In my university course, my professor actually used how Sam looked at Mikaela during the first movie as a way of illustrating how the male gaze worked. Really look at how he looks at her as she bends over Bumblebee and explains stuff, Mikaela obviously knows what she's talking about and is explaining it all to Sam, but what is Sam doing? He's tuning out every single thing she's saying to ogle her body, and this, my male professor explained, is an illustration of how the male gaze works in cinema, focusing on a woman's body and framing her so that the audience is primarily confronted by her body first and everything she says and does second.
Yeah, because that scene is literally about an adolescent boy being wowed by a love interest. You wanna see the real male gaze? Look at how Sams dad looks at Sams mum. The male gaze is such a fallacious phrase.
That's the male gaze, literally, you just described it. The male gaze is really supposed to mimic how the stereotypical teenage boy looks at an attractive woman and it doesn't matter if it's displayed by more than one character in the story, it's still the male gaze and actually enforces its presence in the movie. Nothing you've said in your post proves that the male gaze is "fallacious" as you claim and, in fact, you've actually proved how present the male gaze is within the movie.
> The male gaze is really supposed to mimic how the stereotypical teenage boy looks at an attractive woman No, you're distorting the definition to suit your argument. The male gaze is about women depicted from a masculine viewpoint. Age isn't relevant, and everything you said is bullshit. I didn't prove the male gaze as you've described it, quite the opposite, I proved the concept of the male gaze is utterly flawed when viewed in the proper context. Thanks but no thanks to your lies.
True, the male gaze isn't constrained by age, that's definitely a valid point, though perhaps I wasn't clear enough. What I meant was that the way the male gaze can really be thought of in the way of how people think an adolescent boy looks at an attractive woman. You're right, it's definitely not an aged term, but I still fail to see how you disproved that the male gaze exists. However Sam's father looks at Sam's mother, one scene doesn't eliminate or override what happened in another, not unless it's meant to and that normal has to involve the character from the first scene. I'm talking about the one particular scene and simply saying, "Well, this scene doesn't have it!" doesn't negate that the first scene had it. And, in the end, you often can't really disprove a theory like the male gaze, not unless it's fundamentally flawed, you can certain poke holes in it and can come up with critiques of it because all theories have valid critiques that can be made of them, but you really can't completely disprove it, especially when it's still being used to analysis media like Transformers.
It's a good example of male gaze. The interesting thing is , the camera never seems to contradict Sam, and Sam never learns, that Michaela isn't just an object.
I got the feeling that Sam was supposed to be pathetic in the first one. His girlfriend even directly calls him out asking when he ever had to sacrifice anything in his perfect life. He's a worthless brat who just sort of accidentally stumbled into this larger world but steps up to the plate once he actually has something to fight for. But then that possibly interesting characterization is ruined in the sequels where it turns out that he learned nothing and, if anything, actually got worse from the experience.
I can't remember a lot of distinct details about the movies because Michael Bay is a hack director with no interest in actually telling a story, but that's how I remember it. There's actually some kind of growth in the first one. Clumsily told, maybe, a terrible story maybe, but at least something resembling a story, and growth. Then Bay gave up after that and every movie after the first didn't even try.
@@SchulzEricT Sam, in general, is an overcompensating neurotic mess but from how I remember, in the first film, he is fairly likable to an extent but as Mikaela called him out on, unlike her Sam's never sacrificed anything in his life. In the second film, he is all "I just want to have a normal life", but then in the third one, Sam's done a complete 180 out of nowhere and now instead of wanting the Autobots to keep him out of their affairs, he wants to work with them and be kept in the loop; he's now this selfish attention seeker demanding to be noticed and respected for helping save the world twice before. Sam even says to Carly in one scene that he wants to matter, as in be seen as important, even though Carly clearly tells him that he matters to her but that's apparently not enough for Sam.
@@aleaanderson6600 Yeah, I think it's yet another movie that demonstrates the problems with making up a long-running story as you go along. If you want a coherent story with strongly written characterization and growth, you probably need to at least have some outline for the whole story. If you just keep tacking on yet another sequel, making it up as you go along, changing the characters to suit each individual installment, then the writing will suffer.
i think that's one of the reasons Cade Yeager was better received as a protagonist, since his primary motivation in the beginning is to get his daughter into college, and listens to optimus prime about his crisis of faith, whereas the first thing we see Sam doing is trying to guilt trip his teacher into giving him a better grade so that he can get a car. Unlike Sam, Cade actually seems to think about other people
I always hated Sam and could never relate to him. I was ex-military when I saw the first Transformers, and found him despicable, but thinking back to my high school days, I still never saw myself as that. This just crystallizes why I don't like him and I appreciate you putting in the time to dissect a character I couldn't stand to be around for the running time. You have my thanks and sympathies.
