Hot take: The "bees can sense royalty" is so weird and funny, it actually becomes good again. That's exactly the kind of inventive, out-of-left-field stuff I want to see in my Space Operas. Especially a Wachowski Space Opera.
I've not seen this movie, and every time I hear or read 'Jupiter Jones' I think of the main character of the 1970s young detective stories 'The Three Investigators.' It really surprised me to see what I thought was a video about the empowerment of an obese tween detective from half a century ago.
I've seen reviews from Feminists both ways on this film. One talks about her being a "Chosen One", a role rarely given to women. And it seems like like she is chosen one about the same as most Damsel in Distresses technically are. But I'd especially compare this to a lot of 19th Century French Serialized Novels, ones written by Authors like Ponson Du Terril and Paul Feval. She is the rightful Heiress to an inheritance that villains of the story want to steal, at least one of them by manipulating her into marriage.
Holy shit this is exactly right and I'd never thought about it before. She's a 19th-century romance heroine in a sci-fi setting. Now I really want to see someone actually execute that concept well.
She actually has much more in commong with a Hostage MacGuffin - and I think she is only more than that because the film is made from her perspective. Definition of a hostage MacGuffin: When a character, very often a young girl, is sought after by various factions due to her background. They may be a rich heir held for ransom, royalty held hostage, or the President's daughter. Those interested in them will want them not for who they are or what they can do, but who they are connected to or what they represent. It's distressingly common even for the good guy factions to want to rescue them not for their own good but for what they represent. Usually, only The Hero will see them as a person and ask them what they want, and even then, it takes bonding through the course of the story. For Anti-Hero otherwise, shooting the MacGuffin is the quickest way for them to ease the trouble.
While I see the argument made and think compelling story can be made out of "person thrown into system they have no knowledge of and struggles to survive", it sort of feels to me like using it here to defend Jupiter Jones feels like a fall back on, ironically, the Thermian Argument. Frame it this way: A: "Jupiter Jones is a terrible character because she lacks agency and could be replaced with a prop for much of the story." B: "Her lack of agency is because she's in a universe where she doesn't know anything about alien society, mistakenly trusts those who do, those guys have advanced technology, etc." Framed that way, to me it looks like citing in-universe rationale for out-of-universe artistic choices. A better defense of Jupiter, to me, would talk about how her naivety serves the story's themes. For instance, Emmet in The LEGO Movie is a huge idiot, but his idiocy serves both as a warning of the effects of conformist media and as a symbol of hope for when he and the other conformist idiots of the Finn-verse discover their potential and overturn the old system. Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, who the Wachowskis have cited as a big inspiration for Jupiter, is naive and uneducated about the land of Oz, but her empathy aids her in making friends who become determined to confront their fears to save her, and changing the hearts of cynics who initially had no sympathy for her. But Jupiter's trusting nature here only gets her into lots of trouble throughout the film, and it seems odd to me that she'd be so unassuming around the obviously suspicious Abrasax folk, considering the first act of the movie sets her up as a cynic who "sees the worst in people", decries romance, etc.
Tuckerscreator I think your first paragraph definitely sums up the problem with a lot of main characters in general. The in universe argument only works so far as the audience and the capability of the story. If the universe itself sets up a character to be useless/boring/having no influence on the plot, then the story itself has failed. It's like saying that the story can be lazy or not have any meaning or in general be bad because the universe (made by the creator of the story) says it's so. Thus; "well, it's not my fault the story/characters are bad, it's the universe's fault, which is actually my fault as well because I created said universe."
That is true about it being a problem affecting a lot of main characters, especially "Chosen One" protagonists, hence why the LEGO Movie had a lot to satirize about the concept. Jupiter was created to be an audience insert, but audience inserts can still have distinct personalities and individual agency. One example is Ariadne from Inception, whose ulterior purpose is to be the team newcomer to be fed exposition for the audience, but she drives the story forward through her curiosity and creativity.
Tuckerscreator Absolutely, Ariadne was a catalyst character in that she was absolutely needed for the story, but she has feelings and questions and thoughts of her own that ADD to the story, not just make it move on. Just having purpose in the plot, as in being important because of some sort of trait, does not a good character make.
Tuckerscreator Indeed, actually most of the audience insert chosen one characters in famous movies DO meet those criteria. Luke skywalker, Frodo, Neo all have their own personalities and play a big role in advancing the plot and influencing the story and surrounding status quo.
Some more than others. Neo is almost devoid of personality. Luke has some, but there's a reason why for years he was known as "that whiny kid". Frodo's personality is also pretty underplayed compared to the rest of the characters, to the point that Tolkien called Sam "the chief hero" of the story, not Frodo.
I really like this take. This isn't a story like Lord of the Rings, where there's a quest to accomplish, or even like Riddick, where there's a threat to overcome. Instead, it's about figuring out and managing the other characters' motives and interests, which ties in with Jupiter's character arc being about learning how to effectively assert herself and to figure out when and who to trust (my one bugbear about the movie is the beginning voiceover, where she says she doesn't trust anybody...and then we drop into an arc where she's credulous and trusting to a fault at the beginning. Like no...that's the opposite).
I mean, obviously yes. Being a character isn't a matter of being well or poorly developed, it's not a matter of having or not having agency. She is an active participant in this film. Now, we can argue that she isn't a *great* character, but she is a character nonetheless.
I find it interesting that a lot of guys here, myself included, would have preferred Jupiter to be more capable of fighting or surviving through other means, and lots of women seem to like Jupiter a lot. It's changed my mind a little. Thank you!
Seriously, thank you so much for this. I love the film and find it really fascinating and intriguing, and it's difficult to express how much I appreciate seeing a video as eloquent and well argued as this one after witnessing the seemingly ceaseless barrage of cynical mockery and derision laid against it by the internet hate machine. Thank you - your points are superb and I couldn't agree more.
"I love this film. Flaws and all." God bless you, son. I was too distracted by the films gaping plot holes, ridiculous character design, and idiotic dialogue, such as "bee's are genetically designed to sense royalty," to give a crap about Mila's character. Also, maybe it's just me but did anyone else think the film seemed a bit... David Ickian in a way?
I really can't agree with this. Jupiter is left clueless because of the sheer gap in knowledge between her and the characters that are familiar with the setting in space. For me the biggest scene that shows her complete lack of agency or even reason, is the wedding. She gets taken down to the basement by a man, that is very clearly young, after seeing his sister go from an elderly woman to young. She is given the information that his sister is ancient and uses the blue stuff, which I call "orphan tears", to reverse the aging process. He then shows her vial after vial of the stuff and tells her that it's made from liquefying people. He then asks her to marry him so he can protect the rights from his sister and other brother who would want to turn Earth into another fresh batch of face cream. At this point, if Jupiter was a smart protagonist or even competent, she would have realized that she already had legal protection and an armed guard. Of which she was forcefully removed from and doesn't even consider asking to communicate with them. Secondly she should have clearly realized that if the man was young looking, then he must either be young or be using orphan tears. She can assume he isn't young since he clearly establishes that his siblings are ancient, which easily imply that he was old as well. So it's clear that he must be using the stuff, and we know he has access to it since his basement is full of it. Earlier in the movie there was an attempt on her life by one brother and then a supposed trick by the sister, at least according to the man that wants to marry her. At this point she should have at least asked "How can I trust you?" instead she agrees to marry him without much thought on the matter. Jupiter is a very weak character, that could have been replaced with a paper deed, since which ever sibling gets ahold of it instantly gets her to go along with all of their plans.
