An interesting one during the production of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country: Saavik, a Vulcan character from the second through fourth movies, was supposed to feature heavily in the plot. But Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry insisted that Saavik would never play a part in an assassination plot, even though screenwriter/director Nicholas Meyer countered that he created the character in the first place. The role ended up going to a Suspiciously Similar Substitute named Valeris.
Star Wars has several, but the one closest to Epileptic Trees was sparked by the Knights of the Old RepublicRevan-went-dark-to-protect-the-galaxy argument: Darth Sidious wanted to unite the galaxy under the Empire to protect it from the threat of the Yuuzhan Vong. If one thinks about this long enough, then it starts to make sense: the Yuuzhan Vong practice complete planetary terraforming to make their weapon/ship farms, and the Empire wouldn't be able to reverse it. The Death Star would be used to a) crush the Alliance and unite the Empire, and b) eliminate Yuuzhan Vong worlds. When the Alliance beat the Empire, this ended, creating a nice big Nice Job Breaking It, Hero situation, and so the New Republic had to struggle against the Vong.
However, when thought about even longer, one realizes that this theory starts to break down. The Empire engaged in large and pointless discrimination against a significant percentage of its population, as well as brutal oppression of other parts, meaning that the Yuuzan Vong likely would have had a much bigger support base from the local population against the Empire (considering how much damage the Peace Brigade was able to do, now imagine if most of the galaxy had good reason to go with them). Furthermore, the Empire ultimately lost against the Rebellion, meaning it failed to deal with a galactic-scale conflict, something that Gilad Pellaeon, then current leader of the Imperial Remnant, pointed out to a subordinate who made the "Empire would have won against the Vong" argument in the Dark Tide duology. Similarly, in Destiny's Way, Han Solo snidely comments to an Imperial officer that what the old Empire would have done when faced with the Yuuzhan Vong was build some enormous superweapon that had a critical flaw or didn't work. This was as much a jab at many of the early Star Wars novels as it was the Empire, but could easily be applied to the films seeing as how two-thirds of the Rebellion-Era movies revolved around superweapons that had exploitable flaws. The logic behind the original ACI still exists, it's just that the Empire probably overestimates its chances against an established, fanatical, merciless, fairly populous invasion that can negate the Emperor's foresight, when it couldn't take down an insurrection headed by idealists.
The interpretation of Palpatine being aware of the impending invasion is a development of Thrawn's character. There's a lot of hints that Thrawn joined the Empire because he was aware of a threat and continued to serve because he thought that the New Republic would collapse due to internal infighting (though the Empire itself collapsed due to infighting). Later interpretations transferred this to Palpatine. (The current canonical interpretation is probably that any mentions of a "greater threat" by Palpatine during his reign was an excuse to hold power; the Vong invasion bolstering that was a coincidence.)
The Force and The Dark Side: tools enabling justice or power, or a single cunning entity manipulating everyone in the galaxy? Or at least the Jedi and the Sith. The two aspects of The Force are just that, aspects of one singular thing. Sith believe The Dark Side gives them power over The Force and others, but their quick descent into anger quickly makes them tools of it and not the other way around. Jedi, on the other hand, actively seek to follow the will of The Force because it has an Omniscient Morality License. What kind of long con it's trying to pull is anyone's guess.
For that matter, is the Force intelligent? After all, the abilities possessed by the Jedi apparently come from microscopic creatures in their bloodstreams. We are expected to believe that these microscopic creatures are somehow able to convey the wisdom and guidance of the all-knowing, all-powerful Force. There are reasons to give that idea a healthy dose of scientific skepticism.
Read about how Mitochondria have their own separate DNA chains.
And... symbiont microorganisms serving as the conduit for the Force are less believable than cells in one's brain serving as one exactly how?
Admiral Ozzel in The Empire Strikes Back was a Rebel sympathizer, not just clumsy and stupid. Amid several significant glances and nods, he tried to divert Vader's attention from Hoth and then alerted the Rebel forces to the impending invasion.
There is always the idea that the movies are like history textbooks, created by and in the style of the "heroic" side. The Jedi are pure and benevolent and completely justified in their resistance of the Dark Side! Except.. while they depict the Sith as evil for using evil emotions, they themselves seem to eschew ALL emotions, and seem to consider all emotions, even the most positive, as evil ANYWAYS... What if the Sith were just another religious order, maybe hailing from a planet with a dangerously intense sun (thus, Dark Is Not Evil and Light Is Not Good for them), where they had learned to channel their passions and emotions in a positive way? Love to empower, fear transformed into to protection, anger at the injustice of the world mastered and channelled into focused will to accomplish good things.. Good, passionate people. Then in their spread across the Galaxy, they encounter another religion, the "Jedi". The Jedi, an order of strict and passionless fighters, are horrified at the blasphemous emotionality of the newcomers, and make them into Acceptable Targets in order to crush them in a patriotic, faith-based crusade... Thereafter, the very name of the other religion would be used to describe the violation of their stricture against emotionality, and anyone walking their left-hand path would be labeled Sith.