Interestingly enough his parts are the one that shine the most in the movie without the autobots. He has not the superhectic actionscene direction in the slice of life parts. And he is nor supermaskulin, like most parts of the movie or Wahlberg by the way. That makes him somehow the most memorable and relatable part of the movie, even if his character is a slacker stereotype. And Megan fox, but she gets no respect from bays direction whatever
You should have called this video “Shia LeBoef’s character from the first transformers movie” because honestly I saw this shit in theaters and still couldn’t remember what his name was
I know this is an old video, but I find your discussion particularly interesting in light of the "Mary Sue" drama that followed the release of The Force Awakens. While there are valid criticisms to be made of the type of lazy writing that produces a Mary Sue-type character, the sexism in that case (and many others) can't be denied: Rey might be really good at a ton of stuff for no clear reason, but at least she has a personality and skill set (as well as a *yawn* destiny) that motivate and drive her involvement in the larger story. Sam Witwicky isn't skilled, talented, or likable, but very few people have questioned whether he's "realistic" or "deserves" to be the focus of these movies. So basically, ugh. But thank you for a very interesting and informative video and channel!
Well, i'd argue that people don't analyze Sam Witwicky because the movies are so awful in general that noone really cares to do extended analysis of them. Also I've read reviews that do take some time to at least mention what an ass he is.
Kristina Shahriari I think the hypocrisy is even more apparent if u compare Rey to Luke or Anakin both characters are good at stuff for no reasons or for implied reasons, but with Rey everything has to make 100% sense or it's just not believable, and what's even more annoying they actually take way more time with Rey's character and talents than with Anakin or Luke, so many establishing shots of her doing stuff she later does in the movie and still.
@Sabine A. - not really... Anakin as a little kid they said "midichlorinans" which everyone hated anyway and those movies were awful....and then he got training. Luke got training also under two Jedi masters. The problem I found with Rey is that she literally could do all that with just trying it once. It was too easy. It isn't because she is a female. It is valid criticism if you wonder why more people can't do these things.
Every time people use the Mary Sue reference in regards to Rey it just baffles me. First of all, it's pretty clear she is aware of all the current modifications that have been done to the Falcon over the decades it's been out of Han's care. Actually listen to the story and you'll hear them mention a compressor that is basically making the ship more wonky and unstable than usual. It was installed after Han Solo lost it. All Rey does is bypass the damn thing while Han Solo is busy trying to keep them from exploding. Given her background and interest in finding old junk parts in old junk ships and selling them, don't you think she'd actually be a little fucking knowledgeable about mother fucking ships and how they mother fucking work? Her being an engineer and a woman do not make her a mary sue. That and her being skilled with the Force is also not an issue. She's had to learn how to use a bo-staff to keep herself safe and obviously had to keep in good shape to traverse and scavenge old warships in the desert. So of course she knows how to fight. In her battle with Kylo Ren, she is on the defensive most of the fight, using the saber like a bo-staff and not a sword so it's not exactly working all that great. Then she gives herself over to the Force and defeats the bad guy. That's the title of the movie, the Force Awakens... in Rey. In this young woman who previously didn't think she was all that special or destined for anything beyond Jakku. Here she found her inner strength to be something greater than herself. Luke has no miliary training before he joins the Rebellion, he has no flight experience apart from his land speeder, but that didn't stop him from becoming the best pilot..His Jedi training consist of bitching about trying to hit an orb....Lol but sure he is sufficient trained to make the impossible shot under unfamiliar circumstances, during a stressful situation.👍👍👍 Anakin is able to compete as the only human in the race that he wins, he builds C3PO when he is nine and blows up the Fed ship.👍👍👍
Minor nitpick: A lot of us who watched the Transformers movies did not give a flying fuck about Sam Witwicky. We saw them for the ROBOTS. Said robots were fun in the first movie, annoying in the 2nd, and made us want the whole thing to STOP in the 3rd, but Sam Witwicky was never the reason people liked the old Transformers cartoon, nor was he a major nostalgia point for people wanting to see a Transformers movie.
