![Frase-Spiderman-Portada[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/ixcetAa.png "Frase-Spiderman-Portada[1].png")
>character faces a moral dilemma in which he has to choose between saving a friend or loved one and 100 strangers
>manages to save both anyway
What's the point?
Overcoming all odds is the point.
>>68629990
First post best post
>>68629990
You can't overcome the odds, that just means those weren't the real odds.
In any case, it makes the dilemma pointless. We don't know what the hero truly values more, we only know that he highly values both things (no shit) and wants to have his cake and eat it too (ditto). And then he gets to do just that. Pretty anticlimactic.
Hero is clever / capable enough to make the third option
>>68630414
Not all the time, and when they can't it makes for a better film
>>68630386
>You can't overcome the odds
I don't think you understand what that phrase means.
>>68630386
The archetype of the hero is someone brave enough to not compromise his morals, and capable of overcoming the obstacles presented on his way by antagonistic forces.
Heroes are better than us. We would be forced to choose, but heroes have the moral fortitude and the accompanying power to not play by the rules of fate and take their destiny in their own hands.
>>68629906
I wish capeshit would show a real dilemma in their movies just once
>>68629990
>>68630492
>>68630414
There we go OP you got your answer.
Heroes are heroes for a reason.
>>68630475
>Using "The Dark Knight" to illustrate your point
The crux of that movie's story was overcoming the odds presented to them. Rachel's death wasn't a conclusion, it was an escalation.
In the end, both Batman and Gotham as a whole overcame the odds presented to them and emerged triumphant.
>>68630475
>heroes not winning makes for a better film
Sure is post modern pleb in here
>>68630475
>>68630550
That wasn't even "defying the odds"
The Joker deliberately lied to and fooled Batman. The contexts of that situation and OP are completely different because he knew, from the beginning, that Batman was going to save Dent and that Rachel would die.
>>68629906
Not playing by the vilain's rules
Overcoming all odds
Show you're better than a simple choice between deaths and deaths
>>68630550
>In the end, both Batman and Gotham as a whole overcame the odds presented to them and emerged triumphant
Pretty sure the movie ends with the Joker "winning", Dent dead, Gordon having to lie, and Batman needing to go on the run.
>>68631174
No. The Joker loses because the people of Gotham don't blow themselves up in the ferries, and, although Dent was corrupted, his crimes were never exposed, and he remained a hero in the public's light, while Batman finally realizes he'll always be needed because what Gotham truly needs in times of crises is not a white knight, but a dark knight.
>>68630721
>The contexts of that situation and OP are completely different
The OP basically said what's the point of having to make a Hero make a difficult moral choice when they end up saving both anyway. In TDK, even Batman had to pick 1, knowing that the other was probably doomed. Sure the Joker lied about the places, but Batman still had to make a choice.
>Spider-Man is presented with the dilemma
>Ghost Uncle Ben appears to tell him to not save anyone
>Mary Jane dies, kids die
>In his rage he snaps Goblin's neck and throws his glider into a building which explodes and kills everyone in itDirected by Zack Snyder
>>68630492
Moral fortitude would be to bite the bullet and make a choice based on your principles.
Maybe the hero is an altruist utilitarian who believes that the 100 people are objectively more important than 1 person. He makes a personal sacrifice by losing his friend in order to do what's right.
Or maybe he's a selfish Randian who believes that the right thing to do is to take care of those you love first. He then is forced to admit that he's willing to let dozens of people die for the sake of his friend, but he does it anyway.
Maybe he regrets his choice later on, or maybe he stands by it. In either case, we get to find out a lot about him.
The "third option", on the other hand, only shows that he is very good at people-saving. Which is very neat, too, and certainly commendable, but it tells us nothing about his virtues and principles. And you can demonstrate those skills in any other situation, anyway.
When you invalidate the dilemma, you retroactively invalidate all the dramatic stakes involved in it as well. It's like seeing the hero make a difficult jump over an abyss, only to later find out that there was a safety net underneath all along that would have saved him from the fall.
>>68631849
It tells us everything about his virtues and principles. It is a proof that he is moral enough to not make a choice because all life is valuable, and strong enough to see so all the lives are saved. That's the constitution of a hero.
>>68631849
Choosing one option not only betrays the hero's principles by having him accept a moral compromise, but also lowers the stakes. He is capable of saving one, and such a notion is accepted by him, his antagonist, and the audience.
When he chooses to save both, he not only proves his worth as a hero, but the stakes are also raised dramatically, because the villain's logic dictates that he can only save one, and the hero will try to do the impossible and save both.