People who watched the prequels as kids don't hate Jar Jar Binks because the character was aimed at their age group when they first watched the films. If they had been able to animate hair, then he would have probably been a younger Chewbacca. Jar Jar is also open to some interesting alternate interpretations, particularly once he becomes Senator. Is he really as dumb as he acts, and is he really a patsy for Sidious when he offers the motion to create the clone army? Or is it all just Obfuscating Stupidity, and he in fact knows exactly what he's doing (possible motives: vengeance against the Gungan leadership who humiliated and exiled him around the time of Episode I).
Upon first viewing the Yoda/Dooku fight, you would be forgiven for thinking that Dooku got his ass handed to him by the little green man. Take a second look, and you'll see a Dark Jedi Master take on Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker and simultaneously school them in the art of lightsaber combat. Then, after proving himself equal to Yoda in knowledge of the Force, he chalks up a no-score loss by defending against everything the Green Pinball of Destruction can dish out. He only retreats to report back to the Emperor when it's clear the fight has become a stalemate, Yoda's backup is seconds from arriving, and Obi-Wan starts to regain consciousness.
But it is that Dooku, who had all his attacks repelled and resorted to a dirty trick, also clearly became too afraid even of distracted Yoda to attack him when the latter was stopping the falling pillar.
Oh, it's not that Dooku would have won had the fight continued. It's just that the fight wasn't the Curb-Stomp Battle that everyone assumes it was. The Count holds his own (albeit barely) and retreats when it becomes clear that he can't win against Yoda. Add that Obi-Wan is regaining consciousness and Yoda's military backup is seconds away, and the odds are about to tilt against him rather badly. Probably didn't hurt that his master had a backup plan.
No, no. This is all touched upon in the novel "Yoda: Dark Rendezvous". Yoda has not lost hope that his ex-apprentice can go back to being good and probably held back in that fight - Heaven knows he holds back in the fight which he has in that book. At one point he just looks at Dooku and the guy recoils in horror because his ex-Master's face reminded him of Palpatine (It Makes Sense in Context). Yoda can wipe the floor with him if he chooses; he just can't bring himself to kill him while there still might be hope of him turning back (and other guys to be saved).
Speaking of which, what about Dooku himself? How evil is he really? Yoda appears to believe that there is still good in him and it has been brought up that he spoke out against corruption in the republic before coming into contact with Sideous. So in the end did he want power, or was he really trying to create a better system of government and if so how far did he go? Was he simply a knight-templar or was he deluding himself?
There's quite a bit of Alternate Character Interpretation present just between the novels and the films. Luke Skywalker: desperate kid with marginal Jedi training, or most powerful Jedi who ever lived? Boba Fett: Just some bounty hunter who had Han Solo handed to him by Darth Vader, then was killed by a blind man flailing, or the Ultimate Badass of the Universe? As said above, in the novels, Yoda holds back fighting Dooku and could actually completely destroy him in a legitimate fight, but this is never suggested in any way in the films, where Dooku seems to hold his own just fine against Yoda. And the most notorious example of Alternate Character Interpretation, between different versions of the same film: who shot first?
A New Sith, or Revenge of the Hope: R2D2 and Chewie are actually the Rebellion's top field agents, with C3PO and Han unknowingly distracting attention away from them. Meanwhile, Obi-Wan and Yoda are scared shitless from day one that Luke and/or Leia will go down the same path as Anakin, especially with Luke's ability to blast womp rats hinting at Force sensitivity.
When Watto insists on releasing either Anakin or Shmi Skywalker (but not both) to Qui-Gon Jinn in The Phantom Menace, Qui-Gon chooses Anakin. Maybe this is him making the best of things and making the only real choice—after all, he did first try to get them both released—but it does work out rather well for him: he intends Anakin to be trained as a Jedi, and they would have separated him from his mother eventually anyway; this way, the separation is achieved immediately, and in such a way that Watto is the bad guy rather than the Jedi. Pretty sneaky...
There's also the idea that he really wanted to free both of them. However Shmi for different reasons (as in he had the hots for her). I'm betting had his life not been cut short he would have gone back and bought her freedom.
Chewbacca convinced Han to go back for Luke to keep Luke and Leia from doing the do. Chewbacca knows Luke and Leia are twins, and knows that is very wrong.
Speaking of Twincest, Leia has a fetish for it. That's why she kept flirting with Luke when she's "always known".
This article argues that Padme is the true protagonist of The Phantom Menace, instead of Anakin. The film is about her growth from "a weak, timid, sad girl." to "a woman of action who did what needed to be done to save her planet."
And one of that toes the line of Epileptic Trees - Jar Jar Binks is Force Sensitive. After all, so many odd things happen to (and because of) him in Episode 1 that it crosses the boundary of plain dumb luck into something more.
