Indy kills more of his enemies than Michael, therefore if we’re to judge Michael as evil, isn’t Indy more so?
shareTwo completely different kinds of movies. You are comparing apples and oranges.
shareOne movie makes light of murder while the other condemns it - does that change the morality of murder itself?
shareNo, but here’s the thing, no one actually died, these movies aren’t real despite being very different: One is a serious look at the mafia while the other is a light hearted and fun adventure film.
shareIrrelevant that ‘no one actually died’, we can still use fictional examples to discuss morality. Why do you give one murderer a pass and not the other?
shareI’m not giving anyone a pass because these people aren’t real.
shareIt doesn’t matter that they’re not real for the reasons I explained.
shareYes it does, no one actually died, these movies are intended to be entertainment and they are two very different forms of entertainment. One of them takes itself seriously all the time while the other does not.
shareHow does that alter the morality of murder?
shareNo one was murdered. Also someone like Michael Corleone could exist in our reality which is why The Godfather takes itself seriously, the chances of someone like Indiana Jones existing in our reality is next to zero.
shareAll irrelevant in a discussion about moral principles.
Are you going to keep scraping the barrel for weak and obvious attempts to run away from this discussion, or are you going to engage with it?
These are two different types of movies and you can’t compare the moral principles between the two. No one is running away, we are pointing out how flawed your premise is
shareThere’s no ‘we’ here, there’s just you pathetically trying to evade the moral question I asked.
It’s fallacious as I have already clearly explained to you you Neanderthal brain.
shareNo you haven’t, you’ve just just tried to evade the question.
shareI’ve clearly explained why it’s a false equivalence, you not understanding is your own fault
shareNo, you’ve just tried to evade the question. Others on this board have managed to engage with it properly, I suggest you look at their replies and learn how to think and communicate.
Now, given that you’re either mentally incapable of having this discussion, or you’re a loser troll trying to derail the thread, here’s what we’re going to do…
If any user thinks that there is any validity whatsoever in MovieChatUser497’s ‘contributions’ to this thread then please quote the relevant points and explain why, and I’ll be happy to address it.
This offer doesn’t extend to MovieChatUser497, of course, and any other responses from you here will be considered an admission of failure and an apology for being a pointless internet maggot, regardless of what text you write.
I look forward to your apology…
We have clearly explained to you why comparing Michael corleone to Indiana Jones is fallacious, one is meant to be taken seriously and is grounded in reality, the other is not. It’s like comparing Colonel Walter Kurtz to Rambo, it’s nonsense you brainless buffoon . I find it hard to believe that even someone as dumb as you doesn’t get this which leads me to believe you’re trolling
shareNot to mention that the Mafia does exist and is responsible for many deaths. I can't imagine that there are that many adventurous archaeologists offing rivals and locals round the world.
shareIrrelevant. We determine how good or evil fictional characters are all the time. Heroes and villains exist in fiction. So, which character is more evil and why?
shareMichael. Because his whole life is dedicated to upholding a criminal empire which is responsible for untold death, violence and misery.
shareBut if Indiana Jones murders more people then isn’t he more evil?
shareI don't think he is responsible for more deaths. Besides, most of the people who Indy kills were Nazis or were forcing kidnapped children to work in a mine.
shareHe kills far more people than Michael, and in both cases they are defending themselves from people trying to kill them. So if Michael is evil then surely Indiana is moreso?
shareYou might see him kill more people on screen or personally, but Michael is still responsible for more deaths. He's the head of the most powerful Mafia family in America for 30+ years. The Mafia's whole thing is to commit acts of violence for profit and to murder people who object. Michael's motivation is far worse than Indiana Jones'.
Plus, half the people that die having come into contact with Indiana Jones do so because they are involved in high speed chases and the like and die as a result of accidents or recklessness. Indiana Jones does not personally kill quite a lot of the people who die in those movies and if they weren't chasing after him for whatever reason (and let's not forget that according to the movies, the main reason these guys are trying to stop Indy is that they themselves are evil) they would not have died. So I'd still go with Michael, who chooses to be the head of a far-reaching criminal syndicate whose whole business operation is based on violence and murder.
