CaptainFoamerang
-
Posts
1484 -
Joined
-
Quote:I'll just repost a couple of select quotes to save us time.Originally Posted by NinjaPirate
What you say is completely, utterly true.
It also happens to be completely, utterly irrelevant.
We're not talking in some abstract philosophical terms. We're talking about what you as a writer need to do to engage your audience. You need to get your audience to connect with your story. They need to know "why?", and in story terms, not in abstract writing terms.
Of course everything in a story happens because the writer wanted it that way. Duh.
You might as well proclaim the sky is blue or that water is wet.
What matters is that if you present some odd thing in a story that is outside the audience's normal worldview, you HAVE to put in SOME in-story explanation of why that odd thing is happening in order for the majority of the audience to connect with the idea.
You know that little scene where Scott has a moment with a visually depicted mental switch, that goes from "clueless" to "gets it"? The audience needs that moment too.
Some stories, the setting itself is the explanation. Fantasy and science fiction settings have built-in reasons why odd stuff happens. Audiences already are primed to expect these kind of things in fantastical settings. "A wizard did it" is cliche but folks generally suspend disbelief as long as it fits the setting.
If you're putting your story in a more 'mundane' setting, you generally need to insert other clues as to what's going on.
The only time you can really get away with not doing so is if the audience is SUPPOSED to be confused and unsure of what's actually going on. Archetypal of this is the aforementioned movie Groundhog Day. Part of the main thrust of that movie is that the audience is supposed to be as baffled and confused as the main character.
Confusion is not the main thrust of Scott Pilgrim. The audience is supposed to "get it" fairly early on but they don't really get a whole lot of explanation to help them to get to that state.
Thus, the commentary on "why?".
-np
Quote:And I wasn't talking about any balance between the explained and unexplained, but rather the validity of basing one's overall assessment of a film on the degree of background information and characterization when our tolerance for the unexplained varies from movie to movie. And that's like the third time I've said that. But yes, I supposed the appropriate response to agreeing with something and finding it irrelevant is to turn it into a full blown argument amirite.Quote:I also noted how people tend to have different level of expectations for such setup and explanation based on traits of the film, and for one that seems so stylized and comical, I have trouble understanding why people have relatively higher expectations for such details. -
Also, how about Bill from Kill Bill?
-
They oughta name one of the hero characters after him in their next Company of Heroes release.
-
/em salute
Well played, sir. -
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was full of cheapshot defeats.
People talk about Joss Whedon like he set the standard for killing off characters like that, but damn. -
Quote:I mean if you were wearing the red goggles for doing something you'd want to depower for, such as hanky panky.Originally Posted by StarCrusader
You have Supermans powers dude...good luck to the badguys hehe...unless you are legaly retarded like the movie/tv version's you might die but otherwise...you will be unstoppable !
-
I thought this was about Hulk.
>.> -
Quote:Flashlights! His one weakness!Originally Posted by BlackArachnia
More like a chameleon power in shadows. The same attribute has been applied to the Shadow and Batman actually.
>.> -
Quote:Going back to Nightcrawler, doesn't he have some similarly useless power like being invisible in the dark?Originally Posted by BlackArachnia
Invisiblity that only works when nothing is looking and I would have to be nude.
-
Quote:Of course, wouldn't the goggles be a dead giveaway for whenever some bad guy wanted to kill you?Originally Posted by CommunistPenguin
Actually, if you think about it, having supermans powers until you see a specific color is an awesome ability. Wanna have sex without killing a normal human? Red goggles. Wanna save the world? Yellow goggles. Wanna walk around without having to worry about accidentally destroying something due to your enormous strength? Red goggles. Wanna zip over to Europe for dinner? Yellow goggles.
-
Quote:I think you're thinking of Seaman.Originally Posted by GreenFIame
I was more like talking to fish, if Aqua Man only has that power he be all to useless. Still the power to talk to fish does should useless.
>.> -
Also, I wouldn't want Ned's powers from Pushing Daisies.
-
Quote:If you're growing tired does that mean you'll go back under your bridge?Originally Posted by Lastjustice
I grow tired of you being denser than lead. You don't seem read posts so if you really don't get it just say so(as look at the thread...other people are quoting what I said and trying have a discussion.) and I'll ignore you saving us both time.
If you got the message, then why attempt to turn it into a debate? Are you really that starved for interweb confrontation?Quote:And I got the message in your first damn post. You're broken and irrelevant record. And like I said still had nothing do with the discussion. I didn't disagree with it...I just said it was a pointless statement to make in the first place. Something that seems to escape you for several post oh captainfoamforbrains.