Initially I thought you were gonna talk about alfred Hitchcock and the 3 investigators. Jupititer jones is the head investigator in that book series. But that Jupiter is a boy.
hi there, just say jupiter ascending the other day, i liked it, granted my expectations were very well managed because of the reputation that precedes it, but despite liking it the realisation i was left with once it was over was upsetting. i realised it made more sense to me than rise of skywalker. i had more than one tiny violin for that heartbreak, i had a whole tiny orchestra.
I can't say that I really enjoyed watching this movie, but I'm fascinated by it in the same way I'm fascinated by Suicide Squad. I keep asking myself "the movie was in capable hands, how did it turn out this way?"
I too enjoyed Jupiter Ascending, flaws and all. But I disagree with a couple of basic points you make talking about Jupiter's "agency." First, why don't you mention that it's a kind of coming of age story? Like Sarah Conors in the first Terminator movie, Jupiter starts out as a low-status nobody, and then grows into a hero. Unlike The Terminator, however, Jupiter Ascending doesn't manage the transition so smoothly. Jupiter is actually pretty slow on the uptake when it comes to re-evaluating the moral implications of the power she gains through her newly inherited wealth. Too much of the plot is taken up with her Low Brow angst over her new bodyguard and maybe boyfriend. Only in the very last act does she seem to realize that she holds the fate of every human being on the face of the earth in her hands, and in so doing make the leap into adulthood. - I think it might be this problem with the script that inspires viewers to think Jupiter didn't have much agency.
Clicked on this thinking it was about the Alfred Hitchcock and the Three Investigators character and was disappointed it was a different Jupiter Jones. Still an enjoyable watch.
I couldn't really take the movie seriously and I mean, I'm the guy who'll defend the first Twilight movie as a film more misunderstood than bad. I still like your take on it tho, Dan. Always enjoy hearing when people have interesting thoughts, even if I don't fully agree or am ambivalent to the material.
"...her decisions still drive the plot. Because a character being *empowered* is not about them getting their way, it's about them influencing where the story goes." . Huh. I don't think I've ever heard / read anyone actually breaking down the concept behind 'empowered' as relates to its use with characters in literature (as opposed to irl re: personal agency) before at all. Let alone so neatly and concisely yet still very understandably. Mostly if the word is defined at all, rather than knowledge / context being assumed, there's a 4th-wall jump into, as noted, out of the fictional universe rather than just giving a technical writing-focused description. . So, thanks. That's very useful.
But the whole reason why the plot functions towards her for the reasons you describe have nothing to do with her character and everything to do with her... blood. I think that if what you were describing had more to do with who Jupiter is rather than some monarchical attribute, I'd see her as more empowered.
+casersatz No, the characters trying to manipulate or destroy her are motivated by her blood. Jupiter herself is who she is because she grew up outside of that hereditary system. The choices she makes are based on who she is or who she decides to trust, and in the end, she _rejects_ the privileges of her blood except those that allow her to save the Earth. Put another way: Luke Skywalker is strong in the Force because of _his_ blood, and characters representing both sides of the Force attempt to manipulate him because of that inheritance. He ultimately rejects both camps, because he wasn't raised in the system of Jedi/Sith dichotomy. He's able to reject his father's offer of power, the Emperor's offer of vengeance, and Yoda and Kenobi's insistence that destroying his father is the only way, and choose mercy instead.
+digitaljanus (nods slowly) I getcha. Perhaps one reason why I find the Luke Skywalker example to be stronger than Jupiter Jones is because we get to see a conflict within each movie concerning Luke's relation to the Force inside him. (The Death Star run in episode 4, the training in the cave in episode 5, and the ultimate decision episode 6). Jupiter makes a decision, yes, but that decision doesn't seem to be rooted in what we've seen in the story- and this is partly because the movie is such an unrelenting info-dump up until (and including) the final act, I didn't think she had room to breathe. It's like Superman's decision in Man of Steel to kill Zod. It falls flat because "to kill or not to kill" wasn't really a narrative thread throughout the movie with his character.
I get that but while the caracters are the same the source of there power they inherit is completly different and can't really be compared Luke inherits the force from his father he is tempted by the dark side because he needs to know how to figth to protect the people he loves which is slowed down by the emphesis on learning wisdom first of the ligth side and wen you think about it he rejects both Jupiter does not have that conflic because the lives of the people she loves are literaly the source of the power she inherits she needs to aquier that power but cannot use it because it wood mean sacrificing the lives of the people she loves
I think the question of "Empowered" is a bit of a misplaced examination. The question should be whether or not a character is well-written and engaging. You can write a character well and make the interesting even if they have no agency in the plot. Bilbo Baggins has no agency in The Hobbit for the entire first half of the book because Gandalf just solves everybody else's problems for them. That might not be the best example, because the whole point of that is to create a sharp contrast after Gandalf leaves and Bilbo has to take the reigns and grow into the position of being the one who solves the problems. That said, his lack of agency in the plot is amusing and interesting up to that point because it plays well with the befuddled, put-upon everyman forced into a situation beyond his control. C-3P0 and R2-D2 are the same way in the first Star Wars movie. The whole first movie is more or less told from their perspective and yet they have literally no control over their existence. As machines, they can be shut off at any moment. There is only one point in the story where any of them exercise plot agency - when R2-D2 tricks Luke into removing the restraining bolt so he can leave to search for Obi-Wan - but R2 only does this because he has explicit orders from the princess that he, as a robot, cannot disobey. I think it's more than possible to write a story centered on a character with no plot agency if you are AWARE that you are doing so and you write it around that conceit. I'm a firm believe that there are no bad ideas, only the bad execution of ideas. Except for Human Centipede. That's a bad idea and the person who came up with it should feel bad.
THIS. I've recently started tweaking people by claiming that Jupiter Ascending is the Wachowskis' best movie, and I only sort of don't mean it. (Okay, yes, SO much of it doesn't work. But if you can let yourself let those things go, it really has a solid thematic frame, a terrific sense of escalation, whimsy, and visual spectacle. It's genuinely good and I love it, and yes I will die on that rhetorical hill.)
I also thought that some of Jupiter's "gullibility" was actually "stepping into a potential lie with her eyes wide open, taking advantage of others' assumptions that she's gullible".
