Misunderstood film characters

Immaculate Pasta

Here is the thread where you can put forward your argument to characters in films which are commonly misunderstood. Maybe they were a villain but actually a hero or vice versa.

One misunderstood character I immediately think of is Pierce Brosnan's character Stu in Mrs Doubtfire. In the film he's portrayed as the villain where he's the reason why the family won't get back together and is the enemy to Robin Williams. But in the film he's not a bad guy at all. He starts going out with a woman who's going through a difficult marriage situation with 3 kids, so a lot of baggage. But he takes it on board and is a gentleman to her, he wines and dines Robin Williams wife and is great to the kids as well, takes them swimming etc. which is more than what Robin Williams' character ever did. I think there's a bit where the audience is supposed to hate him is when he calls Robin Williams a loser and Mrs Doubtfire throws a piece of fruit at his head. And in reality, Mrs Doubtfire is actually a loser. He was rubbish at his job, didn't spend much time with his wife and was a bit of a liability let's be honest. And the whole transgender thing is actually a bit disturbing.

Pierce Brosnan was always gracious to Robin Williams when he was around and didn't ever try and stop the kids seeing the father. He was actually a pretty sound fella :cool:

What other misunderstood film characters are there?

niallon

I often thought there had to be a deleted scene that showed Brosnan kicking a puppy or something, one of the only characters in that sort of movie who wasn't hiding a mean streak from the female lead, probably one of the things that sets Mrs.Doubtfire apart.

An interesting one is movies that involve possession. When a character is possessed, is the actor playing their character or the character of the possessed person? Because seeing as how most possessions happen early in a film, by the end you can be mostly left thinking how horrible the character that the actor played was when in reality, they weren't that bad. A few examples are The Shining, End Of Days, The Amityville Horror. Though most movies on possession try to finish with a character redemption.

WatchWolf

Edward Rooney, besides breaking into Ferris' house, never really did anything wrong. He was just doing his job.

The hyenas in The Lion King weren't necessarily in the wrong. They were banished from the pride land without any reason given. The only reason that they sided with Scar was because he told them "they'd never go hungry again".

What did Sauron do wrong? He built an army yes. But besides that? He employed millions of orcs (whom of which were mostly brutally murdered by elves) and numerous other races (making it, beside the fellowship, one of the only inter-racial groups in Middle Earth). What was he going to do with the army?

Niles

Snape from the Harry Potter series is an obvious one

though it's kind of acknowledged in the end

.

I never viewed Jack Nicholson's character in The Shining (can't remember his name despite having read the original) as a villain either, just, as niallon says, possessed.

Niles

Psycho's Norman Bates? In some way or other his actions were really more down to his mother's influence than anything else. Under different parenting he would have probably turned out fine.

Immaculate Pasta

niallon wrote: »

An interesting one is movies that involve possession. When a character is possessed, is the actor playing their character or the character of the possessed person? Because seeing as how most possessions happen early in a film, by the end you can be mostly left thinking how horrible the character that the actor played was when in reality, they weren't that bad. A few examples are The Shining, End Of Days, The Amityville Horror. Though most movies on possession try to finish with a character redemption.

That's true. The awful Spiderman 3 with Tobey Maguire springs to mind when a character is possessed.

WatchWolf wrote: »

Edward Rooney, besides breaking into Ferris' house, never really did anything wrong. He was just doing his job.

The hyenas in The Lion King weren't necessarily in the wrong. They were banished from the pride land without any reason given. The only reason that they sided with Scar was because he told them "they'd never go hungry again".

What did Sauron do wrong? He built an army yes. But besides that? He employed millions of orcs (whom of which were mostly brutally murdered by elves) and numerous other races (making it, beside the fellowship, one of the only inter-racial groups in Middle Earth). What was he going to do with the army?

All very good answers :cool:

foxyboxer

But Stu doesn't lose in Mrs Doubtfire.

So he can't handle a little pepper and starts to choke. What does he lose?
For all we know he's still boinking Sally Field at the end of the movie.

FortuneChip

It was Hans Grubers money, he just didn't want to fill out the forms. And I'm still waiting for the release of Asian Dawn!!!

Colter Stevens in Source Code. SPOILERS
Whether it's his fault or not is debatable, but my understanding is that he stole Sean's body to live out a life with the girl he saved. If she didn't know Sean prior to the incident, maybe it would be different (although, even then Colter has stolen Seans family, job, history etc), but she knows him, so Colter is even hijacking time spent between the two.