The "Distant Planet" promotional animation for Sucker Punch portrays the robots protecting the bomb on the train as freedom fighters. The upper-class citizens of the city (who may or may not be robots themselves) have forced the lower-class robots into ghettos, keeping them down with martial law. One robot sees his wife's horrified reaction when she watches a newscast of a protest being put down, decides he has had enough degradation, and joins the rebellion. The last scene shows the robot looking at his wife's photo before picking up a gun and shooting at something... the silhouettes of Baby Doll, Sweet Pea, and Rocket. Cue the narrator, who had been explaining the oppressive nature of the regime and the motivations of the rebels, saying a line about how we are all the same in one aspect, because we all have a time to end.
The creators of Superman Returns appear to have had it in mind that Superman was to be a Christian Allegory or at-least an all-around boy-scout. This is kind-of undermined by how he turns out to be the father of Lois' child meaning he either slept with her without her knowing he was Clark, or Jason was conceived in Superman II and he impregnated her during the night they spent together which he erased from her memory—along with everything else—at the end of the film.
He also decides at one point to eavesdrop on Lois and her family one night after using his super hearing to listen in when she tells the cab driver where to take her. Class act.
Taxi Driver. Was the ending real or a delusion of Travis Bickle, dying after the gunfight?
Similarly, was the ending to The King Of Comedy real, or just the main character finally coming completely unglued?
John Carpenter's The Thing (1982) has a few of these, still debated about on the Outpost 31 forums. Most of these questions were intentionally left ambiguous to allow the viewers to try to figure it out for themselves, according to Carpenter on the DVD commentary.
Is/Are Mack and/or Childs infected?
If the videogame sequel The Thing is to be taken as canon, then Childs freezed to death, and Mack went missing. He reappears at the end, but it's subtly implied that he's actually become a Thing. And he's heading for the mainland...
Would a person be aware that they're a Thing? Or would they experience something like blackouts when the Things take over?
This is explained actually. One of the men immolates himself. The other characters then speculate that he did so because he knew he'd been infected. This would explain why the thing proceeds to try and convert people one at a time rather then simply tapping everyone on the shoulder and leaving a single cell of itself on them.
Primitive life form that uses assimilation as a means of reproduction?
Super highly evolved life form that has evolved into a shape-shifter that can incorporate the genetics of other creatures into its own?
Some sort of alien "super flu"? Or alien cancer?
Nanotech. Some believe the Things are not actually carbon-based life forms.
How is it possible for the Things to remember so many DNA signatures?
They don't. They get rid of old or less-useful DNA signatures when they acquire new ones. This would mean that they can only imitate so many organisms.
All of the cells act like braincells, remembering the DNA signatures like any other memory. This limits their forms to what information can be stored in an individual form (ie: the Blair Monster could remember more genetic information than the blood sample).
Quantum computing. This means that even a small amount of Thing biomass could store nearly limitless amounts of information.
"LEGO Genetics". The Things don't have to remember entire DNA strands, as they can re-arrange their own DNA structures. They only need to remember how to organize their DNA, much like one would learn LEGO diagrams. This is compatible with the latter two theories and explains mutations that seem to be more along the lines of "merged parts of other creatures" (like the "dog tongue/teeth flower"), rather then identifiable appendages (such as the spider-like legs, tentacles, eye stalks, etc.).
Does the Thing like the cold? Or would it have preferred to have been on an inhabited tropical island?
They can survive being frozen for hundreds of thousands of years.
If they were used to cold weather, then Blair-Thing could've shifted into a couple of sled dogs and run off, to jump into the ocean and start assimilating the rest of the world. Instead, it stays where it's warm and builds a ship to at least get out of Antarctica.
Are the "rules" such as "it has to be alone to assimilate someone" or "it rips your clothing when it takes you over" actual rules governing the Things? Some feel these are absolute rules, others feel that they're situational observations.
They may prefer to be alone with the victim during assimilation, since that lessens the chance of attack by the victim's comrades. But if the victims are perceived as non-threats, they may try to assimilate many of them at once. The mass assimilation theory is supported by the "dogtown" sequence, where Jed attacks and assimilates multiple dogs.
The clothes ripping thing may only be because of a "fast" or "aggressive" assimilation, which would cause the victim's body to mutate rapidly. A slow assimilation may simply manifest itself as an infection, with no outward mutations, and thus, no clothes ripping.
It landed on purpose, but began to sink into the ice, due to heat from re-entry.
It was a "controlled crash", minimizing damage to the top of the craft, but perhaps grinding off the bottom portion of the craft.
Why did the ship crash?
Mechanical malfunction. Causes vary from impact or weapons damage, to damages caused by Things or the fight with the Things onboard the ship. Also includes the possibility of simple wear-and-tear causing the space ship equivalent of a flat tire, with the guidance and/or propulsion systems.
The Pilot got killed or assimilated at a bad time.
They crashed on purpose as a last-ditch effort to stop the Things from gaining control of the ship.
It was a crash. They didn't have a choice in the matter.
It was the aliens trying to land somewhere where the Things couldn't get very far from the ship.
Why were they in the area, anyhow?
Just passing through.
Seeking new life to assimilate.
Smuggling Things as bio-weapons, or otherwise on the run from the space cops.
Navigation system failure. (Supported by the wobbling of the ship in flight).
Enjoying the sights. Given the ship's size, maybe it was an interstellar luxury liner. (insert Titanic joke here).
