The main character from “They Live” absolutely sucks (SPOILERS)

Submitted by DaddysSloot7789 t3_z7ua9r in movies

So, I’ve been meaning to watch this movie for years and heard nothing but praise about it. The first 25-30ish minutes of it are great. But, as soon as you get past the most famous scene in the movie (the one where he puts on the glasses for the first time) it falls apart for me because the main character SUCKS. First, even before anything goes down, he tells a black man that “the middle of the road is the worst place to drive”. When all he was trying to do was keep his head down, get paid and send money back to his family in Detroit that he hadn’t seen in months. The ONLY thing this guy asked from our main character was to leave him alone and not bring whatever bullshit he was stirring up his way. Then, he proceeded to not only do exactly the opposite of what he asked of him (which was VERY little), but BEATS THE SHIT OUT OF HIM? 5 fucking minutes of beating the shit out of this poor guy just to put glasses on him to totally derail his life and sanity. Not to mention the absolute steaming pile of white man privilege he dumps on him with complete confidence when he initially asks him to leave him out of it because he wants to keep his head down. And after all of this he gets his ass killed. He also acts like a total moron 50% of the time he’s wearing the glasses, drawing the MOST attention to himself possible. He was also suuuuper rapey to that woman he kidnapped. Am I alone on this? Everyone loves this movie and no one mentions that this guy is an absolute unchanged colostomy bag of a person. And it isn’t just that. It was such a weird tonal change (and to be honest, quality change) after the glasses scene. But, what I mainly wanted to know is does anyone else see this guy like I do or is it just me? Just one more thing to add: I love John Carpenter films. This one just was really disappointing for me and not just because the main guy is an idiot. Just wanted to see if anyone else was feeling this way about the protagonist.

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

D_is_for_Doomsayer t1_iy85bv4 wrote

Everything you say is true, but I think you're looking too close at what's intentionally a bigger picture story. The movie is operating as a hamfisted allegory. Nada is a cypher. In general, the characters are less characters than they are representations of types of people.

So yes, Nada is not an especially good or smart person. He doesn't have to be though because the movie isn't serving us up a story about characters so much as using them like props to reveal a broader social commentary.

21

DaddysSloot7789 OP t1_iy85y10 wrote

I understand the larger picture with the story, just found the protagonist distracting to the rest of the film. And, mostly just wanted to talk about that aspect of the movie more so than a full review. Thanks for being cool, though! Someone could’ve come in and ripped me a new one because I know people love this movie.

−11

D_is_for_Doomsayer t1_iya776c wrote

Sorry you're getting downvotes for your opinion friendo, it's a perfectly acceptable one, even if I don't agree.

1

B_C_Mello t1_iy888dt wrote

> Not to mention the absolute steaming pile of white man privilege he dumps on him

You are a racist cunt.

17

[deleted] t1_iy9r8bg wrote

[deleted]

1

B_C_Mello t1_iy9reom wrote

What you linked has nothing to do with racism. Why are you attempting to justify blatant racism?

1

DaddysSloot7789 OP t1_iy9e0ft wrote

Did you read what you actually just posted? It doesn’t work that way. I guess all the dumb red pill assholes woke up as soon as I asked if anyone else didn’t like a single character from a singular John Carpenter movie. Sue me.

−6

B_C_Mello t1_iy9q0zm wrote

>It doesn’t work that way.

What do you mean?

3

xXxHondoxXx t1_iyeqxlh wrote

Relax. You can't argue with a racist who thinks they're anti-racist. It is like arguing with a wall.

1

Murderyoga t1_iy88yph wrote

Yes, you are alone on this.

16

ThingMakerMatt t1_iy892c3 wrote

lol what a comment "steaming pile of Whiteman privilege". Not everything is about race and you watch things in that eye your gonna find what you are looking for.

There is a reason this man has no name even in the credits. Its wrong place wrong time kinda movie.

16

Kokibuchek t1_iy85mu6 wrote

Roddy Piper is a gem!

I did like the character quite alot, even though he wasn't the greatest actor (He was a famous Canadian wrestler) However, I do agree that the final act of the film isn't its strong point. Not because of the main character though, it just sort of felt like they didn't know how to execute the conclusion, as if they had it roughly outlined, but just got sloppy with it.