> Indy kills more of his enemies than Michael, therefore if we’re to judge Michael as evil, isn’t Indy more so?
Interesting question. And what complicates it further is that Indy kills people himself, while Michael has people killed. Other than McCluskey and Sollozzo, I don't think Michael ever personally killed anyone after joining his father's "olive oil business." Of course he killed as a WW2 Marine, but that's a different matter.
As far as kill counts go, I suspect Rambo beats them both combined.
Finally someone who can see past the ‘morality’ of the movies in question and take an objective view 👏🏻
shareThis got me wondering, just how many people did Michael kill? Looking over this web page, I came up with a list of eighteen.
https://godfather.fandom.com/wiki/Michael_Corleone
Here they are (not in any particular order). The last three are not from the movies but the Mark Winegardner novels.
McCluskey
Sollozzo
Fabrizio
Carlo
Fredo
Tessio
Moe Greene
Barzini
Philip Tattaglia
Carmine Cuneo
Victor Stracci
Frank Pentangeli
Hyman Roth
Johnny Ola
Joey Zasa
Nick Geraci
Joe Lucadello
Carlo Tramonti
I might have missed someone, and I'm not claiming that list is absolutely reliabe, but I can't imagine he's killed many more than that. Most people are smart enough to not incur his wrath.
EDIT -- Not mentioned in that linked article is the unnamed hooker in GF2, the one killed so they could blackmail Senator Geary. There are probably a few other innocent victims here and there. And there are others not mentioned, for example, in the novels a small, private aircraft is sabotaged, causing the deaths of a few Mafia people who IIRC had not harmed Michael and weren't planning to, in order to discredit another Don. Those could be thoight of as innocent victims too. On reflection, the total might be as high as forty; that article only describes Michael's career in summary and leaves out a lot. But it seems to me that most of his kills are people who are willingly part of a life where murder is an accepted tactic, and who tried to harm him, his family, or his Family. In that sense you could say most are acts of self-defense.
By contrast, if this page is to be believed ... https://www.terror29.com/blog/slashers-ranked-by-kill-count ... Chucky the doll's kill count is 47. Michael Myers has 128. And Jason Voorheers has 170.
According to the IMDB trivia page for Rambo: First Blood Part II, he killed 74 in that movie. I don't think that's correct though. When my friends and I saw that movie in 1985 we tried to do a kill count but realized a precise number was impossible; there were things like very big explosions, shown in long shot, which killed many people. The best we could do was make an estimate of over 200.
It’s an impressive list but they were all people who were trying to kill Michael and/or his family, and how many did he kill in cold blood - a couple at most? Indy kills many more for the same reasons and always in cold blood, so isn’t he more evil?
shareIf you base your judgment of how evil a person is strictly on the number of people they've killed, then you've answered your own question.
Both are fictional characters, so we can only base an evaluation on what the movie tells us about their character, but by the way I reckon good and evil, Indiana Jones is very, very good and Michael Corleone is very, very evil.
Why do you reach that judgement given that they both kill people who are trying to kill them, and Indy kills vastly more.
In the first place, it isn't the case at all that Michael Corleone only kills in self-defense. It's been years since I saw the film, but I recall he murdered his brother Fredo not because Fredo was trying to kill him, but because Fredo had been persuaded to betray him. Fredo was no threat to him, and he could easily have worked it out. He chose instead to murder his own brother.
That, however, is almost an aside. Michael Coreleone kills some people because they are a threat, and others as collateral damage, but even when he kills someone who is a threat to him, they are only a threat due to his own actions. He's running a criminal empire. The decisions he makes puts him in a situation where it's him or the other guy, with the end goal being to survive and commit future crimes. He's also responsible for the crimes and murders committed by those in his employ. Just because he doesn't pull a trigger or wield a knife doesn't make him innocent.