Why do the Things make so many mistakes? They're supposed to be super-smart.
See Tremors 2 for a parallel situation. They may simply seem smart in some cases, but are acting purely on instinct.
Alien intelligence may not work on the same type of logic as human intelligence. Even some intelligent earth creatures do things that are counter-intuitive to humans (and no-doubt perceive much of what we do as counter-intuitive). As such, their actions may have payed off for eons before they came into contact with humans.
Things may be powerful aliens, but they're not God. They're certainly not omniscient, at least.
They've been frozen for hundreds of thousands of years. Maybe they're suffering from an epic case of brain freeze, or cabin fever, or something.
At the very least, they predate humanity. They could've been frozen or kept in stasis for billions of years prior to the crash, giving them little time to brush up on situational protocols. Toward the end of the movie, one can't be sure that either or both of the survivors haven't been assimilated.
In The Thing from Another World, the eponymous creature is treated as your standard alien invader, with characters openly speculating that it came to our planet to conquer and was merely sidetracked by its crash landing. But look at the matter from the Thing's perspective. It wakes up on a strange planet, surrounded by strange and alien creatures, and the first thing that happens is that one of the creatures (a spooked soldier) shoots it with a projectile weapon. It runs outside to get away from this attack, and is immediately set upon by a dozen quadrupedal, carnivorous predators (the camp's sled dogs), which rip off one of its arms. If that happened to you, you'd start attacking every creature you saw on sight, too. And if you had the ability to grow yourself some backup, you'd probably do that, too.
In Thor, Loki has inspired a lot of this discussion because the film leads the audience to potentially doubt everything he says since he's such an effective Manipulative Bastard: Did he always hate Thor or was it a simple grudge from Sibling Rivalry that grew to Cain and Abel levels only after he found out he was a Frost Giant? And does he really still consider himself a son of Odin, or was he just saying that as another manipulation?
And it could go either way. As notoriously having a "silver tongue" he could be manipulating both the characters in the film and the audience. On the other hand, however, he genuinely comes across as a "Well Done, Son" GuyUnfavorite who wants nothing more than to move out from under the shadow of his older brother and receive some recognition for what he has done. The more popular opinion is that he is a Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds, and this is the more likely possibility. If one just considers how much it would break a person to have always been The Unfavorite all his life and then discover that he is in fact one of the creatures he was raised to hate and that is the reason why he was The Unfavorite, then it is not shocking what Loki did. He set up a situation where he would have saved his father from an assassination attempt, an event that his father could not ignore. He attempted to destroy the creatures (which he was one of) that were threatening war upon his land in the hopes that it would finally make him Thor's equal. But his attempt failed, as did his attempt to explain to his father why he had done such a thing. And... it's also more popular because girls do love their Draco in Leather Pants.
One could also argue whether his fall at the end of Thor was a suicide attempt or an escape route to plan more evil deeds. Depending upon the character interpretation, whether Loki is a Magnificent Bastard or a Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds, Odin's telling him that what he did would not make him proud could either have been the final straw that drove him to suicide or that drove him to full out, unredeemable evil.
Speaking of which, did Laufey really abandon Loki? Or did he leave him near the Casket for safekeeping and spend the last millennia thinking Odin murdered his infant son?
If Loki really was left near the Casket (which I doubt) then putting a baby you want to protect next to your most powerful weapon that the other forces are probably going to go looking for is a terrible' plan and in no way going to ensure that he'd stay safe. Besides, if Loki wasn't abandoned then why wasn't he being watched overy by a civilian or something? We didn't hear anything about Odin slaughtering Loki's guards and then just happening to find an "abandoned" baby. Although Odin would probably realize that part of the story makes him look less sympathetic.
In a scripted, but unfilmed scene Laufey admits that he believed Loki to be dead, and had no intentions of keeping him.
LAUFEY: Ah, the bastard son. I thought Odin had killed you. That's what I would have done. He's as weak as you are.
Thor: The Dark World throws even more wrenches into the mix, especially regarding Loki's death scene. Did he really mean it when he apologised to Thor, or was it just a ploy to gain Thor's sympathy after his 'death?' Or did he not mean it but said it anyway because he does care about his brother somewhat? It doesn't help that the audience doesn't know whether he actually faked his death, or actually died and it didn't take, which would massively change the meaning and motivations of his words.
Everything said in the final scene between Thor and Odin once it is revealed that Odin is actually Loki in disguise.
Laure/Mikael from Tomboy. Does he identify as male, or is she just doing it because she thinks boys get to have more fun?
Total Recall (1990): is Quaid savior of Mars, or is it all a glitch in his programmed dream memory vacation, or did the dream vacation go off without a hitch? This is even argued about in the DVD Commentary between Paul Verhoven and Arnold. One theory argues that the fade to white at the very end is supposed to represent the real Quaid, who is indeed imagining his vacation on Mars..
In Transcendence, the major issue discussed In-Universe is whether Will's consciousness was truly uploaded or simply a self aware machine with his memories trying to enslave the planet to it's purpose. The notion it may have been him at first, but simply evolved so far beyond being human that it no longer matters, is also brought up. Ultimately it's revealed it was in fact Will all along and his intentions were always good.