Yeah I never even thought anyone liked Sam It's like romance shows/ movies/books/ anime/ etc for girls, where a lot of people cannot stand the main character girl ; they are there for all the cool dudes and how dreamy they are. Often the girl is annoying enough that a large portion of people don't even really want her to end up with the guy, they just want the guy themselves. lol.... Still I guees there is still something in the protagonist to make her worthwhile enough for people to get invested.
Fans saw it for the robots, but they needed to appeal to the mainstream so they could make money on it. So they put what the media force as the everyman into the film so non-fans have some kind of anchor point to be involved with the story and characters.
The larger idea here is male gaze, rather than people watching a robot movie for a human ride-along (we don't). In other words, lot of people watched the movie, and very few commented on what a bad person the male stand-in was. He was a bad person, not just a poor character. That is a position of rare privilege.
Re: that Sam Witwicky appeals to us on some level - I'm not so sure. Personally, I went to see the movies so I could see large sentient robo-cars beat the living fenders off of each other. Sometimes a spectacle is all someone comes looking for. Personally, I don't find Sam someone I can associate with - he's more of a comic relief and buffoon, such that I specifically *wouldn't* want to be like. An inverse role-model?
I think this idea is interesting - personally (its been a while since i've seen these, i was a much less thoughtful person when i watched these movies) I never identified with Sam, except on some basic 'what what if i were in this situation with these cool super friends lmao' - his character never seemed important. Frankly I wouldn't have known this video was about transformers if the last video i watched didn't mention his name and the franchise. He falls into a sort of de facto chosen one - things fall in his lap and he picks a few correct major choices to continue the blah blah whateverness. But your idea of someone you specifically want to not be like is unusual to me - and I'd like to hear more about this if you wouldn't mind saying more. I wonder if this is a difficult position to take, as the way the films are put together make it very difficult not to fill this emptyless everyman character with self - regardless of relation to actual self or any actual development of the character (or lack thereof which raises points discussed in the video above of the blah blah lack of any substance masculine culture published in almost every major media endeavor) in short - do you think you could expand on inverse role mode?
Even it he is an inverse role model the movies wouldn't work it he didn't seem sufficiently "real" to be believable, so it that way he still represents and reinforces that his character is a "real man" even if he isn't the ideal real man. Another example like Sam Witwicky, is Homer Simpson. The Simpsons is also created by and written by straight white men largely for straight white men (though less specifically targeting men than Transformers), Homer Simpson displays almost the exact same attributes as Sam Witwicky and while this is usually played for laughs and not as something to aspire to, it is still presented as a valid and generally successful way to "be a man". Homer has friends, a job, a house and a family despite physically abusing his son, being incompetent at his job, and ignoring his wife's opinions, emotions, and needs while expecting her to take care of his own. Just as Sam Witwicky gets to save the world despite being a total douche, it might not present being a total douche as a "good" thing but it does present it as an "acceptable" way to be a man. When we consider that Transformers are some of the most-watch films and the Simpsons was the most-watched TV show this "acceptable" masculinity becomes "standard" masculinity in people's brains - because even if you didn't notice the common threads, your brain did.
Sam is a terrible person and the fact that people find it funny is already pointing at the fact that we see some of him in ourselves, because seeing something act stupid, that has got nothing to do with yourself isnt very funny, or rather, what would you find funny about something unrelated to yourself? but Sam isnt even satire, like Homer Simpson. I dont expect anyone to say "hey look this Sam guy is exactly as awesome as I am!" although there probably are people like this, I dont know, and I cant say he "appeals" to me or that I can associate with him, but one some level he represents some things I learned to think about myself and men in general, yes. also I cannot say with total honesty that I never have felt and thought about women and their affection to me like something I can and have to earn by being a manly man and being great at something. which is how media often handles women (gets the girl in the end trope) and Sam gains girls affection while being a horrible person, which rings a bell inside not only me I´m sure, because I also want to be desired and loved by women, even if I´m not an awesome guy. this approach of course would be very flat and makes women into less than actual people, but on some level it resonates with me and I´m happy to be able to reflect on this so clearly, because I know how it feels when you cant do that or havent done that yet and I know that many many people did not or can not. and these men are surely whom Sam appeals to the most. and while almost everyone surely wants to clean themselves of this thought, I encourage you to look past your ego and ask yourself if that truly isnt the case and if Sam does not in some way resonate with you, and if you in any way enjoyed transformers, like I did the first time around, chances are that he does, because if not you wouldve most likely found it to be very dumb and probably you´d been offended in some way by this terrible depiction of masculinity. Just trying to spark some thoughts. Great video man!
