MovieChat Forums > Jumper (2008) Discussion > Alternate look at Paladins vs. Jumpers

Alternate look at Paladins vs. Jumpers

posted 10 years ago by daddymo
5 replies | jump to latest

Let's look at the conflict in the movie, imagining things from the Paladin's perspective. This will take a little imagination, but hey, why not?

Roland and the Paladins are depicted as the bad guys, but we only see things from the Jumper's point of view. The only thing we know about the Paladins is that they hunt and kill Jumpers. They are well organized and well funded. The fight has been going on for centuries. Why are they killing the Jumpers, what is their motivation?

David, a seemingly good kid, uses the power to steal thousands, perhaps millions of dollars. He has gotten lazy, also, as we see him "jumping" two feet across the couch in order to more easily reach the tv remote. Perhaps Jumpers eventually turn to worse and worse abuses of their ability. Wouldn't a young guy who has to work for nothing and has no obstacles start to look for bigger challenges? Spying, blackmail, even murder would be simple when you have the ability to jump.

Imagine a time long ago, when Jumpers used their powers to the detriment of mankind. A group of lawful, moral people established the Paladins in order to stop the Jumpers. Yes, David hasn't hurt anybody (that we know of), but he has broken the law many times. The fight has been going on for so long that the Paladins stop anybody with the ability. Even David's mother leaves her family and turns against her son because she believes in the cause so strongly.

The name "paladin", evokes thoughts of those on the side of right. A common definition is "knightly or heroic champion". The original paladins were knights who fought for Charlemagne; their leader was named Roland. Ring a bell? Perhaps the screen writer intended to make the paladins the good guys. It's certainly interesting to think about.

[–] Scorpio_Sewer_Moon 10 years ago

I always assumed they were just a bunch of religious nutjobs.

It's not too hard to imagine people with jumper powers going too far with them, but a much more likely scenario is they were pushed too far by crusaders who persecuted them as witches or something.

I couldn't imagine a better fate than a long and lustrous winter! 

[–] delusiongrande 10 years ago

I assume it is not dissimilar to the entire hero-villain theme that the Batman trilogy had so wonderfully built up. There are, and there always will be, those who use their capabilities to do good, or abuse them.

So what about the "heroes" in Jumper? You are right, David has not actively hurt somebody, thus he does not deserve to be labelled evil. However, he does nothing heroic or benefit the general society either. Instead, he lives off other people's work. In a way, it is understandable for society to fight jumpers - even if killing them without trial seems quite harsh.

Unfortunately, the entire plot seems to be focused on the locked in battle fronts in which David is just a piece on the chess board. It doesn't really address the questions raised here. After all, the jumpers shown in the movie were just some hedonistic, self-centered, lawless kids who did not take any responsibility for their actions. Why is that? Maybe the reason for this is that the Paladins have killed all their family, friends etc disallowing them to participate in society. The film, however, doesn't address this. Instead, it portrays the Paladins as zealots. This would be fine, if there weren't David's mother whose role just doesn't fit in with the rest.

Guess they just hadn't thought this far when writing the script...

[–] nordsang 9 years ago

Nothing excuses murder. They, and whoever is behind them financing it, need to pay for their crimes.

[–] stvpapadaki 8 years ago

I only just watched the movie and agree that paladins are better than the movie represents and perhaps closer on the right side than jumpers. And why is that?

Roland says that all jumpers go bad in the end.
David's going straight to the "dark side", even if he hasn't yet. He robs banks and even though he claims that he will pay back, he doesn't seem to have any inclination to do that any time soon. But the worst thing in my opinion is this: When the news reporter was talking about a flood and people in danger, I was so sure that we would see him in the next scene jumping there. But no, he just smiled and decided to go to London to pick up women. Having the power to save so many lives with little - to no risk for himself but no doing so is worse than anything he might steal.
As for Griffin, well, no need to overthink things. He killed his parents when he was five. Five years old for crying out loud!! If that's not inherent evil then what is??
So I'm thinking, perhaps Roland is right after all??

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 6 years ago

David can't jump to places he's never been simply because they're displayed on a TV screen. That's why he has those "jump sites". He can only jump to places he's been before or places in a direct line of sight from wherever he is. He couldn't have gotten to those victims in time.

The sense you get is that the human race is simply evolving and the Paladins are religious fanatics who are doing what they do in an effort to hold back the tide. Roland said it himself. He believes the jumpers have an ability only God should have. Who would kill David's father just to send a message? Not rational actors. These guys are waging their own little jihad. I'm sure "going bad" probably had more to do with jumpers fighting back and killing Paladins than anything else. While a few were undoubtedly criminals there must also have been those who decided they wanted to be superheroes and used their teleportation to save people and/or fight crime. I doubt the Paladins cut them any slack for that because again - their motivations are not rational any more than ISIS fighters operate from a place of reason.

Frankly, I think it was a mistake for David not to kill Roland. He seems to have been the real brains of the operation and the most fanatical of the bunch. Letting him live won't get him to see the error of his ways. I guess they were planning on a sequel at the time, and wanted Samuel Jackson back for that. And why wouldn't you? He makes a very cool bad guy.