Optimus Prime from Transformers: living legend, hero of heroes, all-around good guy. But Revenge of the Fallen gives us gems like "Give me your face!". This might be explained as post-death high spirits, but some think even "Any last words?" without at least a perfunctory offer of surrender is Out of Character, especially given how he was all "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings" in the previous film. The theory is that the death of the Joker to his Batman, followed by two years of combat, has turned Prime into a mutilation-happy psychotic.
An alternative to this is that Optimus is a nice guy — in general. It's just that, over the millennia of war, he's decided that the only way to stop the Decepticons is to take them out lest they destroy even more. It's possible that he tried to take prisoners before, and they escaped and caused even more damage. And the Fallen is an interdimensional being (according to the TFWiki entry), which means that the Fallen has tried to do this in multiple universes, which means that he's not likely to repent any time soon. Assuming Optimus knew this, he decided that he wouldn't give the Fallen a chance to try again and kill him. And his obsession with facial gorn? We can assume that the head is the least armored part of a Cybertronian, and is therefore a better target — especially considering that the head contains the processors, which are the Transformer equivalent of the brain.
The Decepticons in the movies are waaay more brutal than the original G1 Decepticons. Demolishor was rolling across the highway, crushing cars and likely killing thousands, and the Fallen was going to destroy the entire solar system. The movie's Decepticons are also much larger and pose a significant threat. Optimus had to fight fire with fire.
Except that the Decepticons only killed Autobots, who were combatants, and humans, who were another species (even another form of life), so it's not the same as murder from their perspective. Considering how humans gleefully slaughter billions of other animals yearly for their own enjoyment and use, the Decepticons squashing even a thousand humans hardly sounds so evil (and it makes humans denouncing the Decepticons for their treatment of humans extremely hypocritical "Torturing, enslaving, and brutally killing us innocent living beings is horrible and makes you all evil. Luckily we have the Autobots to protect us, so we can torture, enslave, and brutally kill other living beings in peace."). From a non-human perspective, wiping out humanity, or at least enslaving humans, would make the world a better place.
Given that they can clearly see humans have intelligence and emotion on a level far beyond animals and equal to themselves, that logic seems somewhat flawed.(some would argue otherwise as a matter of pride, but they'd still be able to see the distinction, and why we treat animals differently) With that in mind, their actions not being murder is simply a technicality. It also doesn't help that they show no remorse for anything they do, revel in the slaughter of both sapient beings and their brethren, don't seem to care what humans do or have done, and ignore that the majority currently live in peace while they're trying to wage war. They clearly think they can do what they want because they think we're lesser beings, and again, unlike what hunters and meat-eaters, horse racers, circus owners and the like can say about animals, they can clearly tell we have intelligence and emotional capitality on par with them. They slaughter and attempt to enslave us because they believe it's their right, not because they believe it is right. Even if they did believe that Humans Are the Real Monsters, which they're never shown to, it'd just be Black and White Insanity. "These disgusting humans kill and use living creatures with mental capacities nowhere near their level and some commit crimes against other humans! They all deserve to suffer! Let's bring war to this race currently living in peace, conquer the entire planet, and kill anyone who gets in our way!"
Remember, though, the Fallen's stated motivation is that he hates humans and wants to wipe them out. Killing humans wasn't an unintended side effect of gathering energon, it was his goal. The Sun Harvester was developed by the Primes, and the Fallen could've easily used it on another, uninhabited planet. But no, he deliberately set out to wipe out a sentient species. Prime may hold that freedom is the right of all sentient beings, but that doesn't mean he's going to hold back if you're planning genocide.
Optimus is pissed. He's already been killed and, upon his resurrection, is almost killed again. He's hooked into a giant life-support machine (Jetfire's parts) and, on top of it all, the Fallen taunts him about how he killed all the other Primes. Prime loses it. Cue asskicking. In the case of Demolishor's execution, the number one rule for the NEST op was to keep the hostiles within the quarantine zone- which, as Demolishor shows, failed miserably. Optimus probably realized that both the secrecy of the mission and thousands human lives were in jeopardy and acted as quickly as possible, resorting to brutality in order to protect the majority.
The Twins are seen by many as jive-talking Scrappies. However, as some ancillary media has pointed out, it's made clear that they have been recruited into the war at a very young age (approximately 8-10 human years old). Some fans have theorized that they are trying to act tough in order to hide their fears and impress the others.
Sam's mother. Just a scrappy or just moderately mentally impaired?
Characterization being a little thin in the TRON movies (and games), this tends to make some really interesting fodder for character questions.