Sam occupies a space that could really have been filled by a winning underdog character, someone who could actually be a foil to the big punching robots. Kind of like how the Star Wars prequels fail to make Anakin work as a hero because they don't show him being likeable or liked (contrast Rey, Luke, Finn). Also... my word. The Matrix of Leadership is like Stan's Clitoris Vision in the South Park movie, played straight.
8:18 Your ideas about media and its influence on our impressions rather than actions is I think one of the best parts about this video. That's a concept that I've found really hard to describe, so this was a neat way of putting that concept into words.
If Sam Witwicky’s interview scenes were an indication of the type of person that he is in his regular life, then it’s no surprise that he would have no friends or summer internships or recommendations from professors.
If you think about it, Sam was effectively a preview of the sudden uptick of angry white men. Michael Bay had something, but he was too greedy to notice his masterpiece and now it's gone. Also, why do the robots die so easily? Real robot fights last much longer than the fights in the films. That always annoyed me.
I think it's completely unintentional on the part of the writers, but I always thought Sam was supposed to be a joke via an inversion on the trope of the Transformers cartoon and other superhero media, where "normals" are given big, contrived roles in the story, so it can tell the audience "You don't need powers to be special!", and Sam being an inversion of this trope, he gets involved with the story, and is just completely out of his depth, kinda just along for the ride, reeling in existential terror from moment to moment, as most people probably would be if they were caught in the crossfire of an alien war. The bits about courage and sacrifice and blah blah contradict the idea that the writers intended Sam to be read this way, but it was how I always took it, and I think it makes the movies more fun.
Dear god, this. Funny thing of note: the Twilight series ran at about the same time, yet that was all I saw anyone hating on back then. At least Twilight was an entertaining watch with a Rifftrax. Transformers with Rifftrax put me to sleep. By the way, I really miss having a cardboard puppet pontificate at me about GamerGate, etc. Not sarcasm.
Twilight and Transformers both have male leads who are not particularly likeable and have unhealthy personalities as central characters in deeply flawed films, but there are many greater differences: 1. Edward was fawned over by females despite his flaws. Females fawning over Shia and/or Sam are few and far between. 2. Bella and Megan Fox's character are both empty and worthless. But Bella is the central character of the story that females were projecting themselves into whereas Megan Fox was pretty much just there as eye candy and one can at least argue she has character strengths. 3. Twilight is a romance that centers around Edward and Bella, two unhealthy characters that should be unlikable that were instead fawned over. Transformers is first and foremost about robots smashing each other. In fact, the degree to which the human characters are involved in the film in lieu of the robots was one of the biggest criticisms of the entire Bayformers series.
I'm looking at the man in the mirror. I'm asking him to change his ways. The message couldn't be any clearer: If you wan't to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change.
I’m surprised that you didn’t mention his ostentatious wearing a Strokes t-shirt at a time when the Strokes seemed played out. In any case, when I went to watch Transformers, I didn’t go to see him. In fact I wondered why we had to spend so much time with the humans in the movie, especially since they were so badly written. (What a waste of John Turturro). Bit then I realized that you can’t really spend that much time with the robots because they are not humans and are not relatable. But then they made that Bumblebee movie which proved that Micheal Bay is just an idiot.
The frustrating thing about Sam is that he could have been an interesting character; if the film bothered to give him an arc or something that amounted to getting his head out of his ass. Instead, it gives him an arc that amounts to him being cowardly and lazy for the whole movie; then doing one sort-of brave thing at the end. Fucking Mikaela had a better arc than Sam.
i don't think Sam is the reason people going for this movie, you get rid of him in the 4th one and replaced with a more active character and people still paid to see it The reason Transformer gain so much money is because the audience mostly are foreigner don't care anything about the movie . They just want to see giant CGI robots punching each other with explosions
Idk. Plenty of people come out of college with no internships or references. Also, the protags in Transformers are increasingly made to appeal also to straight chinese males. That has to be a huge factor.
It's very easy to come out without references from college, just go into a school with cattle-like masses of students in each classroom and be doubtful and pessimistic enough of your own abilities to be afraid to ask any professor you spent any time with for a reference. I did it.
god dammit... watching your videos is like reading TV Tropes. One video makes reference to another, and I have yet another 'just one more video' to watch.
IS Sam Witwicky popular? I feel much like Michael Bay, those movies are popular despite him, not because of him. Everyone I know who like those movies and everyone I know who despises them all spend a lot of the discussion complaining about him (and the presence of so many human characters).
