Your disingenuous replies to my well thought-out post are disheartening, to say the least. I'm tired of arguing with you right now, esp. during my insomnia. Normally, I would say, "Let's agree to disagree" in this scenario. I actually think I may have to resort to the dreaded "ignore" button, as taking the time to read your posts, and especially respond to them, isn't doing me a bit of good. As a fellow writer, I wish you good luck.

The first four Rocky movies had clearly defined characters. They might have been simple characters, but we knew who they were, what they were trying to achieve and the obstacles they faced. This extends to the supporting characters. Adrian, Mickey and Paulie are all memorable. Likewise for the antagonists. Apollo, Clubber Lang, Drago...as simple as these characters were we knew what these characters were about. They are all strong enough characters that they have entered into cultural memory. People do lines from these characters in the same way they 'quote' Rhett or Scarlett or Obi Wan or Blanche duBois.

Likewise the themes of all of the first four movies. The shadow of the Great White Hope is all over the first three movies. It had been a generation since a white heavyweight had seriously challenged for the title and everyone knew it. It would be another generation from the first Rocky until the Klitchko era made heavyweight boxing anything other than a black man's domain. In the fourth movie the theme is Capitalism V Communism. At the height of the cold war. As thematic conflict goes it doesn't get any bigger or clearer than that.

The point is that characters and themes don't need to be complicated or nuanced to tell a good story. But an audience does need to have a clear idea of what those thematic obstacles and conflicts and goals are. And they need to have a clear enough idea of who a character is to support, or in the case of an antagonist, oppose them.

I can only speak for myself, but my response to the character of Adonis Creed, in both movies, is that here we have a rich kid who seeks to do something he doesn't need to do, and that no normal person in his shoes would choose to do. That is the opposite of a character deserving empathy. And is the theme, trying to live up to his father's legacy, clear and reasonable enough for us to go the journey with the protagonist? Not even close imo.

By making Donny rich, actually privileged, the writers deny the character a true and authentic motivation. The character doesn't have to be from the streets like Clubber Lang or Rocky himself. He doesn't have to be a poor farm boy from Oklahoma like Tommy Gunn. But there has to be something about the character, in either his material circumstance or emotional situation that allows us to understand and support him in the journey.

In this sense, Adonis, along with most of the new characters in both Creed movies are poorly written. My complaint has nothing to do with what constitutes an authentic depiction of black life in cinema. (I'm sure George Foreman's sons live in very nice houses and drive expensive cars.) It has to do with writing a character worth the journey.

I have noted earlier that the writers chose not to go with race as a dramatic driver in the Creed movies. I don't believe it has to be there as some kind of essential element just because the character is depicted as black. I am perfectly fine with depictions of black people leading prosperous happy lives. But when you choose not to go with one type of struggle for the protagonist, you can't just leave that space empty. Daddy issues doesn't fill that space.

In twenty years no one will be quoting characters in this movie. There will be no 'Yo Adrian, I did it!' or 'I pity the fool!'. Victor will just be Drago's son and Bianca 'the girlfriend' and Mary Anne, 'that woman from The Cosby Show'.

@mechajutaro said:

I can only speak for myself, but my response to the character of Adonis Creed, in both movies, is that here we have a rich kid who seeks to do something he doesn't need to do, and that no normal person in his shoes would choose to do. That is the opposite of a character deserving empathy.

He's a born-to-the-manor guy, living in the shadow of his father, who rose from poverty to immense wealth, through immense grit, talent, and determination. Is it really shocking that Adonis Creed has a hankering to prove that he's not simply coasting through life based on his family's name and money?

This sort of story would work perhaps if Creed were a comedy. There were a lot of comedies in the 80s that had that sort of premise.

'Father issues' are by definition intimate. Of course your premise can work in the proper context and I'm not saying that even a vehicle like Creed can't be supported by it. But it would take a lot better writing than we see with Creed.

The usual vehicle for that sort of subject is the family drama. On Golden Pond for example. Bear in mind that in the Rocky franchise (and this is true for boxing IRL) people die, get brain damage or suffer other serious injuries. It's high stakes stuff so the motivation to go for it has to be potent. Getting out of the ghetto for example. To fight for your country and way of life for another. To avenge the death of a friend. These things might be treated in the Rocky Universe in a way that is simplistic, even risible, but there isn't a point in the franchise where we don't understand why Rocky is boxing. Only the most cynical would fail to accept the premise.

'Coasting through life based on (the) family's name and money' is what rich people do. If a writer wants to subvert a premise that just about everyone in the world understands, they need to do something extraordinary with that character. Sure there are sons and daughter of boxers who grew up relatively privileged who themselves go into boxing (Laila Ali and Tyson Fury for example). But these are people who grew up where boxing was literally a way of life.

