Terminator 2: Judgement Day
Sarah Connor decides not to kill Miles Dyson.
Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning
Grace decides not to sell the keys to buy herself a new identity.
How I Met Your Mother
Lily disappears for some episodes because she hears a really dirty joke from Barney and is disgusted.
Because Alyson Hannigan was pregnant and unavailable for filming.
Raiders Of The Lost Ark
Indy shoots a guy instead of getting into a fight.
Because Harrison Ford was severely ill and could not shoot an elaborate fight scene.
Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning
Ilsa wears an eye patch.
Because, Rebecca Ferguson was unable to wink (close only one eye at a time).
Note: I love how they handled Alyson Hannigan's real life pregnancy on the show HIMYM. They still got her on the finale of the season while pregnant, covering it up with props and heavy clothing, because it wouldn't make sense for one of the main characters to be absent for the season finale. They got in some scenes with her having a "pot belly". And, the second time she was pregnant IRL, they synced it with her character being pregnant on-screen too. Such a lovely cast and crew relationship 😊.
In fiction, there are characters which are funny, witty, and unserious. And, there are characters which are pretty serious, sullen and brooding.
I call this the dancing test.
Some characters are known for their serious demeanour, that, dancing looks so funny and out of place.
Ex: Darth Vader, Voldemort, Gandalf (not exactly gloomy, but, you get the point)
And, some characters are so upbeat and goofy, that, you cannot imagine them in serious dramas.
Ex: Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse, Jar Jar Binks
Jinx, across all games, AMVs, promos and the TV show, has shown so much range that, she can be placed in both extremities without feeling out of place.
What are your thoughts on this?
Am I making assumptions from narrow examples?
Honestly, two completely unrelated works of art coming together so well, biggest smile on my face when I discovered this.
In Neighbors (2014), after a series of airbag pranks, while Seth Rogen's character is sweeping his entire house for airbags, he also checks his baby daughter's crib.
The fact that he considered, for a moment, the possibility that these guys would go as far as hurting their baby in the process is such a scary thought.
It was a fleeting quiet moment amidst all the crazy shenanigans.
Watching that scene, I felt that, no movie has to be limited by their branding. They can always take wild swings with their stories and moments.
I mean to say that, I don't like these movies, but I enjoy these particular scenes.
For me:
Police station scene in They Call Him OG (2025)
Chariot scene in Kantara: Chapter 1 (2025)
Coal mine fight scene in Salaar: Part 1 - Ceasefire (2023)
I've seen this numerous times. Whenever something doesn't make sense logically, tonally, canonically or structurally, people say that, "well, that is how it is in the comics, so, it's comic accurate".
Something being accurate to a source doesn't automatically make it good.
That way, if anyone wants to make a bad movie, all they have to do is publish it as a book or comic first, then adapt it.
Just something that's been bugging me for a while, and wanted to hear others' thoughts on this.
On the other end of this spectrum, I'm completely on board with instances where, a creator chooses to cherry pick things that they like from the source material, and discard the rest of it, if it will result in an entertaining piece of fiction.
Ex: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Ultimate Edition) (2016)
Also, there are instances where a completely unrelated piece of work is closer to the source material and better than the official adaptation of it.
Examples:
Upgrade (2018) is a better Venom movie than most official adaptations.
The Incredibles (2004) is a better Fantastic Four movie than most official adaptations.
I've seen this numerous times. Whenever something doesn't make sense logically, tonally, canonically or structurally, people say that, "well, that is how it is in the comics, so, it's comic accurate".
Something being accurate to a source doesn't automatically make it good.
That way, if anyone wants to make a bad movie, all they have to do is publish it as a book or comic first, then adapt it.
Just something that's been bugging me for a while, and wanted to hear others' thoughts on this.
On the other end of this spectrum, I'm completely on board with instances where, a creator chooses to cherry pick things that they like from the source material, and discard the rest of it, if it will result in an entertaining piece of fiction.
