|
Ferrinus posted:B) a clear picture of what personal breakthrough or change in strategy or burst of resolve finally allowed Superman to take control of the fight such that he was in the position of deciding whether to kill Zod rather than in the position of being brutally bullied and knocked around by Zod while trying and failing repeatedly to regain the initiative. "Stop!" "Never." [continues trying to laser vision innocent family to death] It's Zod making it very clear that he was being serious when he said he'd take everything from Clark, the same way he lost everything when the genesis chamber and the World Engine were destroyed. That's what gives Clark the resolve to make the incredibly difficult choice of killing the only other one left of his kind. "Krypton had its chance."
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
I mean his name is literally Jor-El (God will uplift) and his son is named Kal-El (voice of God) so I can forgive him being really really proficient at stealing the predetermined codex of every Kryptonian's DNA and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:"Stop!" No, I mean, how did Superman get him in the headlock in the first place? He was getting his rear end handed to him for the entire fight. I guess he just got lucky with regards to who was on top on the descent through the atmosphere and capitalized on Zod's being stunned post-descent, but losing, losing, losing, losing, losing, getting lucky and winning is nowhere near as satisfying an arc as the back and forth we saw in Smallville.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:No, I mean, how did Superman get him in the headlock in the first place? He was getting his rear end handed to him for the entire fight. I guess he just got lucky with regards to who was on top on the descent through the atmosphere and capitalized on Zod's being stunned post-descent, but losing, losing, losing, losing, losing, getting lucky and winning is nowhere near as satisfying an arc as the back and forth we saw in Smallville. Well, I'm rewatching the scene, and there's a really interesting cut in there. As they first re-enter the atmosphere after Zod throws a satellite at Clark, Zod is above Clark and punching him repeatedly. Then we cut to Lois' perspective, where we see the meteors raining down on the city, and it spends three cuts' worth of shots looking at her and what she can see. When we cut back to the fight, Clark is above Zod, and fairly strongly grasps him around the neck as they crash into the (train station?) building, before smashing him into the ground and eventually getting him in the headlock. Then we cut to Lois witnessing the scene, right before the neck snap. What I'm saying is that Lois is giving Clark the strength to do what he needs to do, just like Perry did at the World Engine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
I just figured that even if Zod is a trained and designed soldier from birth while Superman learned to fight ON A FARM!?!!? that Superman would still have an edge just from having been capable of the stuff for 30 years. The Smallville fight seemed to play out that way too. The difference was that Superman wasn't considering killing him until things were getting bad so he starts fighting for real, and it's not like he was getting his rear end kicked by Zod the whole time either. Then of course Zod makes it clear he's never going to stop trying to kill civilians so Superman kills him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Civil War could have been great if they'd just sacked up to make it Black Panther and have Coogler helm. As it is, we cut directly from this incredibly loaded image of a third world prince cradling his assassinated father and grieving, to Chris Evans getting closure from his dead girlfriend's drama. This kind of twisted political fantasy needed a mightier touch, and Coogler could've done it, provided Marvel could just get off their 'team-up' jag and instead tell a compelling fantasy story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
I agree, Civil War would probably have been better if it was a different movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:Well, I'm rewatching the scene, and there's a really interesting cut in there. As they first re-enter the atmosphere after Zod throws a satellite at Clark, Zod is above Clark and punching him repeatedly. Okay, but I'd have liked to actually see the last-minute struggle in which, during atmospheric reentry, Clark finds himself crackling with newfound strength thanks to Lois's heartfelt faith in him and he dramatically overpowers Zod or starts blocking punches he was previously just eating or whatever. I always figured that, somehow, it should have been Superman's cape that gave him the edge he needed against Zod, since in the final struggle it was the chief visual difference between them. However, I don't know how you'd do it in a way that isn't either ridiculous or off-theme ("Superman wins by blocking out the sun for his opponent??").
