Movie Nepotism, sort of

[Erroneous]

I have not seen Spiderman yet, but I can tell by the trailer that everyone is closely related to everyone like in the first set of Spideys. I hate that. How fucking unoriginal! I hate it when movies do this. I am speaking mostly of super hero type movies. Why does the police person need to be the daughter of the person dating the main character? Or somehow the good guy and bad guy always know each other prior to being super. Cliche and boring. Would it kill someone to not know other person at all?

I also hate movies where the police person in charge knows all and is always making the right impossible moves and is always in the right place at the right time, because only that person can catch the criminal. Soooo boring

[magjournal]

Solid point. We were discussing that in the Sunday Night Movie Chat just a little while ago, talking about how dumb it was that the Joker killed Bruce Wayne's parents at the beginning of Batman (1989).

In Spider-Man 3, I always thought it was dumb that Sandman was the one who killed Ben Parker in the first film.

[Matchbox225]

I agree. It's just a lazy way for the writers to create drama between the characters.

[Herald]

So the problem is that in movies they try to make things personal? Because it happens in every movie. At the end the bad guy will always take a relative hostage. In Die Hard everything is personal, in the first two movies John McClane has to rescue his wife, in the third one the main villain just happens to be the brother of the first movie's villain and in the fourth one his daughter is kidnapped.

How many times the partner of the cop/fbi/cia/secret service agent is the bad guy? Or his superior. How many times the cop has to drop the case because he's too involved?

Even in the holy Batman trilogy by Christopher Nolan things become personal because Rachel is the target of the bad guys in the first two movies (in the second she just happens to be the girlfriend of Harvey Dent) and in the third:

Spoiler:

Catwoman steals his moms necklace so Bruce Wayne goes public again, a rookie cop knows his secret identity because he visited his orphanage once, the main villain is the daughter of the main villain from the first movie and just happens to be a business associate and one-night-stand of Bruce and coincidentally the whole evil league just happens to be the same one where Bruce got his training and don't forget that Jim Gordon was the one who comforted young Bruce after his parents died. Small world indeed.

Especially in comics these things happen, mortal enemies that are friends (Xavier - Magneto), brothers (Thor - Loki), clones (Cable - Stryfe), acquaintances (Peter Parker - Norman Osborn). Since comic book movies are based on comics these relationships are usually present in the movies as well.

[Erroneous]

I hear what you are saying and can live with a certain amount of it, but I hate it when EVERYONE has a connection to everyone.

It also annoys me that the bad guy is always in the same city as the hero. I think that is why I like Superman so much. That was not the case here. Made for a more interesting movie.

[SS-Block]

Sometimes nepotism is merited. Eyes Wide Shut would be less interesting without the real life Tom and Nicole connection. Working with people you know, like family, could in some cases make it easier.

Most of the time I see nepotism it undermines a meritocracy. People hired for who they know, who they're related to, irrespective of them being a dunsky. That's where its bad management.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by SS-Block

Sometimes nepotism is merited. Eyes Wide Shut would be less interesting without the real life Tom and Nicole connection. Working with people you know, like family, could in some cases make it easier.

Most of the time I see nepotism it undermines a meritocracy. People hired for who they know, who they're related to, irrespective of them being a dunsky. That's where its bad management.

I guess you only read the thread title. Hence the sort of part

[SS-Block]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

I guess you only read the thread title. Hence the sort of part

I read it, all two paragraphs. You had wrapped up everything rather nicely. I thought I would branch out the topic of nepotism. You didn't like that, so I'll return to the intrinsic details of your o.p.

Would it kill someone to not know other person at all?

No. I don't believe it would kill someone to not know the other person at all.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by SS-Block

I read it, all two paragraphs. You had wrapped up everything rather nicely. I thought I would branch out the topic of nepotism. You didn't like that, so I'll return to the intrinsic details of your o.p.



No. I don't believe it would kill someone to not know the other person at all.

Smart ass :-)

It is nice to branch out. Just did not seem like you adhered to the theme of the thread at first.