The writing of the character of Adonis puts him outside of this milieu. He didn't know his father. He doesn't carry the Creed name and no one knows or cares that he is the son of Apollo. Until he starts boxing. So the living up to the father's legacy can't serve as the impetus to Donny's actions because those things are the results of what he does: not the cause.

When a rich guy gives up a great life to risk it all in the ring, we don't all stand up and cheer. We are naturally pissed that someone takes what they have, (and most of us don't), for granted. So the most likely reaction is 'What the fuck? Is this guy insane?'

Which is exactly what the world thought when Mickey Rourke did it.

In real life, people do the strangest things for the weirdest reasons. So it's not some kind of violation to have that happen in fiction. My objection isn't about 'authenticity' (as the other guy was attempting to burden me with). My criticism is that a protagonist needs to be supplied with a credible motivation and the obstacles he overcomes need to be seen by an audience as both significant and worthy. Otherwise we can't have empathy for the character and whether he succeeds or fails doesn't matter.

Black people in America, even rich black people, even the 44th President of the USA, deal with racism on a daily basis. Is that a foundation for a protagonist? Does it provide motivation and empathy? Does it give the protagonist significant obstacles to overcome and worthy goals to achieve? Yes all round. Neither Creed movie goes near this. We seem to be in some kind of alternative Universe where color is invisible. Across America society is shaken by Blue on Black violence and murder. BLM becomes the most significant social movement in our lifetimes. In the Creed Universe...nothing.

The writers don't have to go there. But as a creative choice, when they skipped over race as part of the character and theme and settled instead on Daddy Issues, a theme demonstrably incapable of driving the story, audiences are entitled to question those creative choices. Especially since Creed is supposed to be the first black hero in the franchise in its nearly half century of existence. It is bizarre that the closest the franchise gets to delivering a genuine black hero is the notional antagonist of Rocky III. Clubber Lang. Thirty Eight years ago.

If race isn't an essential theme in a movie after all that time and with its first outings with a black protagonist, and while the streets rage with black fury, then when would be a good time? But hey, that's ok. Go with Daddy Issues. That'll work. Not.

@mechajutaro said:

Which is exactly what the world thought when Mickey Rourke did it.

As I recall, the thought of most folks back then was "Who is Mickey Rourke?" Dude's "fighting career" predates Robert Rodriguez putting him back on the map by several years

Bit harsh mechajutaro. Rourke was a star in the 80s. But it does say something about how quickly Hollywood, and audiences, can move on.

I once heard Richard Harris complaining about Bruce Willis climbing over him as tho he were a nobody at an awards ceremony. And this is an actor with a long and esteemed career who was himself a Best Actor nominee at the Oscars. But the Willis incident happened in the period before the Harry Potter movies returned Harris to public consciousness.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

Black people in America, even rich black people, even the 44th President of the USA, deal with racism on a daily basis. Is that a foundation for a protagonist? Does it provide motivation and empathy? Does it give the protagonist significant obstacles to overcome and worthy goals to achieve? Yes all round. Neither Creed movie goes near this. We seem to be in some kind of alternative Universe where color is invisible. Across America society is shaken by Blue on Black violence and murder. BLM becomes the most significant social movement in our lifetimes. In the Creed Universe...nothing.

If race isn't an essential theme in a movie after all that time and with its first outings with a black protagonist, and while the streets rage with black fury, then when would be a good time? But hey, that's ok. Go with Daddy Issues. That'll work. Not.

The expectation that every time you have a black protagonist then race should be a central theme is exactly the problem. There are plenty of films being released today about black people that focus significantly on race. This is far from a marginalized issue at the moment. And of course it should be discussed. But that does not mean that the presence of black people should come hand in hand with racial issues.

The fact that the Creed films look past this to represent black characters as people, even if character complexities are simplified to fit within the constraints of a genre movie, is something to be commended, far from criticized.

And in not portraying something you are not suggesting that that something doesn't exist.

@JustinJackFlash said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

Black people in America, even rich black people, even the 44th President of the USA, deal with racism on a daily basis. Is that a foundation for a protagonist? Does it provide motivation and empathy? Does it give the protagonist significant obstacles to overcome and worthy goals to achieve? Yes all round. Neither Creed movie goes near this. We seem to be in some kind of alternative Universe where color is invisible. Across America society is shaken by Blue on Black violence and murder. BLM becomes the most significant social movement in our lifetimes. In the Creed Universe...nothing.

If race isn't an essential theme in a movie after all that time and with its first outings with a black protagonist, and while the streets rage with black fury, then when would be a good time? But hey, that's ok. Go with Daddy Issues. That'll work. Not.

The expectation that every time you have a black protagonist then race should be a central theme is exactly the problem. There are plenty of films being released today about black people that focus significantly on race. This is far from a marginalized issue at the moment. And of course it should be discussed. But that does not mean that the presence of black people should come hand in hand with racial issues.