It is both logical from a moral point of view as an examination of the hero's personality and character arc, and and a technical standpoint as a tool of storytelling.
>>68631849
>It's like seeing the hero make a difficult jump over an abyss, only to later find out that there was a safety net underneath all along that would have saved him from the fall
that's a very poor analogy
>>68631985
>moral enough to not make a choice because all life is valuable
Of course it is! We already know that the hero values all lives. Which is why the choice is so easy (the execution perhaps not so much). Pretty much everyone out there who has any moral beliefs at all will tell you "saving 101 people is better than saving 1 or 100". But that is exactly why it tells us nothing about his priorities.
This is why I think this is a harmful message for impressionable audiences. It teaches that life doesn't have tradeoffs, not really, and if you try hard enough you can get everything you want and make everybody happy. That is simply not the case. In reality, you will have to make choices, and it's better to know your priorities before you have to make them, instead of just saying "I like having my cake AND eating it".
>>68632083
The hero's principles are "save as many people as you can". Making a choice, when you have to, does not compromise them.
>the hero will try to do the impossible and save both
I mean, it sure is convenient when the circumstances just happen to allow him to pick the third option, even though neither he nor the villain (if present, these dilemmas can be created by Nature as well) initially realize it was available. What if he fails to save any of them? Is it really heroic to gamble with people's lives?
>>68633043
Is it?
Imagine the hero is not escaping from danger, but simply looking for some treasure. He can turn back and just go home, or he can risk his life by jumping over the abyss. He might fall down and die, but he may also make the jump and get the treasure. Tough choice, right?
But then we find out that there was a net all along there, so suddenly making the jump becomes a total no-brainer. Don't you feel cheated knowing the hero didn't actually face a real challenge?
>>68633117
>Wanting superhero movies to impart valuable life lessons
Well, there's your first mistake. It's escapism. People don't go watch a movie about Spider-Man to be reminded of the hardships of reality where not everyone can be saved. They go to watch because it's Spider-Man, and he'll find a way.
>>68630475
RACHEEEEEEL
>>68633290
well, It's only a poor analogy if the hero doesn't know there's a safety net. I assumed it that way
>>68633117
>and if you try hard enough you can get everything you want and make everybody happy.
That is a perfectly acceptable thing to make an audience feel in a superhero movie.
What you are trying to present is attempting to tell a different story then the ones the film makers chose. Both can be done in a satisfying way and neither is better then the other.
>>68629906
>he should only save one or the other
>this gives the film a dramatic gravitas
>it also makes the hero flawed
hello, Hack Snyder.
>>68631849
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atANB3Sbr_8
solve it.
>>68629906
That's what makes them into Superheroes. They can go beyond normal humans and do the impossible.
>>68633733
>>68633885
Fair enough. I do agree, on second thought, that this imparts a feeling of positive surprise on the audience when all of them get saved.
Still, the hero can make the choice even if none of them happen to die in the end. Maybe they get lucky and survive, or some other hero saves them; or maybe the hero chooses to save one first and the other later, if he can. Everyone lives happily ever after, but the hero's priorities are actually revealed this time.
>>68633812
It makes a difference, yes. I suppose he still makes a courageous choice when he jumps if he doesn't know about the net. But as a viewer, you later know that he never was in any danger, so it's kind of a bummer, like "it was all a dream".
>>68634009
It doesn't necessarily make the hero flawed. He can be an immaculate saint who is simply in a situation where he has to make a tradeoff, so he makes the correct choice and sticks to it. Later, God Himself shows up to congratulate him on picking the correct option.
I'm not saying superhero movies have to tackle complex themes to be good. But then don't include fake philosophical dilemmas in them. Don't get my hopes up, you know?
>>68634736
Well it obviously has a correct solution. That solution is_________________
>>68630550
>>68630721
>>68631174
>>68631328
>>68631438
>people still discussing whether Batman or the Joer won at the end of The Dark Knight
This is why Nolan is a genius.
>>68630492
How is a hero better than us? Anyone would choose "both" if they were allowed to. If anything, heroes being able to do both allows them to avoid real moral dillemas, and still appear righteous.
>>68631849
>Randroid thinks he understands jackshit about philosophy or morality
>>68634976
Underoos is literally just some random guy who got spider powers and decided to do the right thing.
He is not better than us, he is just a normal guy doing the right thing with the power he has.
I CHOOSE BOTH
(spidey should just get high, why else have a girlfriend named Mary Jane)
>>68634983
Never said I was one. Just an example of who'd consider it a more justifiable choice.
