Protagonist centered Morality/Reasonability

[hamishspence]

Of course, Tarkin only believes he has Vader "under control"

http://theforce.net/image_popup/imag...a/post2-02.jpg

"Obviously Tarkin believes that he has Vader under control and for a while Vader is happy to let him live with that illusion. However, the Dark Lord has greater plans than defeat of the Rebels and suffers Tarkin as yet another pawn in a much larger gameplan."

though Vader is still playing the role of "henchman"

http://theforce.net/image_popup/imag...a/post5-03.jpg

"As Tarkin's henchman, executioner, and general, Vader performs well."

That was back in 1977. Later material tended to promote Vader in importance, making him at least Tarkin's equal outside of the Death Star Project.

[Peelee]

Is Taejon even an officer, though? As a Grand Moff, isn’t he more of a regional governor?

He is; Leia even refers to him as Governor Tarkin. However, Moffs have always been kind of nebulous; most of them appear to be able to command the military, but higher-ups use that same military to arrest or kill them at other times, so it's unclear where Moff authority ends. Double so for Grand Moffs.

It's pretty weak, since Tarkin immediately gives him a reason "You'll kill him"

An addition in the French version, maybe? In the original, it's just, "enough of this. Vader, release him!"

[Fyraltari]

Taejon

What.

Also, once again, I'm impressed at how fast threads Star Warsify in this forum.

What amazeq me is that even though Peelee systematically and gleefully partakes in those, he never starts them.

He is; Leia even refers to him as Governor Tarkin. However, Moffs have always been kind of nebulous; most of them appear to be able to command the military, but higher-ups use that same military to arrest or kill them at other times, so it's unclear where Moff authority ends. Double so for Grand Moffs.

I would guess that some particular units are attached to a moff's sector, and so under there command but others aren't.

An addition in the French version, maybe? In the original, it's just, "enough of this. Vader, release him!"

No, I'm just wrong.

[Peelee]

What amazes me is that even though Peelee systematically and gleefully partakes in those, he never starts them.

I do like that the "gleefully" part comes across.

[Dienekes]

He is; Leia even refers to him as Governor Tarkin. However, Moffs have always been kind of nebulous; most of them appear to be able to command the military, but higher-ups use that same military to arrest or kill them at other times, so it's unclear where Moff authority ends. Double so for Grand Moffs.

This actually might be the most politically accurate thing in Star Wars. It’s not uncommon in dictatorships for the political/social arm of government to have direct control of the military. Right up until they annoy the military and then everyone starts to remember which side has guns.

[huttj509]

To kinda wrangle things more on topic with the OP, I think there's 2 factors.

1. You the reader have more context for what the protagonist is doing. Even if they're doing something wrong, you know their reasons (heroic character flaw, yadda yadda). This can make it difficult to put yourself in the shoes of a character who *doesn't* have that knowledge.

2. It's easy to root for the guy whose story you're reading. I love the recent Thrawn books, for example, but there was a point in the first recent book (Thrawn) where it struck me "I'm rooting for Thrawn, Imperial Admiral, to uncover the Rebel operative he's been playing cat and mouse with for half the book. Huh. This is written *really well.*"

[Tvtyrant]

To kinda wrangle things more on topic with the OP, I think there's 2 factors.

1. You the reader have more context for what the protagonist is doing. Even if they're doing something wrong, you know their reasons (heroic character flaw, yadda yadda). This can make it difficult to put yourself in the shoes of a character who *doesn't* have that knowledge.

2. It's easy to root for the guy whose story you're reading. I love the recent Thrawn books, for example, but there was a point in the first recent book (Thrawn) where it struck me "I'm rooting for Thrawn, Imperial Admiral, to uncover the Rebel operative he's been playing cat and mouse with for half the book. Huh. This is written *really well.*"

Hitchcock explored this in Psycho. We tend to root for the camera's point of view, even when they robbed a small time bank owner who they worked for years with and then getting caught would save them.

[Mechalich]

Hitchcock explored this in Psycho. We tend to root for the camera's point of view, even when they robbed a small time bank owner who they worked for years with and then getting caught would save them.

We also tend to root for competence over incompetence, in part because the viewer wishes to identify via aspiration, not with someone who appears ridiculous. You can see this in Looney Toons even. We identify with Bugs Bunny over Elmer Fudd because even though Bugs is often an objectively horrible individual, Fudd is absurd.