I'm not sure I entirely agree with Dan's premise that audiences watched Transformers because they relate to Sam. I'm pretty sure they were showing up for the giant robots fighting each other.
There's a conversation about Baby Boomer and Gen X filmmakers like Spielberg and Bay's teams making the first proudly Millennial tentpole protagonist such a risible princeling, but we're not quite there
Your point about media changing values and opinions rather than behavior is very interesting, I would love to read more about that, could you suggest some further reading?
I just saw the movie because I was young and liked to see robots kicking each other. But I feel like the whole point of the do-nothing character is to have the audience project themselves onto it, I do agree that it can be done much better, like with Neo in the matrix films. But the movie was made by Michael Bay, he doesn't know how to change a blank slate form Sam to Neo. And while this slapdash approach to movie making can be harmful, everyone immediately realized how unlikable he was, and wouldn't want to change their personality because of him
I think that the last point you made isn't correct. When you look at more closely, the audience that went in droves to see the movie found Sam Witwicky to be a horrible horrible character. They HATED him. That in itself is an important thing to consider because here you've stated of how negative this aspect of "male" gaze is and yes, you are right WHICH IS WHY the vast majority of the audience didn't like him. They liked the Bayham and the Baygasms, explosions and robots fighting each other.
Wow, Sam Witwicky from Transformers reminds me a little of Bella Swan from Twilight. A bland character without many good traits and many character flaws to whom things happen and who does little to nothing themselves (other than stupid stuff).
Huh. So, you know, fantastic fucking essay and everything, but I noticed something else. I looked at the upload date and was surprised that it was 2015, since the video felt like it was one of those early webshows (I wasn't actively watching, either. I was kinda playing Spelunky and listening). And then, when I saw the original upload date, it was fine. But the surprising thing to me is that webshows have a 'type' like that, and now I'm wondering what it is. Lack of background music & SFX? Rough video quality? Simple minimum editing? Slight hum in the audio? Is it even worth it to wonder about this? Anyway back to Spelunky. Also, these videos are real fucking good. I have not been _surprised_ at a video telling me things I didn't realise on the internet since Innuendo Studios. Maybe I'll get what happened to the show by season 5.
It's this sort of analysis that makes me think Michael Bay is a secret genius, giving us that dark mirror and asking if we're okay with what we see in it. Daring us to do better because maybe when we see Sam Witwicky on screen, we can't quite shake that there's something base and ignoble in him.
Have that many people even watched the first three Bay Transformers movies for Sam Witwicky. I mean, he's there, but I get the feeling that the main audience is there to see the Transformers themselves (and to a lesser extent, hot women).
I've never been into the Transformers movies, but I've seen one or two of them at some point in my life and all I can remember is how much I hated the protagonist, though I never could quite figure out why.
I think the best thing here is that, in the 5th episode, it's explained that the Witwicky's are descended from Merlin. Sure, why not. Not like these movies are known for their amazing plots, what with the booms and boobs that the director is so famous for.
Now that Shia has been outed for being abusive, I wonder about the cycle, but in the way of "did acting like X make him be more like X or was he always X and was chosen to act for this part BECAUSE of his X".
How is it that channels like The Nerdwriter have significantly more followers than you even though I (a noted dipshit) have a better grasp of analysis than him? You're my favorite film-centric channel primarily because your shit makes sense and you're not pulling it out of your ass to sound fake deep and yet... Idk. I love your stuff is what I'm saying and I think you're underappreciated.
Although you say that "male gaze" is a neutral term (as an extension of the sociological use of "gaze"), I cannot find a single discussion of it that excludes the patriarchal or privileged context attached to it.
Serious question, do people like Transformers unironically? Like, how many people would uncritically project themselves onto The Beef in these movies and reflect upon his character positively? My impression was that most everyone who isnt a thickheaded dunce understood that Transformers, Bay films in general and The Beef's character were all stupid and terrible. The agency of people and the effects of cynicism and counterculture in how people use their agency to consume media is an element here. Its a tough one to pin down, admittedly, but it does undermine the rather straightforward point you forward here.