I feel like this movie has so mutch inspiration from vidéo games that it's more of an ode to them than a movie, you can link most action scènes to a specific vidéo game where the directers got there inspiration from not only that the main vilain ask's "do you think your in a vidéo game?"to the heroin as they are figthing in the cathédrale of Anor Londo from the dark souls séries
I give thanks for this video. The critics really got this one wrong in a bad way. You really got it right on how Jupiter was portrayed. The Washowski's stated that they wanted to bend and toss out our ingrained view on what makes a hero. I think how they did it was genius but many just didn't get it and were actually antagonistic toward the idea of a hero being just a regular person, thrown into a situation that was out of her depth, and yet as you sated she found a way to push through even willing to sacrifice her and her family to save humanity. There are so many layers to this great movie that the more I watch it and think about it the more I see what it is really getting at.
I think you're the one getting things wrong here. The problem with Jupiter comes down to means justifying the ends. The writters intended to write her as a character constantly being manipulated and people are debating whether or not thta is a good thing.
it's interesting to see people like (even if I don't agree) movies that are generally considered bad by most critics. I like my own fair share of bad videogames for what they are. I haven't watched the movie myself, but I was under the impression that Jupiter getting physically kidnapped twice just kind of extended the running time without adding anything, and I'm having difficulty imagining a framing that adequately justifies it as a storytelling method
I'm sorry, you are wrong, bees do not respect backpacks, they respect royalty, so she couldn't have been replaced with a backpack because the bees would not respect a backpack.
Well, to be fair, bees generally do not respect people, either. Maybe there was something in the backpack that could have repelled the bees? I don't know, I haven't seen the movie.
Damn. I am rapidly becoming a fan. While I find myself disagreeing almost half of the time, I rarely come away from one of your videos not feeling enriched by having watched it. Why doesn't RUclips come with booze or coffee and a place to sit down and argue? Google should speed up their creation of AI so creators could upload their minds into chatbots for the audience to hang out with or something...
I enjoyed Jupiter Ascending. It has numerous, and large, issues with dialogue, character building, pacing, etc, etc. But it also builds a universe using a lot of compelling ideas, and does so with admirable ambition. It ends up being a movie made up of a lot of awesome parts, but one that is put together in such a way as to be less than the sum of those. All in all, I found the movie very interesting, though not "good."
I guess I missed all of her agency, because she seemed like stuff was always happening to her, rather than her imposing her will on it. Agency didn't really grant her any control over her circumstances, so I guess that's why I missed that she had any. To me, Jupiter seemed more like a McGuffin than even a supporting character, while the dog-man is the protagonist whose agency ultimately overcomes the obstacles. Or perhaps it's just the fighting. Eh, I'd like to think I'm not the guy who sees violence as the breaker of a stalemate. After all, I think Alan Moore meant V to be kind of a cautionary tale, an anti-hero at best; a man so driven by vengeance that he can't tell it apart from justice. But perhaps I am, in this case. Or perhaps the movie just didn't communicate its subtler nuances clearly enough for me.
I discovered this channel literally yesterday and have watched about 10 episodes thus fur. It is awesome. After watching this episode, I was wondering about your view on "Alice Through the Looking Glass". As I see it, this is the best movie in 2016 depicting a truly Empowered Female protagonist. Really, the whole plot is propelled by the decisions of 4 female characters (who are often misguided and make many mistakes). A really good film that I believe is sadly ahead of it's time.
just curious: did you find his channel because of his suicide squad video? I watched his videos several years ago, and found them back just a few days ago, in part because of the suicide squad video, which seems to have substantially more views than any other of his works.
This movie wasn't in the same league of Chronicles of Riddick. Chronicles of Riddick was a really good film that had too much sci-fi weirdness for the mainstream, just like 5th Element.
j-jupiter ascending is a bad film, though. it's okay to like bad films, like the room or neil breen movies--i remember having the time of my goddamn life in the theater. but it's b-movie shlock, and not really that deep.
If Jupiter Ascendding had been made into an anime instead of a movie, it would have worked out a lot better. Half the bad things of this movie are the terrible acting and horrible costume design. Personally, I do like the story and it has potencial, they just chose the wrong medium for it.
This is a very creative defense of a movie with incredibly regressive gender roles.I mean my god Jupiter literally falls in love with a lone (ALPHA?) wolf who has to rescue her again and again and again, and her literal bad ass moment is kicking the gender fluid bad guy in the nuts. And by the way what's up with the very heteronormative good guys and the gender fluid bad guys. Plus, only woman are naked? What is UP with this movie?? I really hope Dan has changed his mind in the intervening years.
Off topic, but movies should stop pretending like you can knock someone out for days on end without adverse effects. Multiple minutes = brain damage and requires months of recovery.
this comments section is great! "I like (insert movie here) even though it is flawed, here is a video explaining my thoughts on its main character and her place within the narrative" "hOW dARE yOU cALL yOURSELF a cRITIC wHEN yOU lIKE tHIS OBJECTIVELY BAD fILM! YOU ARE WRONG AND BAD!!! YOU JUST DONT KNOW HOW TO ADMIT SOMETHING IS bAD, wHICH IS wHAT tHIS mOVIE, OBJECTIVELY, SCIENTIFICALLY is!"
I think this vid kind of gives voice to why I do not think Zelda is a damsel in distress. Most of the time it seems like there was a plan all along. She had years to hatch some scheme in which she would frustrate Gannon's plans and then bide her time until Link, the player, could put on the finishing touches. Your use of the word "composure" made me realize that Zelda is not actually very distressed. (As an aside though, I wonder about Princess Leia's apparent brave face she put on for Vader. She also showed a lack of distress, but she certainly did not have a plan in place to not be executed, so maybe that was just stupid.)
You lost me at "Jupiter Ascending is not a bad film. It's merely a ridiculously flawed film." Um, no. It is most definitely a bad film. It's a bad film with some cool ideas, and somewhat likable protagonists. The story is fractured as hell. It's like they took all this time to build this world, to create an awesome backdrop... and forgot to put any effort into actually telling a good story. Not to mention, it was terribly shot. Back to the script/editing, the structuring is god awful. They proceed to 'rescue the princess' only to have her get captured so that they have to rescue the princess all over again. Not to mention, turning Eddie Redmayne, who was not too long ago brilliant as Stephen Hawkings in A Brief History in Time, into one of the most annoying villains of all time. I am not a violent person, but every time he opened his mouth, he just displayed nothing but hit me face. And I could rant on and on about all the varying problems... but I will leave it there. It was terrible. I had such hopes, with the Wachoswkis behind it and their last effort, Cloud Atlas, being solid. Not to mention V for Vendetta and of course the first two Matrix movies and Bound. So even though the trailers are kind of meh, I had hopes that enough there would be decent, at the very least.... not this, their worst film. Just really bad.