This carries over into purely aesthetic evaluations, which is why it is not only common, but sometimes practically a necessity to present evil characters as visually horrifying or disgusting in some way. This is particularly important if their evil actions are something that largely happened off-screen or in some previous era that the audience has only heard about but not seen. Horribly evil characters who appear glamorous and stylistic often amass vast sympathy just for that, with vampires being perhaps the most famous case - Bela Lugosi single-handedly shifted their image from monstrous to awesome by virtue of shear personal magnetism.

A good example of both these things in combination is the Ocean's franchise of movies. The character in Ocean's are not good people. They are a variety of thieves and crooks who ultimately steal vast amounts of money (which, because it gets paid in insurance, doesn't come out of the pockets of the bad people they stole from, but instead results in hikes in premiums, meaning that actually literally everyone in the country is their victim). However, the protagonists in these films are some of Hollywood's most appealing stars wedded to casual hyper-competency, so of course the audience sides with them.

[Lvl45DM!]

We also tend to root for competence over incompetence, in part because the viewer wishes to identify via aspiration, not with someone who appears ridiculous. You can see this in Looney Toons even. We identify with Bugs Bunny over Elmer Fudd because even though Bugs is often an objectively horrible individual, Fudd is absurd.

This carries over into purely aesthetic evaluations, which is why it is not only common, but sometimes practically a necessity to present evil characters as visually horrifying or disgusting in some way. This is particularly important if their evil actions are something that largely happened off-screen or in some previous era that the audience has only heard about but not seen. Horribly evil characters who appear glamorous and stylistic often amass vast sympathy just for that, with vampires being perhaps the most famous case - Bela Lugosi single-handedly shifted their image from monstrous to awesome by virtue of shear personal magnetism.

A good example of both these things in combination is the Ocean's franchise of movies. The character in Ocean's are not good people. They are a variety of thieves and crooks who ultimately steal vast amounts of money (which, because it gets paid in insurance, doesn't come out of the pockets of the bad people they stole from, but instead results in hikes in premiums, meaning that actually literally everyone in the country is their victim). However, the protagonists in these films are some of Hollywood's most appealing stars wedded to casual hyper-competency, so of course the audience sides with them.

To be fair, Elmer Fudd is clearly hunting for sport, and Bugs wants to live. Same with the Coyote. Wil E. can afford Acme products he can afford a pizza but he just WANTS to eat Road Runner.

And as far as Oceans goes, the first one, they are stealing from a crime boss. Don't forget that the Casino owner whatshisname, can hire hitmen in the 2nd and funds their crimes in the 3rd. He's not just an average casino owner, and the odds are that a great deal of his income is illegal. The 2nd they are stealing to save their lives, and in the 3rd they are ruining a crooked businessman so yknow, its Grey vs. Black. When your heroes are crooks you just have to make the villains actually evil.

[Peelee]

To be fair, Elmer Fudd is clearly hunting for sport, and Bugs wants to live. Same with the Coyote. Wil E. can afford Acme products he can afford a pizza but he just WANTS to eat Road Runner.

All the ACME products appear to be mail order, which would make for one cruddy pizza.

[Gnoman]

To be fair, Elmer Fudd is clearly hunting for sport, and Bugs wants to live.

That's true in some of the shorts, but not all. There's several where Bugs is blatantly trolling Elmer for the fun of it. The Wabbit Who Came to Supper is technically a borderline example, as it does start with Elmer hunting, but he abandons this very early. Bugs then moves into Elmer's house for the sole purpose of tormenting Fudd. Fresh Hare involves Fudd as a cop trying to arrest Bugs, and The Wacky Wabbit has Bugs going out of his way to disrupt Elmer's patriotic gold hunt (it was a wartime short, and he was trying to get gold for the war). There's a lot of shorts where Bugs bullies other characters for petty reasons or no reasons at all.

[Mechalich]

And as far as Oceans goes, the first one, they are stealing from a crime boss. Don't forget that the Casino owner whatshisname, can hire hitmen in the 2nd and funds their crimes in the 3rd. He's not just an average casino owner, and the odds are that a great deal of his income is illegal. The 2nd they are stealing to save their lives, and in the 3rd they are ruining a crooked businessman so yknow, its Grey vs. Black. When your heroes are crooks you just have to make the villains actually evil.

Terry Benedict is a jerk, yes, and so is Willie Bank, Al Pacino's character in the 3rd one, but these movies aren't set in the Wild West, they're set in the modern era. The fortunes that are stolen are insured. This is explicitly stated both in Ocean's 12 and Ocean's 8. In the latter note that it's James Corden's insurance inspector character who actually cares about solving the crime, not the jewelry company, because only the insurance company is actually losing any money and in some sense the jewelers are benefitting by turning a necklace that they can't actually let anyone wear into a giant pile of cash they can actually spend. That's why he initially suspects fraud, not theft.