13

DaddysSloot7789 OP t1_iy86scx wrote

Oh, don’t have any issue with the actual actor, just really don’t like the writing for the character. And that makes a LOT of sense that he’s a wrestler because he is SHREDDED. Another movie your comment reminded me of is “They Look Like People”. Similar concept to “They Live” and the ending just kind of peters out in a way that feels like they didn’t know how to close the movie out or had their budget cut or something.

−8

QuintoBlanco t1_iy8fnkd wrote

Here's the thing, many movies have an imperfect protagonist by design.

George Nada is imperfect, but fundamentally decent.

He didn't ask for any of the stuff that happened to him. He is just a dude who wanted to work and make a little bit of money.

Once he finds out how fucked up things are, he wants to do the right thing even though he's in over his head.

That's what make the movie interesting.

7

6PeasInaPod t1_iy8mq24 wrote

White privilege? Are you a moron? This was about forcing someone to take the red pill. Morpheus was nicer by offering Neo the choice of a red pill and a blue pill. Yeah, some people really would rather not know, but once you know, would you want to live like that? There's always one Cypher among a thousand people who would rather live in The Matrix, and that person would be you. Yeah, if I knew, I'd beat the hell out of every family member and friend to force them to put on those glasses.

6

QueefGargler t1_iy96e2g wrote

>I'd beat the hell out of every family member and friend to force them to put on those glasses.

Hopefully over the course of five minutes each.

3

6PeasInaPod t1_iy97f7c wrote

I'm pretty sure I can take grandma and mom in under a minute, although they may not be conscious when I put the glasses on them.

1

QueefGargler t1_iy97pvu wrote

See this is why they don't rush it in the film. It's important to draw it out and be conscious for the glasses.

1

DaddysSloot7789 OP t1_iy9cx00 wrote

He literally beat the man into submission. And “take the red pill” is never a good thing or referenced as such. What you’re talking about is taking the choice away from everyone you know, derailing their lives and putting them in danger for your own “I know better than you” complex. And the fact that you just saw the words “white privilege” and went on a red pill tirade says all you need to say to out yourself.

−8

atomicitalian t1_iy86qah wrote

I think you might be thinking a little too literal about the movie. The scene where they're fighting I think is pretty clearly meant to be a visual representation of struggling with someone to get them to see and acknowledge uncomfortable truths, particularly those that will spur them to action.

I'm a reporter in real life and that's basically what doing my job feels like - most people just want to keep their heads down and get paid, not realizing that shit is gonna get worse if they don't pay attention and do something, so you're constantly trying to shovel information out there and hope it'll break through people's guards.

That's at least how I see the scene - someone who sees a problem desperately trying to convince someone else there's a problem.

4

DaddysSloot7789 OP t1_iy874do wrote

Again, not a review of the film and had more issues with it than just the protagonist. But mainly was posting this to see if I was the only person who saw this with the main character or if it was just me. But, you might have a point about the literal thing, I am on the spectrum 😆

−6

Previous_Balance_737 t1_iya13jo wrote

Why you gotta bring race into it at all? When did we decide protagonists have to be perfect beacons of morality.

He’s a lonely man trying to deal with the knowledge everything around him is controlled and only he sees it. Keith David’s character is the only man he trusts and if he just gets those glasses on him he’ll be on his side.

Under extreme circumstances people act in extreme ways.

4

AZMane t1_iycs0bb wrote

If a "mean" character is enough to distract you from enjoying a film, then I suggest you just stick to Disney movies! 👍

3

WhyWorryAboutThat t1_iy8jpbp wrote

You are right but I like the movie even more for making the main character who has to save the world from aliens some random asshole instead of a more likable person with an arc. I also don't mind him forcibly recruiting his friend, as the movie takes a hard stance that grim reality is better than blissful ignorance.

2

RatedRadu t1_iy93lfb wrote

Don't you dare talk about Roddy Piper like that you ignorant fool!

2

patman3030 t1_iy99sbl wrote

John carpenter protags aren't supposed to be the pinnacle of human courtesy. They're supposed to be realistic depictions of john everyman being dumped into the main conflict. They're assholes because people who are forcibly burdened with saving the world aren't going to be happy about their lives being destroyed. They make dumb choices because the new conflict they have to face isn't something they're prepared to deal with. They have to learn to be a hero as they go. How those characters act is how most, if not all, people would react if placed in their shoes.

I feel like the character bothers you because you were expecting more of a competent self insert character like in modern dystopia movies, while john carpenter says "if you were forced to save the world, you would wish you could go home and watch tv instead, and you'd suck at it the entire time you're saving the world".