Actually, I don't know if this is a case of "misunderstood" characters, but I got the feeling that most people around me were happy that the hero got the girl, whereas I was uncomfortable with it

Immaculate Pasta

foxyboxer wrote: »

But Stu doesn't lose in Mrs Doubtfire.

So he can't handle a little pepper and starts to choke. What does he lose?
For all we know he's still boinking Sally Field at the end of the movie.

It's not really about who wins and loses in the film, it's how the film portrays the characters as the heroes and villains. The film makes the audience root for Robin Williams and Pierce Brosnan is the villain, same with Ed Rooney, Sauron etc.

But as the thread shows it is not all as black and white as that :cool:

quickbeam

Jaws. The shark that is, not the Bond villain.

Like c'mon he wasn't evil, he was just doing what came naturally to him as a species - finding food to eat. I always thought it a bit unfair to go out and kill him for it when other measures might possiblly have worked - like a net to ensure he couldn't reach the bathers. Of course a film about a construction of a net mightn't have been quite as impressive.

Great movie by the way, but I do tend to feel a bit sorry for the shark. It's the softie in me.

krudler

quickbeam wrote: »

Jaws. The shark that is, not the Bond villain.

Like c'mon he wasn't evil, he was just doing what came naturally to him as a species - finding food to eat. I always thought it a bit unfair to go out and kill him for it when other measures might possiblly have worked - like a net to ensure he couldn't reach the bathers. Of course a film about a construction of a net mightn't have been quite as impressive.

Great movie by the way, but I do tend to feel a bit sorry for the shark. It's the softie in me.

the shark in jaws 4 is pure evil though,he tracks a family from upstate new york to the bahamas over a weekend sure :pac:

unreggd

The 'wicked' witch in The Wizard of Oz

All she wanted was her sister's shoes back! Dorothy was a thief, then she kills her! :O

GAAman

unreggd wrote: »

The 'wicked' witch in The Wizard of Oz

All she wanted was her sister's shoes back! Dorothy was a thief, then she kills her! :O

Don't forget Dorothy killed her sister with a house as well! :eek::D

krudler wrote: »

the shark in jaws 4 is pure evil though,he tracks a family from upstate new york to the bahamas over a weekend sure :pac:

Hahaha would thank that twice if I could

gibraltar

FortuneChip wrote: »

It was Hans Grubers money, he just didn't want to fill out the forms. And I'm still waiting for the release of Asian Dawn!!!

Colter Stevens in Source Code. SPOILERS

Whether it's his fault or not is debatable, but my understanding is that he stole Sean's body to live out a life with the girl he saved. If she didn't know Sean prior to the incident, maybe it would be different (although, even then Colter has stolen Seans family, job, history etc), but she knows him, so Colter is even hijacking time spent between the two

.

Actually, I don't know if this is a case of "misunderstood" characters, but I got the feeling that most people around me were happy that the hero got the girl, whereas I was uncomfortable with it

I dont think so, I feel that its like this;

Colter "dropped in" and took over the body of a guy who on a train that was about to blow up killing him and everyone else on board, by taking over the guys body he saved everyone else on the train. If Colter had not been there the guy would have been dead in about eight minutes anyway.

ziedth

Niles wrote: »

Snape from the Harry Potter series is an obvious one

though it's kind of acknowledged in the end

.

I never viewed Jack Nicholson's character in The Shining (can't remember his name despite having read the original) as a villain either, just, as niallon says, possessed.

I could be wrong but I think Steven King wasn't that happy with Jack's Nicholson's poertrayal of the chaacter. Seemingly King had him as a normal guy who loved his family and was turned insane while it was shown that he had a mean steak from the start.

Bipolar Joe

gibraltar wrote: »

I dont think so, I feel that its like this;

Colter "dropped in" and took over the body of a guy who on a train that was about to blow up killing him and everyone else on board, by taking over the guys body he saved everyone else on the train. If Colter had not been there the guy would have been dead in about eight minutes anyway.

I always wondered what happened to the people in the guys life after the fact. Dude just takes off with a chick he met on a train. What about his parents?

Sindri

Hitler in Der Untergang

Sure didn't he just want to conquer Europe and establish the racial superiority of the Germans. Madness that he's been vilified. An absolute travesty of the highest order!

The Japanese lad Omura in The Last Samurai.