See, in the aftermath of Ocean's 11, Terry Benedict's insurance company backs up a Brink's truck and deposits back into his vault an amount of money equal to what was taken - 160 million or whatever it was. That is a massive loss to that company and they'll have to raise premiums not only for Mr. Benedict, but also for literally everyone they insure, which means expenses all across the casino business and beyond just ticked up a little bit, and all of that gets passed onto the consumer.

This is the part the films gloss over. They make it look like the one who pays the price for the crimes in question are horrible casino bosses with dubious ethical histories, but in fact those people pay relatively little price. By the end of Ocean's 13, Terry Benedict has had the initial amount that was stolen from him doubled, crushed a major rival, and gotten a massive payday which even though it was donated to charity benefits him anyway. The only thing he actually lost was Tess, which doesn't actually seem to be something he really values.

Heist movies love to try and portray the crimes inherently being involved as only hurting bad people, and sometimes this is more or less true. Stealing giant piles of cash from a druglord, like in Fast Five or Triple Frontier, holds up pretty good, because that money has already been removed from the conventional economy (which is why money laundering is necessary to put it back in), but so long as you take money out of the economy by hitting a business that operates within it, then you end up hurting actual people.

[AvatarVecna]

As far as Looney Tunes goes, I'm pretty sure some explicit (that is, specified in some interviews) design choices was "Bugs never picks a fight; if he ever did, and he still won, that doesn't send a great message" and similarly "Daffy almost always picks the fight, and consequentially almost always loses".

On a semi-related note, I know I've seen at least one internet blog putting forth the concept that Looney Tunes was...ableist? I think that's the right word...because frequently the villains getting humiliated were stupid dummies with thick accents, so it was maybe a slight against the mentally challenged? But then again, like...I'm pretty sure all the LT characters who spoke had weird speech patterns/accents, it was more just differentiating the voices. And being stupid was less about mocking somebody as much as playing up the constrast with the rascally protagonist having to think their way out of problems.

[diplomancer]

Probably the most famous example is James Bond. He is a horrible person, which is why his villains are caricaturally bad people trying to conquer or destroy the world. And then we love Bond for it.

In cartoons, forget Bugs Bunny, think Woody Woodpecker. Now there's a lovable psychopath for you.

[Willie the Duck]

Guess I will just ask whether you have noticed stuff like that: Have you noticed instances with other stories where some readers seem unable to see actions of the protagonist or actions against (or at least inconvenient to the protagonist) objectively and just react to them based on protagonist= good opposition=bad?

I don't think anyone could have missed it, but the webcomic Kevin and Kell lives by this trend. In that universe, catching, killing, and eating other sentient members of your society is not just acceptable, it is considered the right and natural way of the world. However, if that ever looks like it is about to happen to anyone in the protagonist family's inner circle of friends it is treated like a genuinely bad thing -- not just from the perspective of you the reader (where, 'oh hell, yes I know this is a crapsack world, but that doesn't mean it should happen to my favorite character' is somewhat reasonable), but by the characters in the universe (where this is supposed to be the way of the world).

In general, you can like the character or whatever, while not liking what they stand for. And The Empire seems to generally have that down pat. Like, Imperial Star Destroyers? Or AT-ATs? They're cool vehicles. Yes, they're under the command of an oppressive dictatorial regime, but... they're still cool vehicles. (Probably also helps, especially in the Stormtroppers case, that in a lot of the EU stuff they can get expanded upon into much more sympathetic characters.)

So, I do think you can like the trappings of a fictional media villain and whatnot without feeling much regret. Because it is a cool design.

There are plenty of 80s toy-media properties (Transfromers, GI Joe, etc.) where the villain characters are often much more 'cool' than the heroes -- GI Joe notably, in that the villains were in bright contrasting color combos like blue-red or gold-green (or a silver or gold head), while most of the heroes were of interchangeable camo/drab looks. I bet that had some impact.

On a semi-related note, I know I've seen at least one internet blog putting forth the concept that Looney Tunes was...ableist? I think that's the right word...because frequently the villains getting humiliated were stupid dummies with thick accents, so it was maybe a slight against the mentally challenged? But then again, like...I'm pretty sure all the LT characters who spoke had weird speech patterns/accents, it was more just differentiating the voices. And being stupid was less about mocking somebody as much as playing up the constrast with the rascally protagonist having to think their way out of problems.