2

DaddysSloot7789 OP t1_iy9blz6 wrote

Nope, just wanted someone who wasn’t kinda racist. Don’t think that’s a “self insert” and if that is to you, you have some pretty gnarly self examination to do.

−6

patman3030 t1_iy9dqg7 wrote

Roddy's character isn't racist for not letting keith david's character say "fuck you I got mine" and ignore society's problems. If you think forcing the working class to open their eyes and see that they're being exploited by a class they'll never be a part of is wrong, then you're in no position to be crying racial oppression. "Let the minorities be scumbags too" is not anti-racism.

4

DaddysSloot7789 OP t1_iy9hy5y wrote

That’s obviously not what I’m saying. It’s the 80’s. He’s a poor black man that doesn’t have the same societal privileges that he does and he looks him dead in the eyes and basically says to him “I don’t understand why you would have an issue stirring shit up”. That’s all.

−2

Kokibuchek t1_iyama86 wrote

I'm sorry dude, this just isn't the case. I know racism can attribute to the oppressive nature of classism, but this movie is almost exclusively about classism, no matter the color of your skin.

5

BadReubenNoConcubine t1_iy91ges wrote

They chose a pro wrestler to play him. They didn’t go with an actor. The black guy is the only real actor in the whole movie. They knew he (main character) was written off. People don’t like this movie because it’s perfect, it’s ridiculous on purpose.

1

DaddysSloot7789 OP t1_iy9bt5w wrote

Everyone keeps acting like I’m attacking the man himself, the only issue I have is with the writing of the character and his actions in the film

0

BadReubenNoConcubine t1_iy9eevg wrote

As far as your very valid points of the white guy selfishly ruining the black guys life.. this movie came out 36 years ago, so there’s that working against it. But doesn’t it kinda ring true? Ever heard of white people showing up to black protests, trying to support but end up instigating violence? What about in Django, the German guy selfishly takes action putting Django and his wife in an unnecessarily dangerous situation because he just doesn’t consider the black man’s experience enough.

4

BadReubenNoConcubine t1_iy9dm4m wrote

I understand what you are saying. My point is they knew the character was shit written, so they didn’t bother hiring an actor and went with a pro wrestler instead. It’s more important that the character looks good throwing a punch than acting well because they are relying on the action more than the way the character is written.

1

Eccentric_Cardinal t1_iyb47wb wrote

I agree with some of your points. The main protagonist isn't exactly a genius and forcing his only friend (who was the only person who treated him decently after he got the construction job) to abandon everything just to get in his crusade is pretty much a sign that he was a douchebag.

That being said, what do you mean by white privilege? The protagonist was a homeless wanderer looking for a job in an obviously depressed economy. What privilege did he have and how did he include it while trying to covince his friend?

I consider myself a John Carpenter fan since I was a teen but his overall filmography is a mixed bag. I'm in the minority cause I don't like "They Live" or "Big Trouble in Little China" as much as some people seem to do. For me, Carpenters true classics are Escape from New York, The Thing and In The Mouth of Madness. Mostly those three.

1

dickybabs t1_iybxe6t wrote

Get this guy a Puppers

1

Many-Outside-7594 t1_iy88e8c wrote

I feel like this was an example of trying to stretch one good idea into a whole movie, and not having enough material to justify it.

The whole thing of putting on the glasses and the messages about conformity and all that, it's great stuff.

But then what? Body Snatchers already did this, better, just a couple years previously.

As far as the main character, he is a pretty standard Carpenter hero, which is to say he is a walking deconstruction of masculinity, much like Snake Plissken or Jack Burton.

Tastes have changed quite a bit since the late 70's, and things that used to be considered wacky hijinks are now seen in a different light.

But I don't think Carpenter ever intended for Roddy to be viewed as a conventional hero.

−3

DaddysSloot7789 OP t1_iy9fi2v wrote

Thank you, Jesus Christ finally someone comes in with a comprehensive point. Only you and one other person have actually come in here, read the whole post and whether or not you actually agreed with me didn’t just devolve into dumb insults because I didn’t like one thing about a John Carpenter movie. Where the movie fell apart for me aside him acting like a jackass was actually the complete wad of 80’s quotable cheese that invaded the film after being a fairly interesting and stable watch until that 30 minute mark. You don’t deserve the downvotes at all, thanks for coming in and discussing it like a rational human person.

0