Zane, that is a figure of speech. I actually did watch the whole thing, I never once disputed his point in answering the question, only his comment about the film being any good, hence actually putting his quote and showing clearly what I was actually responding to. Considering how he jokes on more than one occasion how someone liking Jurassic World is 'wrong', I don't see how what I did was all that misplaced. (To clarify, I am on the same page as far as Jurassic World being bad, but that doesn't mean someone else is wrong for liking it... but I do get that he probably intended that as a joke.) If it seems I am over clarifying, apparently I have to, since... you didn't apparently get what I was actually commenting on and went on a tangent to condemn my comment. Nowhere do you ever see in my comment me criticizing him for being "someone who IS willing to talk about the movie". I merely commented on him saying the film wasn't bad, my comment was only about that much. I even said positive things about the film. As for the Stephen Hawkings movie... "A Brief History in Time" is the book he (Stephen Hawkings) wrote (which is a good book and worth diving into), and I momentarily confused the two (that title with Theory of Everything), (My bad. :P ), but at least they are related and you knew what I meant, by pointing it out... so you DID know what I was talking about. So yeah... try again. Maybe this time, instead of condemning my post, why not try actually commenting on what I actually said and what I was actually responding to. Making up stuff in your head is never a good way to start a conversation with someone.
I actually have no issues with the whole idea that she was an empowered character. As I said, I liked her and Channing Tatum's role. While she may have been empowered, as far as this video is concerned, and I don't mind the cliched rescue the princess routine (how can I, since it exists in my favorite movie of all time), the fact that she has to rescued twice by her love interest, one right after the other... kind of unempowers her, regardless of the other factors. In the end, she is still just a princess to be rescued. (And so I have a grudge against the movie and very strong feelings. Certain movies will trigger me. You should see my Transformer rants... though they have a little more bearing on the topics in question.) I appreciate you coming back on here to attempt a respectful conversation with me. I look back and think I should have clarified the other parts, as not attacking Dan per say, but as a general frustration at a film I wanted to be at least decent... and I should have made some effort to comment on the topic that actually was presented and not let me reply fully be about my rant against the movie itself.
Uuuuuh no that movie was complete garbage sir There was nothing empowering about someone who’s constantly getting kidnapped and by the end doesn’t even take up the role as queen The movie wasn’t flawed it was crap
Nice video, but could you please stop with the "like, share, subscribe" joke thing? We get it, its a thing that exists and it must be said. But if so, just say something like "Please like, share and subscribe if you enjoyed the video". You made your point on the cynicism surrounding that stuff, then why not just follow it?
I find it annoying as well but I don't think he needs to drop the whole thing just shorten it, its just a little too long and the amen at the end sounds awkward. "Go in peace, in the name of like, share, and subscribe," would be a significantly better sign off.
+Hattori Hanzo & +Jeremiah B , I took it as reference to the benediction some preachers pronounce upon their congregations at the end of the sermon. "In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."
Carradee he made a video before this one where he talks about the need to say "like, share, and subscribe" and how people are always very cynical about it, and how the video makers try to come up with a different way to say it without sounding like a person who wants views for cash( cause ultimately thats what it is, but people view that as a negative thing). Check the video out
Jupiter is basically the female version of Sam Witwicky, except without personality. She's someone with no particular talents, skills, or redeeming character traits, whom the plot revolves around for no reason except that she was born into some bullshit great destiny or whatever that she did nothing to earn. And sometimes, she is allowed to do stuff. The love interest exists for no reason except for her benefit - literally, he was bred and trained for it. And yet you aren't going on an hour-long rant about the "female gaze", or claiming that she's an "archetypal straight white female," or anything like that. Interesting. Is really lazy writing only excusable when the lead character is female and the object of their lust is male?
The difference is there, if you care to look at it. While both protagonists are, in a way, nondescript , in order to make them stand-ins of the audience, Sam acts like the destiny he has is his prerogative, and the writers construct him and the scenes he is in like that. On the other hand, Jupiter does not play into her destiny, nor does she accept it as justification for asking things from life or from other people like Sam does. While the fact that they lack everything except generic traits (although i could argue they do not, but that's maybe a topic for another time) is a problem in itself, Jupiter Ascending attempts to comment on that and on the whole idea of being born with a "Destiny", through her choice in the ending (and that is one of the main differences in tone and between the characters). We can be the judge of how well that is done, but to equate these two protagonists, although both from flawed movies that take their toll on them, is superficial, in my opinion. In Transformers, we are expected to accept that he is the Chosen one, and it is not discussed in any way within the movie. Here we follow a protagonist that isn't quite convinced by or happy with this new destiny, in the end. She just tries to make the best decisions, given the situation.
THIS. I've recently started tweaking people by claiming that Jupiter Ascending is the Wachowskis' best movie, and I only sort of don't mean it. (Okay, yes, SO much of it doesn't work. But if you can let yourself let those things go, it really has a solid thematic frame, a terrific sense of escalation, whimsy, and visual spectacle. It's genuinely good and I love it, and yes I will die on that rhetorical hill.)
Hot take: The "bees can sense royalty" is so weird and funny, it actually becomes good again. That's exactly the kind of inventive, out-of-left-field stuff I want to see in my Space Operas. Especially a Wachowski Space Opera.
I've not seen this movie, and every time I hear or read 'Jupiter Jones' I think of the main character of the 1970s young detective stories 'The Three Investigators.' It really surprised me to see what I thought was a video about the empowerment of an obese tween detective from half a century ago.
yeah, I had thought I was the only one that clicked on this thinking "what about Bob and Pete?!?"
@@theunwelcome Finding other fans of the Three Investigators in this way was not something I expected ... but it IS something I appreciated!
same!
Me too!
I have seen Jupiter Ascending, but was still hoping it would be about the three investigators... maybe next time.
I've seen reviews from Feminists both ways on this film.
One talks about her being a "Chosen One", a role rarely given to women. And it seems like like she is chosen one about the same as most Damsel in Distresses technically are. But I'd especially compare this to a lot of 19th Century French Serialized Novels, ones written by Authors like Ponson Du Terril and Paul Feval.
She is the rightful Heiress to an inheritance that villains of the story want to steal, at least one of them by manipulating her into marriage.
Holy shit this is exactly right and I'd never thought about it before. She's a 19th-century romance heroine in a sci-fi setting. Now I really want to see someone actually execute that concept well.
She actually has much more in commong with a Hostage MacGuffin - and I think she is only more than that because the film is made from her perspective.
Definition of a hostage MacGuffin:
When a character, very often a young girl, is sought after by various factions due to her background. They may be a rich heir held for ransom, royalty held hostage, or the President's daughter.
Those interested in them will want them not for who they are or what they can do, but who they are connected to or what they represent. It's distressingly common even for the good guy factions to want to rescue them not for their own good but for what they represent.
Usually, only The Hero will see them as a person and ask them what they want, and even then, it takes bonding through the course of the story. For Anti-Hero otherwise, shooting the MacGuffin is the quickest way for them to ease the trouble.
@@jabezcrisp7899 That's a perfect describing of what I was trying to convey. Thank You.