The fact that the Creed films look past this to represent black characters as people, even if character complexities are simplified to fit within the constraints of a genre movie, is something to be commended, far from criticized.

And in not portraying something you are not suggesting that that something doesn't exist.

I have said throughout that normalised depictions of black people, and by this I mean free of conflict or being victimised, that is to say, leading happy lives, is a legitimate creative choice and that given better writing might even have worked in a vehicle like Rocky.

But given that I don't think it did work, it is rational to work back to why it didn't work and whether different creative choices with the character and themes might have made a better movie. It's ok to not go with the obvious and I agree that can be commendable when done well. When a writer decides to avoid the well trodden or obvious path, and we are not just talking about what has most often worked in an 8 movie, billion dollar franchise, but 2000 years of drama, then what they do instead needs to be really good.

The soul of the Rocky franchise has always been about the triumph of an underdog. If Coogler and his successor writers wanted to have Donny leading a normal, successful life, surely it must have been obvious that that makes it difficult for audiences to see him as an underdog. Frankly, it is hard for me to see Donny as something more than a spoilt rich kid indulging a vanity project. I'd have the same complaint if the character were white.

It's more than that of course. A lot of the other character writing is just meaningless scene dressing. The GFs music is just filler. And the child's disability? That's not an obstacle to overcome. That's just something that happens in life that you accept. And none of these story elements contribute to the main event.

Short version: If you take out the conflict in a character's life, you don't have anything to drive the drama.

I just want to make a point about drama . Drama isn't just something bad happening. It isn't just something interesting or unusual happening either. The evening news is full of bad things happening. That isn't drama even tho we might describe the events as 'dramatic'. We might also describe a boxing match as 'dramatic' as well. Still not drama.

So when you come back from holidays and find your house burned to the ground, that by itself isn't drama. That's just something shitty happening. Drama happens in the story about how you continue on afterwards; perhaps how you rebuild the house. It's about your character and situation and how you respond to a challenge or obstacle and overcome it. You don't have to succeed for it to be drama, but there has to be an attempt.

There's probably not a lot of drama if Jeff Bezos' house burns down.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

But given that I don't think it did work, it is rational to work back to why it didn't work and whether different creative choices with the character and themes might have made a better movie. It's ok to not go with the obvious and I agree that can be commendable when done well. When a writer decides to avoid the well trodden or obvious path, and we are not just talking about what has most often worked in an 8 movie, billion dollar franchise, but 2000 years of drama, then what they do instead needs to be really good.

Bad Boys doesn't deal will the issue of race. Would you say that what they did with Bad Boys was really good? It's not. It's a very stupid film. But it is also a very fun genre film. It presented two black heroes at it's centre. And that, especially at the time, was commendable.

It was a film that delivered the thrills required regardless of the colour of it's characters. To throw out every script about black people that doesn't deal with race unless it's groundbreakingly written seems to me to be completely counter productive to the goal of encouraging diversity and acceptance.

The soul of the Rocky franchise has always been about the triumph of an underdog. If Coogler and his successor writers wanted to have Donny leading a normal, successful life, surely it must have been obvious that that makes it difficult for audiences to see him as an underdog. Frankly, it is hard for me to see Donny as something more than a spoilt rich kid indulging a vanity project. I'd have the same complaint if the character were white.

I didn't have a problem with the character how he was. I don't need a character to be completely relatable or likeable in order for me to engage with a film. I find it more interesting if it is hard to see him as an underdog. I don't see rich people as not having issues that can be explored. And I don't agree that the film has to be an impeccably made art film in order to explore them. I enjoyed the film. Many others seemed to as well.

@JustinJackFlash

I haven't seen Bad Boys.

If you enjoyed Creed II then that's a good result. Differences of opinion don't need to be ugly. Part of the fun of forums is finding out what makes movies work and what makes other people tick. I gave the movie 5, a pass mark in my book. So even tho I have put forward some strong objections to particulars within the film I am not saying it is a lost cause.

I don't agree that a film has to be 'an impeccably made art film' in order to serve its purpose. Those problems with character and theme I talked about are basics. As for relatability, Adonis Creed is possibly the closest of any character in the entire franchise to a person with a life like mine. It's because I can relate that I have trouble with the character's motivation. Well, in part.

So far I have only talked about creative choices as tho that's all they were. I can only talk about what I see on the screen. But sometimes commercial choices dictate what is on the screen. I haven't made a point of that because I am in no position to know for certain what happened in script development. But I can't escape the feeling that Creed and Creed II were reboots of Rocky V, and that they approached the project with bullet points gathered from focus groups about what not to do next time round; what to include and what to leave out. And that's how we get two movies with constant shout-outs to characters from the earlier franchise entries; a check list of Rocky movie tropes; and an avoidance of anything that would alienate the red state sensibilities of a demographic that I have no doubt forms a sizeable chunk of the franchise's fan base.