The Emperor is a weak adolescent and Omura just wants Japan to be strong and modernise (so what if he wants to make a bit of money on the side?) but morally a few samurai are superior to him for wanting to live unhygienic peasant lives out in the sticks playing with swords FFS. Absurd!.

robvondoom

krudler wrote: »

the shark in jaws 4 is pure evil though,he tracks a family from upstate new york to the bahamas over a weekend sure :pac:

Ah now in fairness that's a bit harsh. Sure when he realised who Mario Van Peebles was he let him go with just a light mauling. And we all know that chick on the Bannana boat was asking for it. What an opening that film had. Christmas carols combined with the screams of a man being torn apart by an inexplicably vengeance oriented fish. It somewhat prepared me for the employment in retail that followed in my adult life.

Anyway, I feel Patrick Bateman from American Psycho is a misunderstood character. As opposed to the murderous monster I think he's actually just really insecure and disconnected from life and people. Imagining himself to be some awful thing as the reason for his lonliness. Hence the constant talking to himself, obsessive grooming and working out etc.
Though now that I think of it perhaps it's obvious and I was just late figuring it out.

Renn

Sindri wrote: »

Hitler in Der Untergang

Sure didn't he just want to conquer Europe and establish the racial superiority of the Germans. Madness that he's been vilified. An absolute travesty of the highest order!

Not sure what you're getting at here

RVD420

Godzilla, The Cloverfield Monster, Super 8. - All found themselves on Earth without a plan of world destruction, confused and started wrecking the place as the cities weren't designed to accomodate their size. And in return, each of em got missiles shot at them, guns fired at them, the army sent in to contain them.....

podgemonster

ziedth wrote: »

I could be wrong but I think Steven King wasn't that happy with Jack's Nicholson's poertrayal of the chaacter. Seemingly King had him as a normal guy who loved his family and was turned insane while it was shown that he had a mean steak from the start.

In the Book Jack Torrance is a good man, who has overcome his anger management issues and his alcoholism. He begins a new as a loving father and husband, though Wendy still never forgives him for striking Danny. It is well into the book when the hotel gives up trying to control Danny and manipulates Jack. In the end of the book

i would go as far as to say that Jack completely redeems himself, by throwing away the hammer and trying to stop the boiler from exploding.

In the film Nicholson immediately protrays Jack as somewhat menacing and untrustworthy. I could even just have been Nicholson shít eating grin and his beedy twinkling eyes. Jack is easily seduced by the hotel and in the end

there is not redemption what so ever

.

Kings story is more about the supernatural wheras Kubrick was more about the pyschological and how suppressed rage and cabin fever effects people combined with a little bit of supernatural. Both works are simialar yet different but both are brilliant.

bnt

D-Fens in Falling Down is a great example. I think he has some degree of autism, possibly Asperger syndrome, because of his single-mindedness in achieving a particular goal, when his mind is set on it. As a defense industry worker, he knew weapons, but saw violence in abstract terms, like a video game. But he had no way of dealing with change, when he lost his job, and when he reached his limit, could only think of going to see his family.

The cop (Robert Duvall) assumes D-Fens set out to kill his family, but that's not true: he set out on the spur of the moment, without any weapons. After all the events of the day, he was going to shoot anyone who got in his way, such as the other cop. Once his goal was no longer possible, he saw no reason to go on living. In other words: he needed help, and he wasn't the bad guy.

ricero

bnt wrote: »

D-Fens in Falling Down is a great example. I think he has some degree of autism, possibly Asperger syndrome, because of his single-mindedness in achieving a particular goal, when his mind is set on it. As a defense industry worker, he knew weapons, but saw violence in abstract terms, like a video game. But he had no way of dealing with change, when he lost his job, and when he reached his limit, could only think of going to see his family.

The cop (Robert Duvall) assumes D-Fens set out to kill his family, but that's not true: he set out on the spur of the moment, without any weapons. After all the events of the day, he was going to shoot anyone who got in his way, such as the other cop. Once his goal was no longer possible, he saw no reason to go on living. In other words: he needed help, and he wasn't the bad guy.

yup bang on the money there i always thought that D -fens was a good guy just having a breakdown

indough

I got more of an OCD vibe off him

Goldstein

Harrison Ford characters: The man has no beef with terrorists/murderers etc. If only the bad guys would leave his family and his plane alone they could conquer the world.

Niles

ziedth wrote: »

Seemingly King had him as a normal guy who loved his family and was turned insane while it was shown that he had a mean steak from the start.

That's certainly how the character came across to me when reading the original.

Gandalph

The T-Rex in Jurassic Park....like come on! If some crossed my DNA with that of a frog & locked me up for everyone to stare at I would go biting heads too!