|
Emotion and believability are big ones for me. Being recognizable as a human being takes precedence over whatever archetype the character is. This is most notable in the action genre but for me a character being a wooden log can really take me out of a movie more than a bad plot, bad CGI or bad anything else. Examples from a recent and not-so-recent movie(s); Kit Harrington's character in Pompeii is established as the typical loner badass early on in the movie and he's boring as hell. He barely changes facial expressions and if you just focused the camera on his face you'd never be able to tell he was in extreme danger a lot of the movie. Even the toughest dudes in the world would react to being thrown into an arena vs many men in chariots or an entire city exploding around them with more than mild consternation and vague worry. That to me just isn't a compelling character I want to care about. The counterpoint is pretty much any of Marvel's action stars, Dwayne Johnson (hey him again), and if you go back to the 90s Bruce Willis in the Die Hards. They all follow the standard badass hero template but they don't just beat up people; they have recognisable emotions and reactions to the things that happen around them. John McClane spends most of Die Hard being dog-tired and beat all to hell and acts like it. Tony Stark spends at least as much time wondering what the gently caress is going on as he does being Iron man and spends a lot of IM3 with PTSD from the horrible poo poo he's been through. Etc, etc. Obviously this is more about general summer blockbusters and doesn't apply to different genres/films that have a purpose beyond 'extend a franchise and make a lot of money' but those the films that get made (and with my terrible local cinemas the only films I get a chance to watch in a theater), so that's my thing.
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 03:30 |
|
|
That's fantastic. Are there any more cool facts like this about the early days of film-making?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2014 19:03
|
|