But that's just me speculating.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@JustinJackFlash

I haven't seen Bad Boys.

I don't think you need to. You can pretty much tell what it is from the cover. I was just using it as an example of a film with a black protagonist(s) that doesn't use racial issues as a theme and wasn't "really good" or "extraordinary" but was ultimately satisfying for what it was supposed to be. I'm sure I could think of many more if I thought about it for 5 minutes. I haven't seen Tenet yet but I would be massively surprised if racial issues dominated that.

If you enjoyed Creed II then that's a good result. Differences of opinion don't need to be ugly. Part of the fun of forums is finding out what makes movies work and what makes other people tick.

I agree. And there are certain criticisms you've made that I do agree with.

It was more the first Creed that I enjoyed. Thought the second was ok.

@JustinJackFlash said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@JustinJackFlash

I haven't seen Bad Boys.

I don't think you need to. You can pretty much tell what it is from the cover. I was just using it as an example of a film with a black protagonist(s) that doesn't use racial issues as a theme and wasn't "really good" or "extraordinary" but was ultimately satisfying for what it was supposed to be. I'm sure I could think of many more if I thought about it for 5 minutes. I haven't seen Tenet yet but I would be massively surprised if racial issues dominated that.

I don't think many people have seen Tenet so far, but it's supposed to be some kind of companion piece to Inception, so I think we can make some assumptions about it.

I think there's a type of story that is so weird that its not so much obstacles to overcome as situations to understand that engages us. In these cases the nature of the protagonist hardly matters since anyone would be on the same footing.

McGoohan's The Prisoner, most of Lynch's work, Lost, The Matrix: it's almost a special genre.

@Jacinto Cupboard said: If you enjoyed Creed II then that's a good result. Differences of opinion don't need to be ugly. Part of the fun of forums is finding out what makes movies work and what makes other people tick.

For what it's worth, I posted the following post about the film Head of State in response to one by Jacinto Cupboard who wrote a post not long after I hijacked a thread on the TV board entitled, "Oh great, another show about racism. My favorite.":

"A smart film that would become more relevant in about five years. It was kinda funny when they showed the newspaper headline about Mays saying, "He's half white!" Ha ha."

Although I unfortunately cannot find Jacinto Cupboard's post, I will state that I think it was a criticism of my first post in the thread I mention about the TV show "Lovecraft Country," in a rather underhanded way. In my post, I satirized the idea of filmmaker Jordan Peele being exactly "half white," as well as "half black." Since then, I've come to realize that there are, indeed, black people who seek to reduce their "black" contribution to the gene pool by exactly half, and so, the idea is not balderdash. Anyway, if Jacinto Cupboard has any integrity and a memory, s/he will admit to stating on this board something to the effect that satire cannot be done with a concept that has no precedent in the public mind. The problem was, as my post about the Chris Rock film points out, the idea of people being "half white" does and has had currency in the American public mind.

I took Jacinto Cupboard's post as an underhanded swipe at my contribution to the "Lovecraft Country" thread for two reasons: 1.) I had effectively "hijacked" the particular thread, and 2.) S/he wished to undermine my writing and perhaps my reputation on this site. In my opinion, it doesn't get any uglier than factor #2 on a public forum. Now, in my intended last post on this thread, I wished Jacinto Cupboard "Good luck" as a fellow writer. I would appreciate it if s/he did not imply ugly, negative ideas about me behind my back, and took a similarly classy direction in regard to my contribution to the thread after I leave it.

Jacinto Cupboard pointed out that writing on this site costs me nothing, and at the same time, I am paid nothing to contribute to it. It can be a huge expenditure of time and energy to take part in these message boards in a coherent manner. I state this simply to say that I would appreciate it if people did not attempt to undermine my contributions to the site in a sneaky manner -- as well as "backbite" me, simply because I choose to leave the thread which has ceased to be constructive to me. I regret not being able to quote Jacinto Cupboard's post about satire being ineffective with ideas that have no currency in the public mind. Jacinto Cupboard has ceased to be a participant in this forum whom I take seriously, however, in lieu of his/her attacks on me.

I believe that the post that I quoted up above about the Chris Rock film can be accessed in my old posts, titled "LOL" and dated Sept. 26, 2020. And I simply have no reason to lie.

I have not seen Head of State. I have not seen Lovecraft Country. I haven't even heard of these movies or TV Shows before.

And I haven't posted on any boards concerning them.

I have no idea at all what CF is talking about.

My best guess is that they are trying to continue an argument with me that they have been having with someone else entirely.