"so i was rewatching jupiter ascending" only good things can come after
While I see the argument made and think compelling story can be made out of "person thrown into system they have no knowledge of and struggles to survive", it sort of feels to me like using it here to defend Jupiter Jones feels like a fall back on, ironically, the Thermian Argument. Frame it this way: A: "Jupiter Jones is a terrible character because she lacks agency and could be replaced with a prop for much of the story." B: "Her lack of agency is because she's in a universe where she doesn't know anything about alien society, mistakenly trusts those who do, those guys have advanced technology, etc." Framed that way, to me it looks like citing in-universe rationale for out-of-universe artistic choices.
A better defense of Jupiter, to me, would talk about how her naivety serves the story's themes. For instance, Emmet in The LEGO Movie is a huge idiot, but his idiocy serves both as a warning of the effects of conformist media and as a symbol of hope for when he and the other conformist idiots of the Finn-verse discover their potential and overturn the old system. Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, who the Wachowskis have cited as a big inspiration for Jupiter, is naive and uneducated about the land of Oz, but her empathy aids her in making friends who become determined to confront their fears to save her, and changing the hearts of cynics who initially had no sympathy for her. But Jupiter's trusting nature here only gets her into lots of trouble throughout the film, and it seems odd to me that she'd be so unassuming around the obviously suspicious Abrasax folk, considering the first act of the movie sets her up as a cynic who "sees the worst in people", decries romance, etc.
Tuckerscreator I think your first paragraph definitely sums up the problem with a lot of main characters in general. The in universe argument only works so far as the audience and the capability of the story. If the universe itself sets up a character to be useless/boring/having no influence on the plot, then the story itself has failed. It's like saying that the story can be lazy or not have any meaning or in general be bad because the universe (made by the creator of the story) says it's so. Thus; "well, it's not my fault the story/characters are bad, it's the universe's fault, which is actually my fault as well because I created said universe."
That is true about it being a problem affecting a lot of main characters, especially "Chosen One" protagonists, hence why the LEGO Movie had a lot to satirize about the concept. Jupiter was created to be an audience insert, but audience inserts can still have distinct personalities and individual agency. One example is Ariadne from Inception, whose ulterior purpose is to be the team newcomer to be fed exposition for the audience, but she drives the story forward through her curiosity and creativity.
Tuckerscreator Absolutely, Ariadne was a catalyst character in that she was absolutely needed for the story, but she has feelings and questions and thoughts of her own that ADD to the story, not just make it move on. Just having purpose in the plot, as in being important because of some sort of trait, does not a good character make.
Tuckerscreator
Indeed, actually most of the audience insert chosen one characters in famous movies DO meet those criteria.
Luke skywalker, Frodo, Neo all have their own personalities and play a big role in advancing the plot and influencing the story and surrounding status quo.
Some more than others. Neo is almost devoid of personality. Luke has some, but there's a reason why for years he was known as "that whiny kid". Frodo's personality is also pretty underplayed compared to the rest of the characters, to the point that Tolkien called Sam "the chief hero" of the story, not Frodo.
I really like this take. This isn't a story like Lord of the Rings, where there's a quest to accomplish, or even like Riddick, where there's a threat to overcome. Instead, it's about figuring out and managing the other characters' motives and interests, which ties in with Jupiter's character arc being about learning how to effectively assert herself and to figure out when and who to trust (my one bugbear about the movie is the beginning voiceover, where she says she doesn't trust anybody...and then we drop into an arc where she's credulous and trusting to a fault at the beginning. Like no...that's the opposite).
I am going to do you one better: Is Jupiter Jones a Character?
Best comment
A very empowered piece of cardboard. I mean, she expresses herself and all, she's just being the most everyman out of all protags in film.
Is Jupiter a Jones?
I mean, obviously yes. Being a character isn't a matter of being well or poorly developed, it's not a matter of having or not having agency. She is an active participant in this film. Now, we can argue that she isn't a *great* character, but she is a character nonetheless.
Yes, and she's a furry. Ha
Homygawsh. Thank you for this, it's so refreshing to see someone appraise Jupiter/Jupiter Ascending rather than bash it/her. This made my day.
I find it interesting that a lot of guys here, myself included, would have preferred Jupiter to be more capable of fighting or surviving through other means, and lots of women seem to like Jupiter a lot. It's changed my mind a little. Thank you!
Really, I've seen the reverse.
Dang it, anyone else thought this was about Jupiter Jones from the Three Investigators?
JoanieDoeShadow It was the main reason I clicked to watch. To see if there could be a valid argument he didn't have agency.
I'm sad it wasn't.
That is exactly why I started watching this. I haven't thought about the Three Investigators for quite a while
@@tintinaus SAME!
Seriously, thank you so much for this. I love the film and find it really fascinating and intriguing, and it's difficult to express how much I appreciate seeing a video as eloquent and well argued as this one after witnessing the seemingly ceaseless barrage of cynical mockery and derision laid against it by the internet hate machine. Thank you - your points are superb and I couldn't agree more.
I honestly thought there was a remote chance that this was about the Jupiter Jones from the three investigators children books.
"I love this film. Flaws and all."
God bless you, son. I was too distracted by the films gaping plot holes, ridiculous character design, and idiotic dialogue, such as "bee's are genetically designed to sense royalty," to give a crap about Mila's character.
Also, maybe it's just me but did anyone else think the film seemed a bit... David Ickian in a way?
I was so sure this was going to be about Jupiter Jones, the character from the children series The Three Investigators.
I saw the title and got my hopes up thinking the video was about those “The Three Investigators” books I read as a kid.
Darnit, I really hoped this was about the Three Investigator's Jupiter Jones.
I really can't agree with this. Jupiter is left clueless because of the sheer gap in knowledge between her and the characters that are familiar with the setting in space. For me the biggest scene that shows her complete lack of agency or even reason, is the wedding. She gets taken down to the basement by a man, that is very clearly young, after seeing his sister go from an elderly woman to young. She is given the information that his sister is ancient and uses the blue stuff, which I call "orphan tears", to reverse the aging process.
He then shows her vial after vial of the stuff and tells her that it's made from liquefying people.
He then asks her to marry him so he can protect the rights from his sister and other brother who would want to turn Earth into another fresh batch of face cream.
At this point, if Jupiter was a smart protagonist or even competent, she would have realized that she already had legal protection and an armed guard. Of which she was forcefully removed from and doesn't even consider asking to communicate with them.
Secondly she should have clearly realized that if the man was young looking, then he must either be young or be using orphan tears. She can assume he isn't young since he clearly establishes that his siblings are ancient, which easily imply that he was old as well. So it's clear that he must be using the stuff, and we know he has access to it since his basement is full of it.
Earlier in the movie there was an attempt on her life by one brother and then a supposed trick by the sister, at least according to the man that wants to marry her. At this point she should have at least asked "How can I trust you?" instead she agrees to marry him without much thought on the matter. Jupiter is a very weak character, that could have been replaced with a paper deed, since which ever sibling gets ahold of it instantly gets her to go along with all of their plans.
