Comic Book Movie. The site of all comic book movie related news and editorials or even comics themselves. A normal site like everything else, it seems harmless nonetheless. One thing that strikes into the heart of the site are its fans. People who go on, everyday, needlessly without care going on waiting for an oppurtunity to do one thing. That is; commenting. Commenting on every single article there is happens to be the norm, the new justification in reasoning and debates that has swept the website ranging from 10-20 comments, to 1000-1200 comments. I took a sweep through it though, wondering who are these commentators?
I only came in with a valid conclusion of this analysis. Last week, I viewed a movie that not only made me laugh, but also made me want to get out and by the Blu-Ray immediately. This movie; happened to be 12 Angry Men. A movie that tells the tale of 12 jurors who must come to a decision to either mark a man guilty or not guilty for murder. For anyone who has seen the movie, you know what to expect, for anybody who hasn't, this is what I call a movie centered on debates. A movie about choosing who is right or wrong, reasons, applicable or not applicable, right or wrong. This is what I'd like to call this editorial, 12 Angry Nerds. Through the 12 jurors I examine who is what on this site, not by calling them out but by stating the different personalities on this site, or any site that has debates on favorite characters or movies. Lets begin!
Juror #1
The Lawful Neutral, the one who believes in a fair debate. While most likely they do not believe in a believe, they are usually on this site the ones who pretty much write the article/editorial/news that we love to read and banter about. They mean no harm, and present what is given to us simply due to the fact that they just wanna see how it all goes by presenting what is unfolded towards us or may intervene when it may get out of hand. In the movie, he is a self-appointed leader of the Jurors, but not an important role only there to control the jurors and make sure they are in the approriate place and keeping it in a civil matter.
Juror #2
While not really important, they are the TRUE NEUTRAL of the group. They fall into the category of noobz if you will, have no clue what to expect on this site and just joined in to give their opinion. Once their opinion is stated, they just believe whatever is thrown at them is good enough to convince them on their own point and merit. They don't really seem to cause a debate that much, they read, they feel convinced then they will feel implied to join in on the argument and agree. In the movie, the character is a first timer in jury duty, thus doesn't know really what to expect in a jury room whether it will be chaotic, all in agreement, or has made up his decision only to go about his day. Like my comparison, they are the noobz.
Juror #3
This one is more of the firecracker of the group, THE LAWFUL EVIL. They are centered and convinced on the evidence given to them on thus said movie or any news article. Their mind is made up, their idea is more pompous and more right than yours. This comparison I can pin on a lot of individuals in this group, but more importantly they seem to get aggrivated at being told they are wrong because they feel their opinion is justified as right. They tend to jump at the weakest, begin arguments, cuss, send threats and even go as far as taken it personal where their own personal lives may be affecting them and their ability to comment. In the movie, the character is the same of how I stated, only this time he is dead-set on believing the accussed murderer is guilty and believes sole importantly that he is guilty. Even to involve subtle hints of his personal life as a reason for his anger or behavior. They are around, and they are here on this site.
Juror #4
THE NEUTRAL EVIL. They are probably the most hated, or the most debated towards too, or probably agreed upon due to their strong argument. They happen to convince us on probably something we wish do not want to hear. Whether it be something as Star Trek: Into Darkness being a horribly written movie, or Iron Man 3 having the greatest villain, or simply put, having different opinions on where the certain character or story of the movie should go. They are probably the most interesting on this site, and they try to be the ones that stand out. Not because they are bad or they are trying to bash your film, they simply want their opinion to be heard, not their fought if you agree with their opinion or not; but, if persuaded; they may have a change of heart on their opinion if you are that good on your debate which is rarely the case but you may get lucky. In the movie, Juror #4 happens to claim the accused murderer is guilty without hesitation. Even with an incredible argument, with incredible points made; but when is shot down and has no where to go. They will switch, not because they just admit defeat, but they simply honor the right and forget the wrong. Healthy debate, no harm or hurt intended.
Juror #5
They are the quiet ones, pretty much the ones who happen to be on no one side and happen to stay quiet but also have the need to jump into a debate when one debater is extremely rude or disrespectful or just happen to say something to which they are wrong. I'd personally like to call them the correctors, but we can go with THE NEUTRAL. They really do not like to argue, they want to get on with their day. but if something is read that just happens to spark their brain into saying something, they will do it just to prove you wrong, and boom there is an argument. Not much to say about them, except for what is presented. In the movie, the juror happens to have a very small connection with the accused murderer, not personally but spritually to which he feels disrespected on where he is from and thus must correct them by going on in the debate.
Juror #6
THE LAWFUL GOOD, they happen to be the ones who defend anyone who feels is being disrespected, but often are more on the postivie side. They really do not jump into debates, but if they do so, it is to defend their movie that happens to be critically acclaimed. They are everywhere on the site, and they most rarely have anything to say. As for others being disrespected personally, that I do not see happen so much, but to defend their movies I see very clearly or someone elses. In the movie, not much is said about the character other then he is a painter and helps out with the debate here and there. When someone in the jury room is being insulted; he happens to be there to defend that person by threatning, but you can sense a good heart in him.