Indiana Jones is nearly the opposite. He's battling to make the world a better place, and the only people who die because of him do so because they are trying to harm him, and prevent him from improving the world around him.
Indy is only after ‘fortune and glory’ in Temple and kills scores of people in the process. Michael rarely kills in cold blood, and if some of his murders are premeditated it’s because those trying to kill him are premeditating their attacks. Surely both Indy and Michael are practicing self-defence in their respective situations?
You are ignoring the fact that Michael Corleone is running a criminal empire. He is killing to maintain control over an organization that exists to extort, torture, rob, and kill people for profit. That is what makes him evil.
If someone tries to kill me to steal something that's mine, and I kill him in self-defense, I'm not evil.
If I am employing a group of people who are going door to door robbing houses, blackmailing people into paying me, and someone tries to kill me to take over my criminal empire, and I kill him in self-defense, I'm evil because it was my evil actions that put me in the position to need to kill in self-defense.
I haven't seen Temple of Doom since it was new in theaters, so if Indiana Jones if running around killing people in order to achieve fortune and glory, well, that's bad. I don't recall the plot of the film. I've seen the original Raiders of the Lost Ark a number of times, and nothing he did in that film seemed remotely evil.
1) Is Vito Corleone as evil as Michael?
2) If Indy kills many more people in cold blood than Michael then why isn’t he more evil?
You're just asking the same question over and over. Killing isn't in and of itself an indication that someone is evil. Their overall behavior and motivations are what make them evil.
shareWell Indy’s and Michael’s motivations are both to survive, that’s why they kill, is it not?
shareTheir motive at the time they kill is not necessarily what determines if they are evil or not, it's what they did, or did not do, leading up to that moment that matters.
Someone breaks into your home and tries to eat your children. You wake up and come at him with a gun, but he's too quick and he shoots you and kills you. His motive for killing you was to survive, right? He killed you in self-defense, right? Yet, what determines if he is evil or not are the actions he took that put him in the position to have to make that choice.
Well Michael wanted nothing to do with the Mafia. He only got involved because other people started to kill his family and he wanted to protect them.
Indy, however, steals the Shankara stones then kills scores of people making his getaway.
Which is more evil?
It's been some time since i watched either film, but if my recollection is correct, Michael and his family could have backed down and stopped being criminals, but instead chose to kill the other criminals in order to protect their criminal empire. Michael could very easily have advised his family to quit being criminals, and didn't have to become a killer. He could also have killed the opposing boss, then maneuvered the family away from crime, but he instead chose to keep being a criminal, and murdering anyone who got in his way.
Indiana Jones didn't steal anything. He retrieved an artifact from an ancient temple in order to bring it to a museum. He was attacked while escaping, and defended himself.
he instead chose to keep being a criminal, and murdering anyone who got in his way.
Indiana Jones didn't steal anything. He retrieved an artifact from an ancient temple in order to bring it to a museum. He was attacked while escaping, and defended himself.
Neither of those statements is true. Michael ran a criminal empire and had countless people killed, including his own brother. Jones was an archeologist, bringing relics to a museum.
shareMichael only kills two people.
Indy kills multiple, and he stole the Shankara stones for his own ‘fortune and glory’ - have you not seen Temple Of Doom?
So which is more evil?
Michael Corleone kills far more than two people, and he does it for criminal gain, reputation, or revenge. Indiana Jones doesn't kill anyone except when his life is threatened.
Corleone is evil, Jones is heroic.
No, Michael only kills those trying to kill him or his family, and he only killed two people by his own hand.
Indy kills vastly more, and in Temple he murders anyone trying to stop him stealing the Shankara stones for his ‘fortune and glory’.
Given that, who is more evil?
I've given my answer many times. Why do you keep re-asking the question?
shareHe’s going to keep re-asking the same question until he gets the answer he wants. I’ll just save him a lot of time: Indy is more evil, there are you happy? Now move on with your life.
shareAn interesting question. If we consider the context of its time, we note that the Indiana Jones trilogy is a product of 80s Reaganism—"an administration led by a president who sees the world mainly as a contest between good and evil...." (Dallek, n.d.).