Just discovered your channel, and I am mad in love with it. Great discussion pieces! Can't wait for more :)
Initially I thought you were gonna talk about alfred Hitchcock and the 3 investigators. Jupititer jones is the head investigator in that book series. But that Jupiter is a boy.
hi there, just say jupiter ascending the other day, i liked it, granted my expectations were very well managed because of the reputation that precedes it, but despite liking it the realisation i was left with once it was over was upsetting. i realised it made more sense to me than rise of skywalker. i had more than one tiny violin for that heartbreak, i had a whole tiny orchestra.
I can't say that I really enjoyed watching this movie, but I'm fascinated by it in the same way I'm fascinated by Suicide Squad. I keep asking myself "the movie was in capable hands, how did it turn out this way?"
I too enjoyed Jupiter Ascending, flaws and all. But I disagree with a couple of basic points you make talking about Jupiter's "agency." First, why don't you mention that it's a kind of coming of age story? Like Sarah Conors in the first Terminator movie, Jupiter starts out as a low-status nobody, and then grows into a hero. Unlike The Terminator, however, Jupiter Ascending doesn't manage the transition so smoothly. Jupiter is actually pretty slow on the uptake when it comes to re-evaluating the moral implications of the power she gains through her newly inherited wealth. Too much of the plot is taken up with her Low Brow angst over her new bodyguard and maybe boyfriend. Only in the very last act does she seem to realize that she holds the fate of every human being on the face of the earth in her hands, and in so doing make the leap into adulthood. - I think it might be this problem with the script that inspires viewers to think Jupiter didn't have much agency.
Clicked on this thinking it was about the Alfred Hitchcock and the Three Investigators character and was disappointed it was a different Jupiter Jones. Still an enjoyable watch.
Here I was thinking you were talking about Jupiter Jones from Alfred Hitchcock's Three Investigators...
I thought this video was gonna be about Jupiter Jones from The Three Investigators when I read the title ... guess I was wrong :V
It makes me happy you also like Chronicles of Riddick.
I like Young Dan's frequent "side of the mouth" speaking style. Very Kevin Dillon.
I think I'm gonna rewatch this now
I couldn't really take the movie seriously and I mean, I'm the guy who'll defend the first Twilight movie as a film more misunderstood than bad. I still like your take on it tho, Dan. Always enjoy hearing when people have interesting thoughts, even if I don't fully agree or am ambivalent to the material.
"...her decisions still drive the plot. Because a character being *empowered* is not about them getting their way, it's about them influencing where the story goes."
.
Huh. I don't think I've ever heard / read anyone actually breaking down the concept behind 'empowered' as relates to its use with characters in literature (as opposed to irl re: personal agency) before at all. Let alone so neatly and concisely yet still very understandably. Mostly if the word is defined at all, rather than knowledge / context being assumed, there's a 4th-wall jump into, as noted, out of the fictional universe rather than just giving a technical writing-focused description.
.
So, thanks. That's very useful.
But the whole reason why the plot functions towards her for the reasons you describe have nothing to do with her character and everything to do with her... blood. I think that if what you were describing had more to do with who Jupiter is rather than some monarchical attribute, I'd see her as more empowered.
+casersatz No, the characters trying to manipulate or destroy her are motivated by her blood. Jupiter herself is who she is because she grew up outside of that hereditary system. The choices she makes are based on who she is or who she decides to trust, and in the end, she _rejects_ the privileges of her blood except those that allow her to save the Earth.
Put another way: Luke Skywalker is strong in the Force because of _his_ blood, and characters representing both sides of the Force attempt to manipulate him because of that inheritance. He ultimately rejects both camps, because he wasn't raised in the system of Jedi/Sith dichotomy. He's able to reject his father's offer of power, the Emperor's offer of vengeance, and Yoda and Kenobi's insistence that destroying his father is the only way, and choose mercy instead.
+digitaljanus (nods slowly) I getcha.
Perhaps one reason why I find the Luke Skywalker example to be stronger than Jupiter Jones is because we get to see a conflict within each movie concerning Luke's relation to the Force inside him. (The Death Star run in episode 4, the training in the cave in episode 5, and the ultimate decision episode 6).
Jupiter makes a decision, yes, but that decision doesn't seem to be rooted in what we've seen in the story- and this is partly because the movie is such an unrelenting info-dump up until (and including) the final act, I didn't think she had room to breathe.
It's like Superman's decision in Man of Steel to kill Zod. It falls flat because "to kill or not to kill" wasn't really a narrative thread throughout the movie with his character.
I get that but while the caracters are the same the source of there power they inherit is completly different and can't really be compared
Luke inherits the force from his father he is tempted by the dark side because he needs to know how to figth to protect the people he loves which is slowed down by the emphesis on learning wisdom first of the ligth side and wen you think about it he rejects both
Jupiter does not have that conflic because the lives of the people she loves are literaly the source of the power she inherits she needs to aquier that power but cannot use it because it wood mean sacrificing the lives of the people she loves
I think the question of "Empowered" is a bit of a misplaced examination. The question should be whether or not a character is well-written and engaging. You can write a character well and make the interesting even if they have no agency in the plot.
Bilbo Baggins has no agency in The Hobbit for the entire first half of the book because Gandalf just solves everybody else's problems for them. That might not be the best example, because the whole point of that is to create a sharp contrast after Gandalf leaves and Bilbo has to take the reigns and grow into the position of being the one who solves the problems. That said, his lack of agency in the plot is amusing and interesting up to that point because it plays well with the befuddled, put-upon everyman forced into a situation beyond his control.
C-3P0 and R2-D2 are the same way in the first Star Wars movie. The whole first movie is more or less told from their perspective and yet they have literally no control over their existence. As machines, they can be shut off at any moment. There is only one point in the story where any of them exercise plot agency - when R2-D2 tricks Luke into removing the restraining bolt so he can leave to search for Obi-Wan - but R2 only does this because he has explicit orders from the princess that he, as a robot, cannot disobey.
I think it's more than possible to write a story centered on a character with no plot agency if you are AWARE that you are doing so and you write it around that conceit. I'm a firm believe that there are no bad ideas, only the bad execution of ideas.
Except for Human Centipede. That's a bad idea and the person who came up with it should feel bad.
They had the same "she is saved from doing a bad contract/marriage contract" scene twice. Twice!!! In the same movie!
Far out, I wish I watched these videos when I was in high school and had english classes
THIS.
I've recently started tweaking people by claiming that Jupiter Ascending is the Wachowskis' best movie, and I only sort of don't mean it.
(Okay, yes, SO much of it doesn't work. But if you can let yourself let those things go, it really has a solid thematic frame, a terrific sense of escalation, whimsy, and visual spectacle. It's genuinely good and I love it, and yes I will die on that rhetorical hill.)
Well, I'm furious at your click bait title. I though The three investigators were finally getting the close examination they deserve!
I watch videos on topics I don't even care about just because I like your voice.
I also thought that some of Jupiter's "gullibility" was actually "stepping into a potential lie with her eyes wide open, taking advantage of others' assumptions that she's gullible".