Looney Tunes (and similar animated shorts by other companies, such as Hanna Barbara's Tom and Jerry) pretty much treated being cagey and crafty as virtues in and of themselves. The 'villains,' however, weren't really mentally challenged, just obtuse (a rabbit in a dress is indistinguishable from a gorgeous woman), monofocused (a Yosemite Sam incarnation defending the Mason Dixon line 80+ years after the end of the civil war), and absurdly gullible (Elmer Fudd buying that the gold tooth he got in a fight was Bugs', even though he could have felt that his own gold tooth had come out if he put any thought into it). The too-stupid-to-live characters (usually one-off characters, usually some play on Of Mice and Men's Lenny or a Lou Costello expy) usually were portrayed sympathetically. In real life, too, we tend to treat mildly unintelligent (seeming) individuals (think Jessica Simpson tuna confusion) as acceptable targets, but those that reach the level of disability are (hopefully) not acceptable targets. Not really sure that says good things about our society that we have a range of intelligence that is acceptable laugh fodder (but not enough to garner sympathy), but I don't think LT deviates particularly from that norm. Mind you, I'm thinking of the ones that got shown in the 70s and early 80s, so maybe the worst offenders had already been culled from circulation (although thinking back to what was left in...).

[Brother Oni]

Probably the most famous example is James Bond. He is a horrible person, which is why his villains are caricaturally bad people trying to conquer or destroy the world. And then we love Bond for it.

All the Bonds are products of their time. Connery Bond is a Cold War era misogynistic dinosaur when viewed with today's sensibilities, while Craig Bond is a much less certain, less confident character, reflecting the less clear cut world politics.

While all the Bonds do morally repugnant things, it should be remember that they (generally - Dalton Bond goes off the rails a bit) are doing this for the greater good. As the saying goes, "people sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf".

[Peelee]

All the Bonds are products of their time. Connery Bond is a Cold War era misogynistic dinosaur when viewed with today's sensibilities, while Craig Bond is a much less certain, less confident character, reflecting the less clear cut world politics.

While all the Bonds do morally repugnant things, it should be remember that they (generally - Dalton Bond goes off the rails a bit) are doing this for the greater good. As the saying goes, "people sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf".

Dalton Bond only did that like... half the time.

He should have had more movies.

[Lvl45DM!]

All the Bonds are products of their time. Connery Bond is a Cold War era misogynistic dinosaur when viewed with today's sensibilities, while Craig Bond is a much less certain, less confident character, reflecting the less clear cut world politics.

While all the Bonds do morally repugnant things, it should be remember that they (generally - Dalton Bond goes off the rails a bit) are doing this for the greater good. As the saying goes, "people sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf".

Not sure how forcing himself on a victim of sex trafficking helped save the world...

The majority of Bonds moral repugnance comes alongside his world saving, not due to it.

[Themrys]

Not sure how forcing himself on a victim of sex trafficking helped save the world...

The majority of Bonds moral repugnance comes alongside his world saving, not due to it.

I am inclined to agree.
James Bond does a lot of damage to property due to saving the world, but that's not what people view as morally repugnant.

Terry Pratchett does the "this man is objectively a bad person, but he's necessary so good people can live in peace" thing much better. Vetinari routinely throws people to their deaths and has unreasonable prejudices against mimes and modern arts, but he keeps the city running, and has never killed an innocent person that we know of.

However, James Bond is probably not so much a case of protagonist centered morality, but a case of male centered morality. I don't think the rape would have been excused because it was James Bond doing it if the people of that time hadn't altogether tolerated rape. (Though of course, one could argue that protagonist centered morality only ever works with things people can find excuses for, or for people who can find excuses. I recall disliking the pointless violence in cartoons as a child, and am the person who asks "and who will pay for that damage to property?" in superhero movies.)

[diplomancer]

All the Bonds are products of their time. Connery Bond is a Cold War era misogynistic dinosaur when viewed with today's sensibilities, while Craig Bond is a much less certain, less confident character, reflecting the less clear cut world politics.

While all the Bonds do morally repugnant things, it should be remember that they (generally - Dalton Bond goes off the rails a bit) are doing this for the greater good. As the saying goes, "people sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf".

I thought "doing bad things for good reasons" is pretty much the definition of protagonist centered morality.

Everyone believes that they do what they do for good reasons. Tyrants most of all.