It goes back to the point I made about you stating you liked Transformers 2. Y'know, the second one. Notice the number 2. And for some reason you keep going back to the first one.Quote:And what does that have to do with anything I mentioned? Heck what does that have do with anything you mentioned? And why even mention transformers in the first place on a thread not about them? Oh here why, Foamy has no ability to stay on topic or make a gosh darn point.
You first say what I mentioned was using data from the first to resolve said plothole I was saying was covered there for it didn't count since it was from the first film. I mention people wouldn't know what happened in the first to know it needed covered up. Now you mention the finale of the second film...how does that go with what you mentioned before? I'm not even sure what you're trying show me or prove as you're all over the place.
It wasn't a matter of me excusing or justifying crappy storytelling through any means whatsoever, but rather a matter of you in your apparently infallible sense of taste deeming that certain movies were of inferior quality because they didn't explain things to your expectations, even though, once again, you have expressed enjoyment for films like Transformers 2 that are riddled with plot holes. Are the dots connecting yet?Quote:Oh but you have before. (see district 9 and several threads we discussion batman in.) Basically you go doesn't need be explained because it's fiction. There's no rules...nothing needs be coherent or make sense because the writer says so....That was your arguement against me on several fronts. It's all fine and great you're a simpleton , but don't expect me follow suit.
You really need to have someone taste-test those cheerios from now on.Quote:Settle down? You realize who you're talking to right? I haven' even remotely nerdraged up this topic at all. I've kept it rather civil compared to some of my more explosive moments. I think you've seen your share of them to know better.
Don't play coy like you've been this stellar and intelligent poster. [http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=OMTizJemHO8&feature=related"]Your words are as empty as your soul![/URL] You've posted nothing constructive this entire thread. You quoted Arcannaville's entire post just to say Speedrace was awesome.(and it wasn't. It was meh.) You tossed in photos oh Mrs Hendrix as a point to a movie you haven't seen. And tossed in several posts to me and others about a point that didn't need to be made in the first. Kettle black troll king. I dont even know why you're in this thread other than to be disruptive since it's all you seem to be doing is trying to derail it.
Did you really just say I was wrong about you not reading the posts then admit to ignoring my post?Quote:You want to tell me Im not reading posts when I said I got it. I wasn't intent on arguing your point, I was intent on telling you shut the heck up because you're off topic and irrelevant to this discussion. You want to tell me what I was intent on doing...be right about that atleast.
Your post (which I opted to ignore till several posts down when I saw your pointless statement was going keep coming.)
Lets look at what I said.
In my first post I replied to your "point" I agreed right then and there.Who's not reading? That would be you. So yeah you've proven you're a few pokemon short of full dex. Not much else.
And I wasn't talking about any balance between the explained and unexplained, but rather the validity of basing one's overall assessment of a film on the degree of background information and characterization when our tolerance for the unexplained varies from movie to movie. And that's like the third time I've said that.
But if you will be ignoring me from now on then I guess I'll leave you with one final pro tip: If you're arguing on the same side as GG's logic and Michael Bay's storytelling, you're probably on the wrong side of the debate. -
Quote:Especially in the post-Avatar era.Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
Hey, in the right circles that could make you very popular!
James Cameron would probably hunt you down and torture you until you revealed the space coordinates to Pandora.
-
Quote:That reminds me.Originally Posted by GeneralKnowledge
Captain Sunshines power to........give people sunburns. Being ineffective at night coupled with some.........urges make him a very unappealing, but HILARIOUS, superhero.
Nuclear Man from Superman IV. Long golden fingernails and passing out if you aren't in direct sunlight. -
Quote:Well let's hope they put it on HBO or something.Originally Posted by TrueGentleman
That truly monstrous "24 Hours" episode would present a challenge to an R-rated horror movie, much less television show, whether network or cable. The incidental detail that the villain is one of the goofier Golden Age nemeses of the Justice League of America only adds another layer of complication for a would-be adaptation.
I mean, True Blood has done a lot of ****** up stuff. The Bill-Lorena twister sex scene comes to mind.
-
Quote:You didn't know?Originally Posted by ProcessedMeatMan
Silver Surfer. I like having a weiner.
The surfboard is his dong. -
Daredevil's supersenses. That would get annoying fast.