I feel like this movie has so mutch inspiration from vidéo games that it's more of an ode to them than a movie, you can link most action scènes to a specific vidéo game where the directers got there inspiration from not only that the main vilain ask's "do you think your in a vidéo game?"to the heroin as they are figthing in the cathédrale of Anor Londo from the dark souls séries
I give thanks for this video. The critics really got this one wrong in a bad way. You really got it right on how Jupiter was portrayed. The Washowski's stated that they wanted to bend and toss out our ingrained view on what makes a hero. I think how they did it was genius but many just didn't get it and were actually antagonistic toward the idea of a hero being just a regular person, thrown into a situation that was out of her depth, and yet as you sated she found a way to push through even willing to sacrifice her and her family to save humanity. There are so many layers to this great movie that the more I watch it and think about it the more I see what it is really getting at.
I think you're the one getting things wrong here. The problem with Jupiter comes down to means justifying the ends. The writters intended to write her as a character constantly being manipulated and people are debating whether or not thta is a good thing.
it's interesting to see people like (even if I don't agree) movies that are generally considered bad by most critics. I like my own fair share of bad videogames for what they are.
I haven't watched the movie myself, but I was under the impression that Jupiter getting physically kidnapped twice just kind of extended the running time without adding anything, and I'm having difficulty imagining a framing that adequately justifies it as a storytelling method
I thought this was going to be about the Three Detectives children's books...
Thanks for the vid. Always great.
Jupiter could have been replaced with a backpack and the movie would not be changed.
I'm sorry, you are wrong, bees do not respect backpacks, they respect royalty, so she couldn't have been replaced with a backpack because the bees would not respect a backpack.
They would if it was colorful or oozing syrup.
I disagree, this movie is just pure procedural noise. I would replace it with an old tv noise.
I'm imagining Sean Bean talking about how bees are genetically programmed to recognize backpacks.
Well, to be fair, bees generally do not respect people, either. Maybe there was something in the backpack that could have repelled the bees? I don't know, I haven't seen the movie.
And that's how I decided to finally watch Jupiter Ascending.
What did you think of it?
Great now I gotta go watch Jupiter Ascending again.
I'm loving these minisodes and the mail bag. I've been needing my Folding Ideas fix for months now haha. Are you planning another season proper?
Damn. I am rapidly becoming a fan. While I find myself disagreeing almost half of the time, I rarely come away from one of your videos not feeling enriched by having watched it. Why doesn't RUclips come with booze or coffee and a place to sit down and argue? Google should speed up their creation of AI so creators could upload their minds into chatbots for the audience to hang out with or something...
I enjoyed Jupiter Ascending. It has numerous, and large, issues with dialogue, character building, pacing, etc, etc. But it also builds a universe using a lot of compelling ideas, and does so with admirable ambition. It ends up being a movie made up of a lot of awesome parts, but one that is put together in such a way as to be less than the sum of those. All in all, I found the movie very interesting, though not "good."
Wow, glad we share our appreciation of The Chronicles of Riddick, is a bad movie that I really enjoy and the movie that made me a fan of Karl Urban.
What I got from all of this is that no, she's not empowered, not unless one wants to claim harry potter empowered.
I guess I missed all of her agency, because she seemed like stuff was always happening to her, rather than her imposing her will on it. Agency didn't really grant her any control over her circumstances, so I guess that's why I missed that she had any. To me, Jupiter seemed more like a McGuffin than even a supporting character, while the dog-man is the protagonist whose agency ultimately overcomes the obstacles. Or perhaps it's just the fighting. Eh, I'd like to think I'm not the guy who sees violence as the breaker of a stalemate. After all, I think Alan Moore meant V to be kind of a cautionary tale, an anti-hero at best; a man so driven by vengeance that he can't tell it apart from justice. But perhaps I am, in this case. Or perhaps the movie just didn't communicate its subtler nuances clearly enough for me.
Nice analysis!!
Thank you. I thought I was the only person who liked the movie.
Who is better?
Jupiter Jones
or
Junie B Jones
Eddie Redmayne is a girl boss in this movie
I discovered this channel literally yesterday and have watched about 10 episodes thus fur. It is awesome.
After watching this episode, I was wondering about your view on "Alice Through the Looking Glass". As I see it, this is the best movie in 2016 depicting a truly Empowered Female protagonist. Really, the whole plot is propelled by the decisions of 4 female characters (who are often misguided and make many mistakes). A really good film that I believe is sadly ahead of it's time.
just curious: did you find his channel because of his suicide squad video?
I watched his videos several years ago, and found them back just a few days ago, in part because of the suicide squad video, which seems to have substantially more views than any other of his works.
I did in fact. This is great as he deserves more following
Do you love dogs, Dan?
This movie wasn't in the same league of Chronicles of Riddick. Chronicles of Riddick was a really good film that had too much sci-fi weirdness for the mainstream, just like 5th Element.
The real question is; is Jupiter jones a character at all?....no, no she's not
You can like a bad movie, Foldable Human, it's alright.
Jupiter Ascending IS a pretty bad movie...
j-jupiter ascending is a bad film, though. it's okay to like bad films, like the room or neil breen movies--i remember having the time of my goddamn life in the theater. but it's b-movie shlock, and not really that deep.
If Jupiter Ascendding had been made into an anime instead of a movie, it would have worked out a lot better. Half the bad things of this movie are the terrible acting and horrible costume design. Personally, I do like the story and it has potencial, they just chose the wrong medium for it.
This is a very creative defense of a movie with incredibly regressive gender roles.I mean my god Jupiter literally falls in love with a lone (ALPHA?) wolf who has to rescue her again and again and again, and her literal bad ass moment is kicking the gender fluid bad guy in the nuts. And by the way what's up with the very heteronormative good guys and the gender fluid bad guys. Plus, only woman are naked? What is UP with this movie?? I really hope Dan has changed his mind in the intervening years.
Wait you hate the book of Henry but you like Jupiter descending
the prayer to like share and subscribe is seriously weird. unless you're, like, actually praying to deity or something, there's no purpose to it
Your audio levels are weird on this episode, it's quieter than the one right before it.
Off topic, but movies should stop pretending like you can knock someone out for days on end without adverse effects.
Multiple minutes = brain damage and requires months of recovery.
this comments section is great!
"I like (insert movie here) even though it is flawed, here is a video explaining my thoughts on its main character and her place within the narrative"
"hOW dARE yOU cALL yOURSELF a cRITIC wHEN yOU lIKE tHIS OBJECTIVELY BAD fILM! YOU ARE WRONG AND BAD!!! YOU JUST DONT KNOW HOW TO ADMIT SOMETHING IS bAD, wHICH IS wHAT tHIS mOVIE, OBJECTIVELY, SCIENTIFICALLY is!"