Can Kevin Flynn be considered heroic or "one of the good guys" at all? He's established as a guy who has a natural gift for business, programming, and persuading others to do what he wants, but is otherwise a full-blown Man Child. His primary motivation on the first film is to get revenge on Dillinger for stealing his ideas and a ton of money. Defeating Master Control is the only way he would be able to get back to analog so he could enjoy the credit and cash. Anyone else's concerns could be a second thought at best. Even right before he makes his attempt at Heroic Sacrifice, he kisses a Program woman who is a doppelganger for his ex-girlfriend (and who he knows is happily attached to his new Program best friend). After he does get back to analog, he proceeds to steal his friends' work (Lora's laser, Alan's Program) and conduct highly irregular and dangerous experiments in his arcade's basement, all the while lying to his friends and even his wife about what he's really up to! And what is he doing in cyberspace? Millions of sentient, artificial life forms with their own society, goals, thoughts, and feelings, and he explicitly refers to their world as a "game," and "[his] gift to the world," with little if any consideration for them. And when the Isos come along, he's so delighted by them that the Programs seem secondary concerns at best. When things inevitably go south on him, he saves Quorra (last Iso), but throws millions of Program lives (including Tron's) under the proverbial bus in the process. Quorra says he fought against Clu, but there is no evidence of it in TRON: Uprising and his idea of "fighting" in TRON: Evolution was to code up Anon to do battle for him and die to rescue Quorra. As for his in-universe defenders? Quorra has a loyalty to him that is, to put it bluntly, fanatical. To her, he is her master and her god. Well, to Sam, he's the long-lost heroic father he's spent a lifetime missing.
Clu (2.0) himself: Was he just doing exactly what he was told to do, but taking the most draconian method to accomplish it? Was his coup over Flynn done out of malice, or because he felt it was the only way to save the system from a negligent and foolish creator? Remember, Betrayal established that the Grid was riddled with bugs, near-fatal crashes, glitches, and instability. Flynn was pulled in too many directions at once to see how bad things on a cycle-to-cycle basis were becoming, and still overly in love with the idea of the Grid over its reality. Furthermore, Clu would do the work, but Flynn got the credit, and there was just enough of Flynn in Clu to be angry about it. Worse (horribly, horribly worse), after Clu murdered the Isos and a large chunk of the Program population in his purges, the system went from unstable and barely holding together to running for nearly 21 years without a hitch.
TRON: Uprising seems indicate that Clu's reign wasn't as hitch-free as CLU was eventually seeking to "repurpose" every program in the Grid whether they resisted or not. Maybe CLU's real motivation was that he was a Control Freak (admittedly, he was created to be one by Flynn) who came to resent the system he was supposed to manage. Then there's the father/son parallels between Flynn and him, especially the vicious Sibling Rivalry between him and Sam when they meet, and you can extend that to Flynn's coddling of the Isos.
As for Alan, did he really believe Flynn was alive, or was he giving the proverbial middle finger to Flynn's enemies by refusing to state his friend was dead? Alan would also be all too aware of Flynn's faults, but could be blinded by Undying Loyalty, Never Speak Ill of the Dead (especially after doing the lion's share of raising Sam), or somethingelseentirely. Furthermore, in raising Sam, and helping to keep the kid's controlling interest in the company, is he really trying to do right by his former ward, or does he want to put Sam (who is every bit the Man Child his father was at that age) in charge and then act as The Man Behindthe Man? (This interpetation has a lot of weight if you've played Tron 2.0, since his Establishing Character Moment was in pulling strings to try and force his own son into a higher-ranking position in Encom). Furthermore, is his bi-coastal marriage to Lora a case of Happily Married, Happy Marriage Charade, or even The Beard?
The 2.0 Alternate Continuity also throws a disturbing question. In that timeline, Flynn still vanishes, but Lora ends up killed by her laser project. It's implied several times in-game (and outright stated in the comics) that the AI Ma3a is actually what's left of Lora that was trapped in the system. Was this an accident? Did Alan do that deliberately? And if it's the latter, was it the action of a grieving man doing what he could for his lost wife, a borderline insane grief where he could not let her go (so he uploads her to an AI), and the comics even proposed a Ron the Death Eater scenario where Alan killed Lora in a jealous rage, and Ma3a was a way to cover up the crime. That last one was proposed by a nasty character trying to Mind Rape a Program who believed he was Jet, so it's probably not the case...)
And Tron himself: Is his devotion to Users something he chose, or did Alan make him Three-Laws Compliant in response to The MCP, which was a classic A.I. Is a Crapshoot? Was his erratic behavior in TRON: Uprising a reasonable response to a system that was even worse than Master Control's? Was he trying to chase Beck off, after losing so many apprentices already (Beck was his sixth apprentice at least). Was he slowly going mad without a User to serve? Was he slowly succumbing to the effects of rectification without being entirely aware of it? And when did the Rinzler programming start to crack? Was he Fighting Fromthe Inside all that time, or was he freed by User power?
Ed Dillinger Jr.: Whose side is he on? Cillian Murphy tends to say he doesn't play "bad guys," but Junior's talk with what appears to be Master Control 2.0 definitely raises eyebrows.
Are the Isos really as important as Flynn thinks? Both Legacy and Uprising don't reveal why Flynn thought so, except that disease itself would be eliminated, so if they are important enough that Quorra was worth risking everything to save CLU was condemning millions of Users to death with his Purge. Considering his actions and big speech in Legacy, it may even have been part of the plan.