[hamishspence]

There's two major facets to Protagonist Centred Morality - Designated Heroes, and Designated Villains.

Bond is a Designated Hero, but we rarely see Designated Villains in the Bond stories - people whose only qualification for villainy is that they happen to be opposed to Bond in this particular case.

[dancrilis]

I think if you want examples of 'Protagonist Centered Morality' the CW arrowverse highlight it fairly well.
The heroes can kidnap, torture and kill and are still heroes but if someone else ever does that they are the evil villians around (even if they do it to a lesser extent).

I think for 'Protagonist Centered Morality' to be in play you need to be able to show hero did X and it was treated as no big thing but when the villian did X it was shown as a terrible thing.

If the hero and villian are doing different things I don't really think that 'Protagonist Centered Morality' is in place as we cannot tell if the morality would be viewed differently if someone other then the hero did it (this might be more values dissonance).

[Themrys]

If the hero and villian are doing different things I don't really think that 'Protagonist Centered Morality' is in place as we cannot tell if the morality would be viewed differently if someone other then the hero did it (this might be more values dissonance).

Yes, but: Was James Bond raping a lesbian (I am not sure if that was the same scene as where he raped a victim of sex trafficking, or if he did that sort of thing twice or more often ... not a fan, I only know Bond through popcultural osmosis and perhaps one movie) values dissonance or protagonist centred morality, or something else?

I am pretty sure that, had a villain done the same thing, it would have been portrayed as evil, even at the time and with the values dissonance in play.

[Fyraltari]

In the movie Goldfinger, James rapes ***** Galore* (*sigh*) in the sense that she only consents to his advances after he’s kissed her and pushed her to the ground over her repeated and clear ‘no’. The movie does not treat that as rape but as a funny/cute scene. It makes no mention of her being a lesbian.

The novel I am told (haven’t read it) states that Goldfinger raped her when she was a child ‘making’ her a lesbian and that James’s rape turned her straight again. Yeah.

Draw your conclusions.

*I am tempted to circumvent the filter here, since that’s the name of the character, but seeing as that name is certainly not a coincidence and a tasteless joke, I shan’t.

[Dienekes]

Yes, but: Was James Bond raping a lesbian (I am not sure if that was the same scene as where he raped a victim of sex trafficking, or if he did that sort of thing twice or more often ... not a fan, I only know Bond through popcultural osmosis and perhaps one movie) values dissonance or protagonist centred morality, or something else?

I am pretty sure that, had a villain done the same thing, it would have been portrayed as evil, even at the time and with the values dissonance in play.

I’m assuming the lesbian is ***** Galore? I don’t think her portrayal as a lesbian was actually in the movies.

But I do think the actions are one of framing and very outdated sexual politics. In the movie Bond and Galore fight, but it very quickly turns into more an awkward showing off of prowess between the two. She could have just called for backup and had Bond killed or captured again. Instead they throw each other about a few times while letting their opponent stand back up and banter. I think it’s supposed to be construed as flirting. Bond kisses her, she stops struggling and kisses him back. Incredibly weird and problematic. But essentially if Bond was a villain, then the scene would have been shown as them takinrg every opportunity to actually defeat each other and she wouldn’t have kissed him back. And to the olden days becomes actual rape instead of “seduction.” If we can call kissing someone who is telling you not to kiss them seduction. So it’s sexual assault that shifted into consensual sex. Because that’s how females work, at least according to the writers.

Bond with the former sex slave is Severine from Skyfall. That one is a bit different. He finds out she’s a sex slave several scenes prior. They plan to kill her boss together. When he gets on her ship and she knows he’s there. She sets out wine for the both of them. Scene shifts and she’s in the shower and Bond joins her. They kiss have some bad dialogue about guns and nudity and bone down. Again a crappy romance. But that’s par for the course with action movie romances really. Honestly I think this scene alone would have been fine. Not great. It’s pretty obvious both characters are actively trying to seduce each other throughout the scene.

However, it is revealed quite powerfully and deliberately that Bond does not care about her and was only using her to get to her boss a couple scenes later. And from that you can take the message of the move that the former sex slaves only purpose is to be used and maneuvered about by powerful men. I don’t think that was the message the writers were shooting for. But that’s the story they ended up writing.

[comicshorse]

The novel I am told (haven’t read it) states that Goldfinger raped her when she was a child ‘making’ her a lesbian and that James’s rape turned her straight again. Yeah.