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:No, I mean, how did Superman get him in the headlock in the first place? He was getting his rear end handed to him for the entire fight. I guess he just got lucky with regards to who was on top on the descent through the atmosphere and capitalized on Zod's being stunned post-descent, but losing, losing, losing, losing, losing, getting lucky and winning is nowhere near as satisfying an arc as the back and forth we saw in Smallville. I'd have to rewatch the scene, but I think the idea is that Zod was distracted from fighting Kal by trying to get on with literally killing every last human being. Neo Rasa posted:I just figured that even if Zod is a trained and designed soldier from birth while Superman learned to fight ON A FARM!?!!? that Superman would still have an edge just from having been capable of the stuff for 30 years. The Smallville fight seemed to play out that way too. The difference was that Superman wasn't considering killing him until things were getting bad so he starts fighting for real, and it's not like he was getting his rear end kicked by Zod the whole time either. Then of course Zod makes it clear he's never going to stop trying to kill civilians so Superman kills him. I'm not sure of this interpretation, because Superman doesn't really try to actually use his powers until he finds the scout ship and his holo-dad encourages him to push his limits. Then we get the scene of him jumping and realizing that he can fly and poo poo. I think it's more that Zod wasn't used to fighting with superpowers either, because he lived his entire life on Krypton as a normal soldier. Also he's older than Superman, who is in his prime. Basically a random 20-something in good shape doesn't have much of a chance against an older trained soldier, but put them both in a situation where the rules of combat have changed entirely and there's a lot more leeway for the inexperienced guy whose muscles and reflexes are all shiny and new. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Jan 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
I think it works better as is to depict that if Superman decides he wants really really wants something to happen a certain way in a physical conflict it's going to happen because he's Superman. The equivalent of how earlier in the movie he breaks his handcuffs by just walking normally and not even perceiving they exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:I'd have to rewatch the scene, but I think the idea is that Zod was distracted from fighting Kal by trying to get on with literally killing every last human being. I think it's a combination of factors. Primarily it's Superman being more comfortable and practiced with his powers. Sure he didn't start flying around with a cape until the ship was uncovered a couple weeks/months ago, but he's spent his whole life with super speed, strength, and the miscellaneous other powers. Then you've got extra time exposed to the magical yellow sun. Extra so since Zod and his crew spent most of their time sealed up in their space suits or on their Kryptonian atmosphere filled ship. Finally you've got the crazy factor. Zod has completely lost his poo poo and is trying to genocide the planet just to gently caress with Clark. So he's not exactly fighting with a lot of thought or planning. All of the various little x factors combining to allow never in a fight before Clark to keep up with the crazy genetically designed soldier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
I have to assume Clark probably used his powers between the school bus and the oil rig. Like, both instances show that whatever his dad taught him about hiding his identity that its in his nature to act when people are in danger, so it stands to reason that impulse popped up quite a few times over the years. Its just a question as to whether he sought it out doing acts of heroics in secret or if he only did it when the opportunity presented itself right in front of him. So even if Superman isn't a trained fighter and only started really learning how to use his powers recently, he's still got a lifetime of using them passively, learning to control them, and whatever occasional acts of exerting them whether its rescuing people from an accident or wrapping a truck around a telephone pole. That theoretically gives him an edge over Zod who is presumably still suffering migraines from all the poo poo he's hearing and hasn't quite adjusted to gravity. Like, Clark's learned how to not step through concrete or accidental super speed while rushing across the street. Zod doesn't know his own strength yet and that should give Clark an edge when Zod steps too hard or over speeds a punch or gets distracted by a loud noise or something. Its another reason I didn't care for Jonathan's death, because it just felt entirely out of character for Clark to go along with it. If he really did go all that time until the oil rig not using his powers then what made the oil rig special? And if he did acts all along then it makes his choice to let his dad die seem wholly out of character and something he should probably be agonizing over more than the movie presented (although I agree that what made it extra confusing is that it was Cavill acting slightly teenagery and if it was just a teenager I'd buy it a little more). I think this is my take on Zach Snyder/these Superman films. He has ideas. People who appreciate the separated elements of a film appreciate Snyder more because they can pick out the ideas like that radiator thing and appreciate the idea behind it. But he seems to struggle with the artistry of nurturing that idea into something with a real punch and impact. So people who enjoy films as a narrative piece find it often clunky or sloppy. Ultimately I ended up repeatedly feeling like I knew what Snyder was going for but that he cut a bunch of corners and rushed right to it messing up the delivery.