The makers of the The Usual Suspects have a laugh about this trope in the DVD commentary, noting how some people thought that the wrong person was the "real" Kaiser Soze. According to Word of God, it's Verbal.
A fun theory: there is no Keyser Soze. He's been made up and attributed to a number of crimes from several criminals to throw off police from the real culprits.
Yet another: there wasn't a real Keyser Soze, until Verbal Kint heard the stories and decided to become Keyser Soze. He is, canonically, a con artist, after all, and, Keyser Soze or not, the events of the film are clearly an elaborate long con orchestrated by him. What better scam could there be than convincing the criminal world that you are the big bad boogeyman who should be feared and respected?
War, Inc. could just be another over-the-top, post-9/11 socio-political satire... Or it's where Martin Blank ended up after trying to live a normal life with his long-lost love and their new daughter, finding out he couldn't stand it, doing some work with the government again, getting in bed with a villain, losing his wife and daughter to senseless violence/kidnapping, and now is spiraling even further down than he was before. Add to this his grip on reality completely being lost and everyone becoming a horrible caricature to him (people even look similar to ones he's met and killed before). A lot of visual and plot elements that the cast and crew carried over help this:
John Cusack uses a lot of the same moves in fight scenes.
He only opens up and is honest (at first) with a person he talks to over the phone.
He sizes himself up for hits in the mirror.
He procrastinates killing the target he's there for and eventually doesn't go through with it, actually telling the target he was sent to kill them.
And extensions of his descending character arc include nervous tics like a shaking hand/eye twitches he claims weren't previous conditions, a streak of grey hair, a propensity for dulling emotional pain with physical pain (via hot sauce); all signs of severe PTSD.
The only major snags are the actress playing "Mr. Hauser's" wife (could've been Debbie with a dye job for identity change) and the age of his daughter the singer if real-world time between when the two movies were produced is taken into account (probably Sliding Timescale, or Twenty Minutes Intothe Future).
The age of his daughter could be explained by adoption.
The Wizard of Oz: ThisCracked article deconstructs the entire movie and makes you wonder whether or not Glinda is in fact the real villain here. The idea is that she's subtly manipulating Dorothy to serve as an assassin, setting her on a path that she knows will directly lead to her killing off all of the Witches who oppose Glinda, as well as end up making the Wizard decide to leave Oz forever. In the end, who is left and ready to assume control as the all-high overlord of Oz? Glinda!
In hindsight fans of the movie have been wondering whether the Wicked Witch really is as bad as she seems. A child came out of nowhere and murdered her sister, so don't you think she'd be upset? The combined with the above interpretation makes the movie quite interesting.
Was it all in Dorothy's head or did the characters all just suspiciously look like family members of her?
The World's End: Gary King - JerkassMan Child who never grew up, or a suicidal man desperately clinging to the last time he remembers feeling happy and optimistic? Or both? Similarly, throughout the film he consistently forgets details of his friends' lives, is dismissive of or ignores certain danger and seems in general very out of it. Is this because he's a Jerkass Man Child, or is it indicative of mental illness beyond suicidal tendencies?
Could be a sociopath. He only cares about himself, he uses violence and emotional manipulation to get his way, and repeatedly abandons his friends in their time of need.
Except it's shown he does care enough to try and send Andy and Steven out of the town while he finishes the Golden Mile, becomes a leader for his Blank!friends and tells Sam to leave him behind.
It's never stated or suggested explicitly, but it's arguably hinted that the events of the film are All Just a Dream; this is one of those films that does perhaps invite this interpretation. After all, Gary is apparently receiving some kind of psychiatric treatment at the start, and the story involves countless people who've done better in life than him, despite being less cool than him in his mind, turning out to be evil robots, willing slaves to a soulless alien system — despite which, they prove remarkably easy to beat in a fist fight. Certainly, the last few scenes, after the big explosion, could be interpreted as some kind of dying vision (much like the last few scenes in Hot Fuzz).
Bobby's little moment with Kitty - his hormones wanting an intimate moment that he's not able to have with his girlfriend? Or just doing something nice for a friend with no bad intentions or ulterior motives?
Rogue's attitude as well - does she have a legit reason to be suspicious? Or is she just paranoid and possessive?
Is Magneto actually right? All of his predictions that humans will turn on the mutants end up being correct; the only people he kills or attempts to kill are Nazis and people who are directly attacking him; he saved the life of everyone on that beach when the military attacked them; and he's the only one to stand up for the right of mutants to be themselves rather than hiding/assimilating.
When Erik shot the coin through Shaw's head, was he aware that it was causing Charles incredible pain as he was telepathically connected to Shaw at the time or was Erik so consumed by his need for revenge that he forgot that detail? Or did he just have absolutely no way to know it, not understanding psychic powers as such? Erik may have caused Charles such pain on purpose. After all, Erik lived through the Holocaust, and Raven can't go out as herself without revealing what she is. Charles, on the other hand, is A) a mutant who looks normal and can hide in plain sight, B) never suffered or faced persecution the way Erik and Raven have, and C) keeps lecturing other, less fortunate mutants on morality and the "proper" way to do things. Erik may have decided to teach Charles a lesson in pain.