In the book they don't have sex though they're about to when the book ends. And she has made it clear its what she wants though granted her attraction to Bond seems to have practically come out of nowhere
(Its a very strange scene as she seems very uncomfortable with the fact of her attraction to Bond)

From Dienkes

I’m assuming the lesbian is ***** Galore? I don’t think her portrayal as a lesbian was actually in the movies.

It isn't EDIT ( made out in the movie she is a lesbian)

However, it is revealed quite powerfully and deliberately that Bond does not care about her and was only using her to get to her boss a couple scenes later. And from that you can take the message of the move that the former sex slaves only purpose is to be used and maneuvered about by powerful men. I don’t think that was the message the writers were shooting for. But that’s the story they ended up writing.

Yeah but it seemed clear she doesn't care for Bond and is only hoping he'll free her from Silva

[Themrys]

However, it is revealed quite powerfully and deliberately that Bond does not care about her and was only using her to get to her boss a couple scenes later. And from that you can take the message of the move that the former sex slaves only purpose is to be used and maneuvered about by powerful men. I don’t think that was the message the writers were shooting for. But that’s the story they ended up writing.

That's the case with most bad messages, though. People rarely intend to write them. They just think it, consciously or subconsciously, and so they put it in their writing.

C.S. Lewis is the only author I actually read (I know of a few, but would never read their books) who managed to put the messages: "feminism is bad" "vegetarians are bad" and "people who don't drink alcohol are bad" into one novel on purpose. All personified by one boy, who is intentionally unsympathetic, and promptly changes his ways as the story goes on. (Granted, his whining that Lucy gets a room for herself while he doesn't isn't feminist, but since his feminist mother is blamed for this attitude and Lewis consistently opposes feminism, I think hating on feminism was the purpose)

Except for the misogyny, though, those intentionally included messages are quite lost and easy to ignore, since it's a medieval themed world where everyone drinks alcohol and eats meat, and the topic is never brought up again.

Lewis obviously had no deeply ingrained hatred of teetotallers or vegetarians that could have subconsciously seeped into his writing. His attitude to women, on the other hand, could, and did, and as such is much more likely to either repulse or influence readers.


Protagonist centred morality may be done on purpose in some cartoons for children, but I don't think there are many serious writers who intentionally sit down and do it.

[Rogar Demonblud]

From the depiction in the book, Ms Galore is more likely asexual (which is kind of common with victims of abuse), so part of her characterization is just really awkwardly dealing with a difficult issue. For what it's worth, in one of the special edition discs there was an old interview with Fleming where he was asked which of the villains he hated the most. He didn't even have to think before saying the first one he'd shoot was Auric Goldfinger.

[Dienekes]

That's the case with most bad messages, though. People rarely intend to write them. They just think it, consciously or subconsciously, and so they put it in their writing.

Honestly, I think that's pushing it a bit far. There's a wide difference between consciously or subconsciously thinking something horrible, and just writing things that seemed cool or interesting is in the moment (see how dark and flawed this Bond is?) without analyzing the unintended message through layers of critical film theory, be it feminist, social, economic, political or otherwise.

[Themrys]

Honestly, I think that's pushing it a bit far. There's a wide difference between consciously or subconsciously thinking something horrible, and just writing things that seemed cool or interesting is in the moment (see how dark and flawed this Bond is?) without analyzing the unintended message through layers of critical film theory, be it feminist, social, economic, political or otherwise.

No, that's how things work. If you haven't internalized something, it is unlikely that you would ever put that message into something you write without meaning to. Ask yourself one simple question: Would a woman - a woman with no knowledge of feminist theory - have written those scenes the same way, with Jane Bond and male side characters?


In some few cases, it can be down to lazy writing and a character being used as plot instrument (J.K. Rowling certainly doesn't have prejudices against old men with long beards, but Dumbledore comes across as evil because she never really did the work to sufficiently justify his decision of leaving Harry with the Dursleys), but in the James Bond movies, the message that women are objects for male sexual gratification is so ubiquitous that it cannot be an accident - and more often than not, the sex scenes serve no real narrative purpose.

So I don't think it is possible that the "we wanted to make this really cool thing happen, but didn't notice that the other thing we needed to happen for this has some really horrible implications - whoops!" explanation can apply here.

Even in the Harry Potter example, the reason Rowling made that mistake is probably because she grew up with novels in which orphans have horrible childhoods and internalized the message "being an orphan leads to a horrible childhood" or even just "horrible childhoods make children's books interesting", and therefore forced her characters to provide Harry with a horrible childhood, even though that was against her intended characterisation of them.