Okay, so I am Straight and Half White (my Mother is Black) is that why I don't "get" this whole Male Gaze thing? Is Sam really the archetypical white male? My father doesn't act like this... Is it a specifically American phenomenon? I am genuinely interested in discussing this :)
Far-No as a white dude i cant help since my sexuality has nothing to do with bodies but i think it is aimed at hormonal teens and their adult counterparts
The "archetype" of a certain race/gender/sexuality is one who has no unique outstanding features. Sam is an archetype of men, because he isn't anything special. He's not an archetype because he's whiny or demanding, or a jerk. He's an archetype because being whiny, demanding, or a jerk, doesn't add anything to him as a character. He could be a thoughtful, giving, nice guy, and the plot wouldn't change. The EXACT SAME things would happen with a different guy. But, if they had a woman, or a black man, or a homosexual in that role, it would mostly likely be "controversial". Look at how upset people were about Luke Cage, and most people don't even realize the same people made a show for DareDevil, even though it's the same "Super-person takes down a mob boss" story. Look at how mad people were about the Ghostbusters with women even though it had the EXACT SAME PLOT as the original. That's why things like this become annoying. White man is sort of the default. There's nothing wrong with being a white guy, but you can make you're white man character a COMPLETE JERK, like Sam is, and everyone accepts it as normal, but if you're main character is black, or a woman then it's "brave" and "edgy", or "ruining it". I want to see characters that are interesting, that have inner conflicts, and that are trying to overcome their flaws, not just generic characters that no one will question. (Sorry that was so long, but I also like discussing this stuff)
Cule Chick No problem with writing a long post. I really did want this type of dialogue. You bring up some great points. I am truly looking for a wide array of opinions and thoughts on this matter.
It should probably be specified that Sam is an "archetypical" male from the American perspective, yes. It's not necessarily that he represents how men *actually* are, so much as he represents what is *perceived* to be "normal" for men. Other cultures have their own ideas for what qualifies as a "normal" representation of men and masculinity, but just like with Sam, it's more about what the perception of normality is rather than an objective reality.
Not that this is a fair criticism by any means, but the comment about a person who makes it through college without forming any meaningful connections, mentorships, etc. being an undeniable douchebag hits kinda different as alienation grows more and more profound. Especially in America (can't speak to anywhere else, but it is probably true in many places to some extent), there's a very palpable problem of isolation even on university campuses. I'm a student and I'm, kind of terrified to leave my apartment half the time, was even before the pandemic broke out. I really thought it was a me problem, but I'm beginning to notice it's not an uncommon phenomenon. There is a societal problem of reclusiveness, we're basically growing our own version of hikkikomori subculture right now, and it largely goes unacknowledged.
It doesn't help that the workload for students is so high. When I was in school, I found it hard to meet other students because I was trying to get good grades. It's hard to put socializing as a priority when your are worried that your next exam may fail you.
@@rabidfirefox8914 economic precarity goes hand in hand. I'm in school right now, and if I fail a class I basically end up unable to pay rent because scholarships. It's pretty brutal.
Seriously though the money point isn't really relevant because if they made three terrible transformers without Sam they definitely would've made the same money.
In his defense Sam has to be severely PTSDed by now, combined with a weird paranoia and the frustration of having fought giant alien robots and now having to put up with this crap. He probably didn't do anything over his summer because he was somewhere either in therapy or in a depressive stupor re-adjusting to normal life. He's probably a douche to interviewers because as they start snooting at him imagine how frustrated at them he must be. Sam, and the Dursleys, are very misunderstood.
I actually saw Transformers because I wanted to see a movie about Optimus, not some loser. Needless to say, I was very disappointed. Maybe I live in a bubble or something, but I don't know anyone who likes Sam Witwicky.
I'm not sure that criticizing him as unable to get a job meaning he has low utility meaning he is a bad person is exactly a better narrative then the one presented. In the modern day, it seems like the narrative of human worth driven by utility grows progressively more destructive as human utility drops in the face of modernization. The overall point is solid, but I felt that some of the criticism was coming from an equally problematic perspective.
Sam has the standard protagonist Marty Mcfly arc. Confidence. Responsibility. Humility. Each is a lesson he has to learn in each film. Sam is self-absorbed in ROTF and DOTM, which is called for, as in both films it ties into his character arc. In ROTF, he just wants to live his life, he doesn't want the hassle of a giant robot war. His journey in that movie is about learning that with the situation he's been placed in, he has a responsibility to act. In DOTM, he has acted, he's there, he's in the war in his mind, he's accepted that as his place, he's taken on that responsibility, but he can't act on it, he's stuck in the war, in hero mode, unable to do anything heroic. So, his arc is to understand that he doesn't have to be as involved as he once was. He needs to understand that even though he has a purpose and responsibility, that doesn't make him special. He's just a messenger. Have a very great day! God bless you all!