The HISHE parody of First Class has a unique interpretation of Erik as a complete dick. Not even a heroic dick, like in the film, but just a dick full stop. Their reasoning is pretty convincing, pointing out how Erik is wearing the helmet of the man who killed his mother, who he spent his entire life trying to avenge, and even adopting his life philosophy and motivations.
Is Charles the righteous hero or hopeless idealist? Did he really accept Raven for how she looked, or did he prefer it when she was in her human disguise? Maybe he didn't mind her natural form (with cultural preference for clothing) but found the human disguise more attractive?
Hank himself is subject to this, mainly in his scene where he rejects Raven's true mutant appearance. Simply an Out-of-Character Moment where his own insecurity manifests? Or is he a Bitch in Sheep's Clothing who is so concerned about appearance, that he took a serum (without properly testing it) because his feet were too big? Or was he just caught off guard and not sure how to react?
In-Universe. Charles tries to raise Hank's spirits by talking about The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. As Charles sees it, the serum didn't divide Jekyll into "good" and "evil," but more "civilized" and "animal," with the "animal" Hyde being Jekyll with confidence and free of inhibitions. Thus Hank shouldn't worry about being a bad guy, but should instead just embrace his newfound self-assurance and freedom. In the novel, Hyde revolts everyone who sees him (not because he's physically ugly—he isn't—but because people can sense something terribly wrong with him), and amongst other things, tramples a child and later beats an old man to death in a rage. Moreover, neither Jekyll nor Hyde display any remorse, and are only worried about being caught... yeah, stick to the hard sciences, Chuck.
Bolivar Trask's dwarfism in X-Men: Days of Future Past has cast his antagonism of the mutant race in this light for some viewers. He either admires mutants and just sees them as a means to an end for protecting Earth, or he hates that he was born with a perfectly ordinary and useless mutation while all other mutants win some form of Super Power Lottery. Note that this is an interpretation the writer and producer disagree on; one brought the theory up as a possibility, while the other was strongly opposed.
Sorry to have to bring up 3DevAdam, the unauthorized Turkish exploitation film with Captain America as the hero and Spider-Man as a heinous villain. But what if the villain isn't supposed to be Spider-Man at all? His costume is far from identical, there's no webs on it, and really, his face mask is so generic, it could be anything. There seems to be a spider on his chest, but the clarity is so bad I can't really tell if that's what it's supposed to be. What if the villain is really supposed to be the Red Skull? That would make just as much sense from what I've seen. The Red Skull often wore a green suit like the villain in this film. There don't seem to be any references to NAZ Ism, but they'd at-least identify him as some sort of villain, right? Do they call him Spider-Man at any point in the film? It is in another language, right? This troper hasn't seen it.
28 Days Later: Is Major Henry West an utter psychopath completely desensitised to human suffering, or is he just a desperate commander trying to make sure all his "boys" survive the apocalypseby any means necessary? The fact that he's effectively ordering women to be raped pushes him a good way down the slippery slope, but listen to his justification for it. And watch how he comforts Jones as he lies dying from a stomach wound, and his ultimate reaction to Jim's rampage. "You killed all my boys."
Or is he a good military officer who went mad after watching (and killing) human beings who had turned into inhuman psychopaths and watching the country he'd devoted his life to serving crumble all around him?
The 39 Steps by Alfred Hitchcock hinges upon the fact that a girl in Richard Hannay's apartment ends up dead. The movie includes information that points to the girl being a spy, but all of this could easily be a hallucination by the schizophrenic Hannay. This turns Hannay from national hero to murderous psychopath and re-shades his interactions with women throughout the film in a much darker light. Considering this is one of the first "They think I did it but I didn't really do it" films, it could be considered a trope-maker.
55 Days at Peking: The David Niven character, Sir Arthur Robertson, actually asks this of himself at one point as the conflict between the many nations and the Chinese gets worse - is he a Too Dumb to Live fool who took on an impossible gamble, or is he quote "a reasonable man who took a reasonable chance?"
HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Word of God said that he went kill-crazy because he was given conflicting orders about how to treat the crew members. There are two other theories for his motives: he was aware he was going to crash/go nuts and was trying to drop hints to Dave to figure out the secret purpose of the mission; or he, being a perfect computer, felt threatened by the monolith and wanted to keep mankind from acquiring it and reaching a point in evolution where they don't need tools like himself. Naturally, the film itself gives no hints at all.
HAL screws up at chess early on in the film. He announces that it is checkmate in two moves. It's actually three. Kubrick was a chess enthusiast (the character Dr. Smyslov was named after a Russian chess champion, and the piece positions in question were from a famous 1910 game), so there's a good chance he put the goof in intentionally. Was it an early hint that there was something wrong with HAL? Was HAL testing his opponent to gauge how observant he was, and if he was willng to question HAL's claims? Or was he indeed dropping intentional clues that something was wrong with him, but this one proved too subtle?