Juror #7
THE TROLLS. I don't think anybody on here hasn't come in contact with these trolls. To be nice, and civil, I will give them the name CHAOTIC EVIL. They happen to be primarily be trolls, simply for a number of reasons. They don't care, they don't argue just insult, or quite frankly they are just there with no existing point what so ever. They serve a purpose to breathe on this planet and to type whatever they feel is necessary. When you pull them on the spot, they are dumbfounded or practically say the same thing. This is typical with MARVEL or DC trolls when they go about each other. A Marvel troll posting on a DC troll, stating the same over and over; a DC troll following the same routine as well. There is no end to their madness. In the movie, the character is eager to leave simply due to the fact that he has tickets to the Yankee game which he doesn't want to miss. When he finds out he has to stay longer, he becomes a bit of an asshole, and has already lost care in the debate already and just says blah and blah. When he chooses a different opposing abruptly, he is called out on his bullshit.
Juror #8
They are not bad, but they most certainly will have an opinion that might upset the established order that could overturn everything, but the most humble they can be. They happen to be, THE NEUTRAL GOOD. While everyone has come to agree on one thing, here comes one commentator who happens to have this opinion that differs. This is where all different types of opinions begin to mix in and unfold on how they are pointed towards for being wrong. There is a catch though, what if they are right? What if they pose this strong argument on your point of view being wrong, not argumentive or insulting or disrespecting, but rather humble about the whole situation. While of course, we can't really see how we are typing by the tones of our voice, but can certainly tell by words on what we mean. Most likely, the established will change their mind simply because of how strong their point of view is that it must be right. In the movie, he happens to be the main character, who is the only one to claim NOT GUILTY simply because he feels there is more to talk about in the case rather then just saying guilty.
Juror #9
Kiss-ass. That is how I would describe them, for good measure though they are THE CHAOTIC GOOD. These users, are more then likely just to agree with someone, and stick with it. When they agree, they don't happen to care whether their is thought put into it, but they just happen to follow the lead of a certain user and stick to it down to the bone and often feel comfortable, but they happen to be on the majority of the argument. They also come across as assholes or kiss-ass type of personality, more importantly they just do not see the reason for getting more into the argument only to prove someone wrong on the easiest of subjects to debate about. In the movie, he is the second to agree on not guilty, he is soft-spoken, friendly, but also like I said comes across as a kiss-ass and will most likely become pompous towards you if you do not agree.
Juror #10
Hard to please due to their purist nature, they happen to be THE CHAOTIC EVIL. They love to be right, and they love to be rude and just insult, they are purists at heart for their source material and will insult it to the very bone with thought or none. When it comes to debating, their is none, the comics is all they need to prove their point. When it comes down to it, they aren't really nice either but they are the easiest to ignore for their nature of being a purist. They could be right, but with that attitude no one will really seem to care with that. They will hate the Nolan Batman movies for not following the comics to the tee, they will hate FOX comic book movies for not trusting the source material, and they will undoubtedly be very vocal about casting decisions that is no where near their choice or hate the script and give some ridiculous reasons. In the movie, the character is a racist, who claims the accused murderer is guilty because of his skin color or his background and better yet, the facts presented to him are enough to prove his point in court.
Juror #11
To put it simply, they love to call BULLSHIT. They don't happen to choose sides and when they do it is because of a good point, but if someones point is not up to par, prepare to be corrected. They are also THE LAWFUL NEUTRAL. They breathe and eat bullshit for breakfast, why? Cause i guess they look at the point and see if it is right or wrong in their minds eye. If you do not have a valid enough conclusion, prepare for an insult. Lets just say you hate the new TMNT. You just don't like the way it looks and you feel you do not need a reason, well if you feel that way, this user will certainly mock you for your absurdy and feels you are beneath him accordingly, even if you do not agree. In the movie, he is a watchmaker, who happens to join the guilty side first then switch to not guilty. He puts down juror #7 for not having a solid reasoning for his point of views. Even though there was no need to take it that far, he is just going to let you have it simply because he can and might actually have a good point.
Juror #12
They are there simply to do one thing and one thing only; ATTENTION. They are the fan-fic writers, the users with ideas to which they believe would help the said movie; they love to point out ideas that could of worked and also happen to be FAN-FIC writers. Due to the reasoning of this character to be a little obscure, he really doesn't jump around in arguments, but when the user does decide to, he might be flip-floppy. Again, he isn't really there to debate, he just wants to shout out ideas to the world in hopes someone can say "HEY THAT IS AWESOME!", they aren't bad but they can be quite annoying when we get a whole entire list of movies with the release date put out as how they would do it.....without a reasoning on how or why that movie should be that year or why it should come after. They serve a purpose, for the attention. In the movie, the character is an ad marketing consultant, he doesn't really argue, but when he does state his arguments, its mainly to say how he would of done it or he just flip-flops or doesn't pay attention to care.
Now that I am through, this isn't to point out everyone, but simply what I see. I am not putting you on the spot, nor am I offending you, I am just simply stating a point here without this site reacts to certain debates or quite frankly every debate. Most importantly though, everyone has acted like each individual at least once. Lets not beat around the bush, we have and we know it once you read through it. Do not be ashamed, I have as well. I have went from Juror #3, to Juror #8 to even Juror #7, I guess it just depends how the day goes. Either way, it really is how it is presented in front of us I guess and what the subject entails.
I also recommend, if you have not seen 12 Angry Men, due so on Netflix, or watch on YouTube.
I hope many of you had a good read and enjoyed the editorial, I tried my best to deliver and hopefully I did it. THANK YOU FOR READING, Please click the THUMBS UP and please share in THE COMMENT SECTION.