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:I'd have to rewatch the scene, but I think the idea is that Zod was distracted from fighting Kal by trying to get on with literally killing every last human being. My impression is that it was the opposite. The final fight wasn't a matter of like, Zod splattering people left and right every second that Superman left him alone. Zod's #1 priority was killing Superman, and he just happened to cause a lot of collateral damage along the way. There's a stretch of the fight in which Superman loses track of Zod's position completely, only for Zod to tackle him from behind (through a skyscraper). It's actually Zod, not Superman, who takes the fight to space, by grabbing Superman by the fight, swinging him in circles, tossing him skyward, and then flying up after him. I think it's perfectly sensible that they were kind of evenly matched, with Zod a little clumsier with his powers but having the clear upper hand in terms of fighting skill. That came through very well in the fight prior to and immediately following Zod's discovery of flight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
I mainly just took Zod at the end as raging out with anger and grief. Like I said, I actually thought his personal story came home with the line about how he was bio-engineered to protect the Kryptonian people and Superman had "taken his soul." He was distraught and grieving and just losing his poo poo on an existential crisis that was actually biochemical. Whether he was directly trying to kill Superman, random humans, or just take down buildings I think he was just in "suicide by cop/mass shootout" mode.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
https://www.instagram.com/p/BO2mK-9F6MN/ Cavill 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:I agree, Civil War would probably have been better if it was a different movie. I have good news: there are different movies!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
sassassin posted:I have good news: there are different movies! Lies, it's capes all the way down!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Civil War could have been great if they'd just sacked up to make it Black Panther and have Coogler helm. As it is, we cut directly from this incredibly loaded image of a third world prince cradling his assassinated father and grieving, to Chris Evans getting closure from his dead girlfriend's drama. This kind of twisted political fantasy needed a mightier touch, and Coogler could've done it, provided Marvel could just get off their 'team-up' jag and instead tell a compelling fantasy story. I feel like the lamest stuff in Civil War is the BP stuff. He's barely a character.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I feel like the lamest stuff in Civil War is the BP stuff. He's barely a character. I feel like his character maybe ended up being a victim of them shoehorning Spider-Man in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:I feel like his character maybe ended up being a victim of them shoehorning Spider-Man in. I can see that. The coolest thing he gets to do is say "I don't give a poo poo" when the villain is telling him his life story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I can see that. The coolest thing he gets to do is say "I don't give a poo poo" when the villain is telling him his life story. I thought he was saying "gently caress, same" and that helped him to get over it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:I thought he was saying "gently caress, same" and that helped him to get over it. I thought it was meant to be a bit of both. In that Black Panther knows the pain that the villain felt, having lost his family in a traumatic fashion, but at the same time he's saying that you don't get to take that and use it to fuel a revenge plot that has further reaching consequences. Black Panther is the only one of the four focal characters in the movie who has lost someone and gets past it in a relatively healthy manner. Zemo lost his wife and daughter and created a relatively elaborate revenge plot that got a number of people, who had no relation to the death of his family, killed because he wants revenge on the Avengers/Tony Stark. Tony has never gotten over the loss of his father and mother, and when he discovers proof of the killer chooses not to stop and think about the fact that the killer was more machine than man at the time, and literally couldn't stop himself because he was a tool not a person, but instead goes to his fallback method of dealing with everything these days, his personal battle-suit and a liberal application of violence. Stever Rogers has lost very nearly everyone he ever cared about from before the ice, many of whom he never even got to say goodbye to, and with all but Bucky gone he decides