Ex: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Ultimate Edition) (2016)
Also, there are instances where a completely unrelated piece of work is closer to the source material and better than the official adaptation of it.
Examples:
Upgrade (2018) is a better Venom movie than most official adaptations.
The Incredibles (2004) is a better Fantastic Four movie than most official adaptations.
I've seen this numerous times. Whenever something doesn't make sense logically, tonally, canonically or structurally, people say that, "well, that is how it is in the comics, so, it's comic accurate".
Something being accurate to a source doesn't automatically make it good.
That way, if anyone wants to make a bad movie, all they have to do is publish it as a book or comic first, then adapt it.
Just something that's been bugging me for a while, and wanted to hear others' thoughts on this.
On the other end of this spectrum, I'm completely on board with instances where, a creator chooses to cherry pick things that they like from the source material, and discard the rest of it, if it will result in an entertaining piece of fiction.
Ex: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Ultimate Edition) (2016)
Also, there are instances where a completely unrelated piece of work is closer to the source material and better than the official adaptation of it.
Examples:
Upgrade (2018) is a better Venom movie than most official adaptations.
The Incredibles (2004) is a better Fantastic Four movie than most official adaptations.
Naaku ayithe Falaknuma Das (2019).
So much fun, full of energy, really good performances, flawed characters, and the fact that Vishwak Sen is the director.
(I know it's a remake, but, remaking a good movie automatically doesn't make it good)
Note: I haven't watched the original, Angamaly Diaries (2017), so, my opinion is solely on watching Falaknuma Das.
Great repeat value for me.
As opposed to big battles in deserted areas, big battles which level the city, or fights in tight spaces that are obliterated in the process.
I was rewatching Avengers: Age Of Ultron recently. Something felt different.
It was one of those instances where the protagonist proactively started the plot with his actions.
Usually, the protagonist starts the story in a reactive position, but eventually becomes proactive.
So, when I was thinking back on more examples in this space, the majority of them were:
Biopics (The Social Network, Oppenheimer)
Villain Protagonists (Nightcrawler)
Heist Stories (Money Heist, Ocean's 11)
Crime Stories (Goodfellas, Casino)
Otherwise, they would be stories where the protagonist is just reacting to:
the villain's actions,
something affecting the protagonist (health, wealth, etc),
being called to action, or
being dragged into the plot.
So, either, the tendency is to start the story with a reactive protagonist, or, frame it as a story of crime or a cautionary tale.
I'm interested to discuss the common consensus on this. I'm open to being corrected or debunked.
Usually, either:
the villain starts the plot, or
something affects the protagonist, or
he's called to action, or
he's dragged into the plot.
Where are the protagonists who start the plot on their own will?
Examples:
Tony Stark (Avengers: Age Of Ultron, 2015)
Furiosa (Mad Max: Fury Road, 2015)
Lou Bloom (Nightcrawler, 2014)
Professor (Money Heist, 2017-2021)
Note: I realize that many biographies fit this. It would be interesting to see fictional examples though.
Someone can be smart and still not accomplish much.
Look at Homelander. He's one of the strongest supe in the show's universe, but, he's practically useless.
He cannot save a crashing plane. He cannot locate Ryan. He sends Soldier Boy to locate the boys because apparently they have some virus. He almost died in so many instances.
With Homelander, we know it's because he's lazy.
The same goes for Sister Sage.
Before Homelander met her, all she was doing was just reading books. That's it. She has no goals of her own. No dreams, no motives, nothing.
The reason she was dragged into the plot is because Homelander wanted to get into a political position, which, she successfully did it for him.
After that, she just stuck around to see what's happening.
Homelander keeps increasing his demands. Now, he wants to be god (he knows he's god 😶), and, Sage is just fed up and not interested at all.
It's still a missed opportunity to not have an actual smart character, but, at least it's not out of place.
And, having ideas is good. Actually going through with executing it requires grit and consistent effort, which is lacking in Sage, as expected.