I think this vid kind of gives voice to why I do not think Zelda is a damsel in distress. Most of the time it seems like there was a plan all along. She had years to hatch some scheme in which she would frustrate Gannon's plans and then bide her time until Link, the player, could put on the finishing touches. Your use of the word "composure" made me realize that Zelda is not actually very distressed.
(As an aside though, I wonder about Princess Leia's apparent brave face she put on for Vader. She also showed a lack of distress, but she certainly did not have a plan in place to not be executed, so maybe that was just stupid.)
Still damsel.
You lost me at "Jupiter Ascending is not a bad film. It's merely a ridiculously flawed film."
Um, no. It is most definitely a bad film. It's a bad film with some cool ideas, and somewhat likable protagonists. The story is fractured as hell. It's like they took all this time to build this world, to create an awesome backdrop... and forgot to put any effort into actually telling a good story. Not to mention, it was terribly shot. Back to the script/editing, the structuring is god awful. They proceed to 'rescue the princess' only to have her get captured so that they have to rescue the princess all over again. Not to mention, turning Eddie Redmayne, who was not too long ago brilliant as Stephen Hawkings in A Brief History in Time, into one of the most annoying villains of all time. I am not a violent person, but every time he opened his mouth, he just displayed nothing but hit me face.
And I could rant on and on about all the varying problems... but I will leave it there. It was terrible. I had such hopes, with the Wachoswkis behind it and their last effort, Cloud Atlas, being solid. Not to mention V for Vendetta and of course the first two Matrix movies and Bound. So even though the trailers are kind of meh, I had hopes that enough there would be decent, at the very least.... not this, their worst film. Just really bad.
Zane, that is a figure of speech. I actually did watch the whole thing, I never once disputed his point in answering the question, only his comment about the film being any good, hence actually putting his quote and showing clearly what I was actually responding to. Considering how he jokes on more than one occasion how someone liking Jurassic World is 'wrong', I don't see how what I did was all that misplaced. (To clarify, I am on the same page as far as Jurassic World being bad, but that doesn't mean someone else is wrong for liking it... but I do get that he probably intended that as a joke.)
If it seems I am over clarifying, apparently I have to, since... you didn't apparently get what I was actually commenting on and went on a tangent to condemn my comment. Nowhere do you ever see in my comment me criticizing him for being "someone who IS willing to talk about the movie". I merely commented on him saying the film wasn't bad, my comment was only about that much. I even said positive things about the film.
As for the Stephen Hawkings movie... "A Brief History in Time" is the book he (Stephen Hawkings) wrote (which is a good book and worth diving into), and I momentarily confused the two (that title with Theory of Everything), (My bad. :P ), but at least they are related and you knew what I meant, by pointing it out... so you DID know what I was talking about.
So yeah... try again. Maybe this time, instead of condemning my post, why not try actually commenting on what I actually said and what I was actually responding to. Making up stuff in your head is never a good way to start a conversation with someone.
I actually have no issues with the whole idea that she was an empowered character. As I said, I liked her and Channing Tatum's role. While she may have been empowered, as far as this video is concerned, and I don't mind the cliched rescue the princess routine (how can I, since it exists in my favorite movie of all time), the fact that she has to rescued twice by her love interest, one right after the other... kind of unempowers her, regardless of the other factors. In the end, she is still just a princess to be rescued.
(And so I have a grudge against the movie and very strong feelings. Certain movies will trigger me. You should see my Transformer rants... though they have a little more bearing on the topics in question.)
I appreciate you coming back on here to attempt a respectful conversation with me. I look back and think I should have clarified the other parts, as not attacking Dan per say, but as a general frustration at a film I wanted to be at least decent... and I should have made some effort to comment on the topic that actually was presented and not let me reply fully be about my rant against the movie itself.
you lost me at "somewhat likeable protagonists"
I am here 6 years later to say that Jupiter Ascending is one of the worst films I have ever been subjected to, and not in the fun way. GG
your videos are great why have u disabled likes & dislikes?
Uuuuuh no that movie was complete garbage sir
There was nothing empowering about someone who’s constantly getting kidnapped and by the end doesn’t even take up the role as queen
The movie wasn’t flawed it was crap
Nice video, but could you please stop with the "like, share, subscribe" joke thing? We get it, its a thing that exists and it must be said. But if so, just say something like "Please like, share and subscribe if you enjoyed the video".
You made your point on the cynicism surrounding that stuff, then why not just follow it?
I find it annoying as well but I don't think he needs to drop the whole thing just shorten it, its just a little too long and the amen at the end sounds awkward. "Go in peace, in the name of like, share, and subscribe," would be a significantly better sign off.
+Hattori Hanzo & +Jeremiah B , I took it as reference to the benediction some preachers pronounce upon their congregations at the end of the sermon. "In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."
Carradee he made a video before this one where he talks about the need to say "like, share, and subscribe" and how people are always very cynical about it, and how the video makers try to come up with a different way to say it without sounding like a person who wants views for cash( cause ultimately thats what it is, but people view that as a negative thing). Check the video out
Jupiter is basically the female version of Sam Witwicky, except without personality. She's someone with no particular talents, skills, or redeeming character traits, whom the plot revolves around for no reason except that she was born into some bullshit great destiny or whatever that she did nothing to earn. And sometimes, she is allowed to do stuff. The love interest exists for no reason except for her benefit - literally, he was bred and trained for it. And yet you aren't going on an hour-long rant about the "female gaze", or claiming that she's an "archetypal straight white female," or anything like that. Interesting. Is really lazy writing only excusable when the lead character is female and the object of their lust is male?
The difference is there, if you care to look at it. While both protagonists are, in a way, nondescript , in order to make them stand-ins of the audience, Sam acts like the destiny he has is his prerogative, and the writers construct him and the scenes he is in like that. On the other hand, Jupiter does not play into her destiny, nor does she accept it as justification for asking things from life or from other people like Sam does. While the fact that they lack everything except generic traits (although i could argue they do not, but that's maybe a topic for another time) is a problem in itself, Jupiter Ascending attempts to comment on that and on the whole idea of being born with a "Destiny", through her choice in the ending (and that is one of the main differences in tone and between the characters). We can be the judge of how well that is done, but to equate these two protagonists, although both from flawed movies that take their toll on them, is superficial, in my opinion.
In Transformers, we are expected to accept that he is the Chosen one, and it is not discussed in any way within the movie. Here we follow a protagonist that isn't quite convinced by or happy with this new destiny, in the end. She just tries to make the best decisions, given the situation.
Sam does actually question his position.
How anyone can like this piece of crap is beyond me. Jupiter Jones is one of cinema's worst characters of all time.
Agreed. I mean she's been saved three times!
but this movie sucks..
it fails even on character development.
THIS.
I've recently started tweaking people by claiming that Jupiter Ascending is the Wachowskis' best movie, and I only sort of don't mean it.
(Okay, yes, SO much of it doesn't work. But if you can let yourself let those things go, it really has a solid thematic frame, a terrific sense of escalation, whimsy, and visual spectacle. It's genuinely good and I love it, and yes I will die on that rhetorical hill.)