With Indy, the audience forgives his transgressions, if they are to be called that, because he represents the side of good which must prevail at all costs. There is an interesting scene in the film where Belloq tells Indy that, under not so different circumstances, he could have been just like him. This display indicates that we only side with Indy and consider him good because he represents the side which we believe is pious and virtuous.
It is perhaps for this reason that this thread has stirred up such discord. The audience associates Indy with goodness and Michael with evil because in their minds, Indy is serving the collective good (Western values) through individual triumph, whereas Michael is only seen as serving himself. Yet in practice, both represent a type of individualistic spirit. While Indy symbolically represents American heroism, Michael is the businessman who must succeed at all costs.
In The Last Crusade, when Indy condemns Else because she values the Grail (a token of Nazism), we see that her ideology is irrelevant. The film constructs her, alongside her compatriots, as evil; therefore, we side with Indy and his symbolic representation of good. The film makes no mention of Nazism as a destructive ideology, but only of ideology as destructive in and of itself. When the audience cheers for Indy and his killings, they cheer for Reagan, masculine virtues, American heroism, and the triumph over alleged evil (i.e., fascism, communism).
To regard either one as evil or good would wrongly reduce their complexity.
You make good points, and are able to zoom out and take a more objective view. Most commenters know they cheer Indy and condemn Michael but are struggling to rationalise why. Many simply abort the discussion because they’re uncomfortable confronting how the framing of murder by the filmmakers has manipulated them.
I would add to your idea of Michael being a businessman who must succeed. He is that, but he and his family are under constant attack from rival gangs and other assorted scumbags who are planning to kill them, sometimes succeeding, so why do we condemn Michael for trying to survive by plotting their murders in return?
Meanwhile Indy’s slaughtering scores of his enemies in cold blood and he gets a free pass? Seems like a double standard.
No. Michael Corleone set a new standard when he killed his brother.
shareWell his brother was involved in a plot to kill him. You don’t think that warrants a death sentence?
shareNo - most likely Fredo didn't know it was a hit. Fredo wasn't all that bright. Either way Michael could have just got rid of him. He didn't need to have him killed.
shareBullshit. Fredo *said* he didn’t know it would be a hit, just like he *apologised*… after he got found out, the snake.
It seems he also knew about Roth’s plans to nail Michael with the subcommittee but he didn’t say anything.
Fredo was a treacherous rat who couldn’t be trusted. If he was allowed to live the envy and resentment he felt toward Michael would still be there and there’s a good chance he’d make further plots to kill him. Fredo had to die.
I think you are giving Fredo too much credit - as Solozzo said "I'm not that clever". Fredo wasn't that clever. Sure he was jealous, sure he felt he was passed over - but he wouldn't willingly be involved in anything he thought might end up in the death of his brother. And yes he couldn't be trusted, hence, you get rid of him. But you don't kill him - even if he means nothing to you as a brother - you would have to think of your Mother and killing your Mother's son. Michael ended up being too evil too consider any of this. And of course as I'm sure you know, he ends up paying for it in Part 3.
sharehe wouldn't willingly be involved in anything he thought might end up in the death of his brother
you would have to think of your Mother and killing your Mother's son
Indy is more evil, there you got the answer you wanted, now move on with your life.
shareWhy did you change your mind?
shareYour very persuasive premise. Both killed in self defense, they had to kill the people they killed or else they or their families would have been directly killed. Indy killed more people therefore he is more evil. I have now validated your life’s meaning, you should be thanking me.
shareWell, you've got it, that Michael Corleone - he is such a display of grace and human dignity. The question is who is more evil, him or Indy? I've already made a good enough argument that it's Michael Corleone.
shareGood enough for you, perhaps, but all you’ve proven is that you’re not very familiar with the Godfather films and that you haven’t thought this question through.
yes
share