to go against the world for his remaining friend, which is a noble pursuit but kind of is ruined by the fact that his friend is also a very dangerous weapon that as the movie shows can be activated by anyone with the correct knowledge. Meanwhile the Black Panther comes face to face with the man who orchestrated his fathers death, who was about as directly responsible as possible without pulling the trigger himself, and chooses not to take personal vengeance but instead take him to be tried for his crimes. Tony would never do this, we've seen him take justice into his own hands in similar situations too much. Steve at this point wouldn't do this because he's lost faith in the system after the abuses of Hydra/Shield and what they were going to do to Bucky. Zemo cannot conceive of doing this because in his mind the system and his enemy, the Avengers, are the same thing and not two separate entities working together, and he honestly might not be wrong about this in the end. So the Black Panther is saying that he feels the same way as Zemo, and would love nothing more than to take vengeance for what Zemo has done to him and his father, but he's also saying he's better than that, and he doesn't care about Zemo's story because Zemo let a tragedy turn him into a monster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Lord_Magmar posted:I thought it was meant to be a bit of both. In that Black Panther knows the pain that the villain felt, having lost his family in a traumatic fashion, but at the same time he's saying that you don't get to take that and use it to fuel a revenge plot that has further reaching consequences. In the age of Obama, it only makes sense for a black king to be the only adult in a room full of powerful white dudes acting like children. Made sense. Trump! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
ThePlague-Daemon posted:I found this piece of BvS concept art: This is the closest they come to that specific shot. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:You care about all fictional characters? It doesn't matter how well written or interesting they are, or how much screen time they got, nothing matter because fictional characters represent people and you choose to care about them? Did you cry when Edward left Bella alone in the beginning of The Twilight Saga: New Moon? Or when Woody Harrelson's character died in 2012? No mate, you think film makers and writers should like actually work hard to create compelling and interesting characters with rich psychologies? That's crazy talk. For pete's sake; Goodbody, you are completely correct. One of the core tenets of the very concept of narrative is establishing things to an audience or reader so that they have context. Although the reader/audience has to apply themselves and bring their own thoughts and ideas to what they are experiencing, the idea that the onus is entirely on them to care about the characters is tantamount to arguing for the death of characterization itself. I mean, hey, you could have two films where a romantic relationship breaks down; one film has a complex tapestry of doubts and insecurities affect the relationship, informed by showing us how the characters interact with each other and themselves through various events, and the other film could just have the relationship split up halfway through for no real reason, but I guess in the crazy world of this thread they're probably both equally good because in both cases the characters are people or something. Karloff fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Jan 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
MOS was a loving awesome film and BvS Ultimate Edition was even more awesome. What the gently caress is wrong with some of you people?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Myrddin_Emrys posted:MOS was a loving awesome film and BvS Ultimate Edition was even more awesome. What the gently caress is wrong with some of you people? Different people like different things? This really shouldn't be a shocking revelation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
These "tactical" discussions about why Superman beat Zod in a fistfight are a little silly. He won because faith in Christ can move mountains.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Karloff posted:Although the reader/audience has to apply themselves and bring their own thoughts and ideas to what they are experiencing, the idea that the onus is entirely on them to care about the characters is tantamount to arguing for the death of characterization itself. It is, because caring is something someone does. Like Guy Goodbody, you're confusing things. Caring about someone doesn't mean crying for them. Caring doesn't mean just liking someone or something. Caring isn't fascination (it doesn't mean that characters are "compelling and interesting" with "rich psychologies"). Caring about someone doesn't mean placing them in context (when does MoS lack context?). No character in Le Morte D'Arthur is particularly compelling and interesting (beyond their mythic sheen) with rich psychologies. They're simple and oblique, many of them seem like bizarro clones of each other, and they're mainly defined by their rank and position. Yet they are worth caring about. It's a simple enough act. Characters are just devices to tell stories, and caring about them means caring about the story they're used to tell. The story of ordinary people in the middle of catastrophe is worth caring about. The silly thing is that even by Guy Goodbody's definition the characters in MoS and BvS are good, because people have gone misty-eyed over their stories. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Jan 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Karloff posted:No mate, you think film makers and writers should like actually work hard to create compelling and interesting characters with rich psychologies? A movie like Star Wars succeeds because the characters are hugely strong, paper-thin cultural archetypes that the audience immediately recognizes. So again, we're pretending that there's some magical objective thing that filmmakers have to do and if they don't they Did It Wrong and the movie is Objectively Bad and deserves 10 Moldy Melons on the Poop Scale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
As somebody in the Star Wars thread pointed out, audiences seem to want a "realistic fakeness." Audiences appreciate the way MCU characters deal with their mental illness and gross moral failings with witty quips and pop culture references, even if that's not really realistic. But when actors act like characters from an ancient mythological epic or an Arthurian romance, that lacks verisimilitude.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Wait a minute, Woody Harrelson died in 2012?!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:It is, because caring is something someone does. Like Guy Goodbody, you're confusing things. Caring about someone doesn't mean crying for them. Caring doesn't mean just liking someone or something. Caring isn't fascination (it doesn't mean that characters are "compelling and interesting" with "rich psychologies"). Caring about someone doesn't mean placing them in context (when does MoS lack context?). Oh, this is glorious. You've told me a lot about what caring isn't but kind of failed to define what it is. So here you go, caring is giving a poo poo, being interested, engaged, invested in the fictional lives of the characters and so yes, caring is being fascinated by a character, yes caring iscrying over them, yes caring is liking someone (or hating them, being fearful of them). It's understanding perspectives and having empathy. And yes, narrative context and characters with depth and dimension can help the audience empathize. Also you ask me when Man of Steel lacked context and.... dude, I never said I didn't like Man of Steel, I like that film and always have (it has flaws in though no doubt). I don't like Batman v Superman granted, but are you confusing me with someone else? I can't really contrast with your L'Morte D'Arthur comparison because I've not read it, but this sentence "The story of ordinary people in the middle of catastrophe is worth caring about"is very true, so why not make this characters interesting, compelling people, by understanding them we are more engaged. To take a popular example, Jaws features a finale with three men on a sinking boat with a shark in the water, a catastrophe no doubt. But it's all the more affecting because we know who these people are, what their wants and needs are and their changing and developing opinions of each other. Don't tell me this is just as good https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpFiJGQ_0HM because it also has people in peril, no. Characters are not merely devices to tell stories, that's why the phrase "this character is just a plot device" is oft heard criticism, the best stories have the narratives bloom from the characters, their decisions, their flaws, their aims and motivations etc They're not just empty puppets to be placed in order for action to happen. And your final bit of anecdotal evidence of people going misty eyed over MoS and BvS does not function as a significant argument, people cry at John Lewis adverts, doesn't make them automatically great character pieces. Never change Lamps you diamond, never change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:As somebody in the Star Wars thread pointed out, audiences seem to want a "realistic fakeness." Audiences appreciate the way MCU characters deal with their mental illness and gross moral failings with witty quips and pop culture references, even if that's not really realistic. But when actors act like characters from an ancient mythological epic or an Arthurian romance, that lacks verisimilitude. I really do believe a lot of this nonsense criticism is people who see themselves as Smart, Sophisticated Adults being unwilling to admit that they want media with the honestly, depth, and ideology of a Saturday morning cartoon. So we get a lot of absolutely meaningless poo poo about how filmmakers have to "put in work" to make "compelling characters" - stuff that sounds vaguely academic and insightful but ultimately boils down to nothing more than calling filmmakers lazy hacks because they didn't pander to the right people (i.e: me). Edit: I mean, have you ever noticed how much nerd criticism implies (or outright states) that the filmmakers were lazy? Once you notice it, it's hard to stop. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Jan 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Karloff posted:You've told me a lot about what caring isn't but kind of failed to define what it is. So here you go, caring is giving a poo poo, being interested, engaged, invested in the fictional lives of the characters and so yes, caring is being fascinated by a character, yes caring iscrying over them, yes caring is liking someone (or hating them, being fearful of them). It's understanding perspectives and having empathy. And yes, narrative context and characters with depth and dimension can help the audience empathize. Caring means giving thought or regard to someone. It's also used as a synonym for empathizing with someone, but it's not exclusively that. It's incredibly easy to care about fictional characters, and in fact empathizing tends not to be too difficult. It's a simple act, whether voluntary or involuntary. Karloff posted:Also you ask me when Man of Steel lacked context and.... dude, I never said I didn't like Man of Steel, I like that film and always have (it has flaws in though no doubt). I don't like Batman v Superman granted, but are you confusing me with someone else? I was responding to this: quote:One of the core tenets of the very concept of narrative is establishing things to an audience or reader so that they have context. quote:I can't really contrast with your L'Morte D'Arthur comparison because I've not read it, but this sentence "The story of ordinary people in the middle of catastrophe is worth caring about"is very true, so why not make this characters interesting, compelling people, by understanding them we are more engaged. Why do people in middle of a catastrophe need to be interesting, compelling people so that they can be cared about? quote:Characters are not merely devices to tell stories, that's why the phrase "this character is just a plot device" is oft heard criticism, the best stories have the narratives bloom from the characters, their decisions, their flaws, their aims and motivations etc They're not just empty puppets to be placed in order for action to happen. They actually are. Characters are just an illusion used to tell their stories. Guy Goodbody's said that storytelling is good when characters are worth caring about, which according to him means crying for them when necessary. Therefore, characters in MoS and BvS are worth caring about. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Jan 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Karloff posted:Characters are not merely devices to tell stories, that's why the phrase "this character is just a plot device" is oft heard criticism, the best stories have the narratives bloom from the characters, their decisions, their flaws, their aims and motivations etc Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Edit: I mean, have you ever noticed how much nerd criticism implies (or outright states) that the filmmakers were lazy? Once you notice it, it's hard to stop. Like, "Zack Snyder's directorial style is an accident, because he's a big stupid stupidhead. But he is also an Objectivist mastermind whose directorial style is motivated by a deep-seated hatred for my favourite comic-book superheroes. Here, watch this YouTube about plot holes. Heat vision can't melt steel beams."
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
I am deeply fascinated that I am defending the concept of "interesting characters", the idea that such a concept is controversial is peak this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
There's a short film called The Procedure that does not contain interesting characters and is quite good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Karloff posted:I am deeply fascinated that I am defending the concept of "interesting characters", the idea that such a concept is controversial is peak this thread. It's not controversial. It's just totally 100% subjective, and also not some sort of truism because you can easily demonstrate lots of popular and well-liked movies - including some that you like, I'm sure - where the characters are two-dimensional paper cutouts that nonetheless work just fine in the story they're in. So it's really a kind of meaningless, valueless statement that illuminates nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
Karloff posted:I am deeply fascinated that I am defending the concept of "interesting characters", the idea that such a concept is controversial is peak this thread. You have not understood. The debate has nothing to do with 'interesting characters' but, rather, with '"deep" characters'. Superman is almost inherently fascinating, but a certain subset of fans demand that he be 'given' emotional and psychological depth (via, presumably, exposition. We've had two entire films about his psychology, complete with dream sequences and distorted memories). It is imagined that lazy people are taking away Superman's 'depth' and making him into 'just a series of images'. What it amounts to is a demand for an assurance that you don't need to interpret those images because that work will have been done for you - so you can just watch Superman punch things with the confidence that Superman is a real person and that this is really happening. And that's ultimately an appeal to naturalism. If Superman does something unexpected or behaves in a way that is difficult to understand, this is considered a mistake. He should only do what we expect, or at least provide a lengthy explanation. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Jan 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:31
|
|