-
Quote:If I've been aggressive it's because I was tired and couldn't muster the patience to deal with your particular brand of arrogance.Originally Posted by Lastjustice
You want to call people trolls but you've been more aggressive than anyone else in the thread. You're the one going off topic as what did your commentary have to do with Scott Pilgrim? Absolutely nothing. I don't care if you don't like what I have say. Either lay off the BS or atleast come up with some better comebacks. I can forgive people laying into me if they re atleast cleaver or making points that have something to do with said topic. You just all around fail.
And I was remarking on storytelling in general. Scott Pilgrim vs The World is a story, so . . .
No. I never said it was an excuse to write crappy stories. All I said is that there are various degrees to which a story will provide the background information, but all the details can be traced back to the writer, and people have different tolerances for the unexplained based on the story's characteristics (i.e. the "mindless action movie").Quote:No one disagreeing with that that author's get to make whatever setting and point they want. You just seem be giving people the permission to suck and completely gloss over everything. That's where I disagree.
This movie was a love story with no actually love scenes building up a relationship. You can say the director has right to ignore that because he's the director...but thats an excuse for bad writing/directing in this particular example. You really need to include something to give the audience some bearing to why what is happening on screen is happening. The movie was originally written to where Scott actually gets the other girl. The ending only thnig that doesn't fit with that as the rest of the script reflects the original choice. This hurt the film. (something you missed in your silly off topic tirade since you dont get the fact you don't know what you're talking about and insist your point matters here.)
As far as I am aware, the big fight at the end of the second one just revolved around getting the matrix of leadership to Optimus then The Fallen using it to jump-start the sun-killing machine. I've seen the film a few times, and there was no mention of that fight covering up anything. If there was an explanation in a tie-in comic or the novelization, that's another thing altogether.Quote:Well if you want to pull technicalities on, this then oh lets play that game. Then we're going solely off the info of the second movie, then you don't know the there was a big fight at the end to cover up in the first movie in the first place(you have completely no context to assume anything really at that point.), so it's still not a plot hole then. If you do know about all the details of the first movie then you can understand how it could have functioned. It works either way unless you re not paying attention.
Whoa there settle down sparky. I don't know who keeps peeing in your cheerios but I keep making and restating these points about storytelling, but for whatever reason you seem intent on arguing with me and attempting to paint me as an ignorant fanboy. Try to actually think about what I'm saying and your response before leaping into arguments.Quote:No how about you actually read my post instead of digging a deeper hole. YOU DONT KNOW WHAT HECK YOU"RE TALKING ABOUT!...period. None of your facts however sound change this or make you any less off topic. Stop talking out of your behind and making sweeping overgeneralizations like you're freaking John Madden. (if you keep scoring more points you'll beat the other team.) Ironik made a serious and relevant point. Something you haven't done all thread. You turn around and undermind that by tossing out some meaningless observation that had nothing to do with the discussion. You want to be a know it all actually know what the heck you re talking about a contribute something that is on topic. Or at very least makes a metaphor for something relevant to the topic. You've done none of the above and more than likely will probably continue doing so. -
Quote:Well that's the only point I was making: that you can trace all of those elements back to the writer's whim. There may be a setup of internal logic, character motivation, etc, but all of it comes down to elements that were put there because the writer made it so. It just comes down to the degree of in-story setup and explanation. It seems in the case of Scott Pilgrim vs The World, it's like a one-level explanation of "he has to fight the evil exes in order to be with her."Originally Posted by Ironik
Well, I'm certainly not disputing that. In this instance about this particular film, however, I think one of the primary reasons there's no after-buzz and lack of good word-of-mouth about Scott Pilgrim is because there's no heart to it. As I've said, there are no reasons for why anything happens.
There's been the cliche of the actor asking, "But what is my character's motivation?" for ages, but it's a good question to ask of any movie. The primary villain in Coraline (Other Mother) suffers from the same lack of motivation, but it's easy to gloss over because everyone else in that movie has a very clearly delineated motivation. That shows even a key component can be missing so long as you have enough supporting elements to disguise the lack. The problem with Scott Pilgrim is that *none* of the characters have a motivation to do what they do.
It's incumbent upon the creators of a film to throw the audience a bone when it comes to motivation. Even the barest one-liner suffices for most characters in an action flick. As I mentioned earlier about Groundhog Day, you don't even have to *say* it aloud, just indicate it through the actions of the character. Scott Pilgrim doesn't do any of this; it just says, "This is what they're doing because I said so."
I also noted how people tend to have different level of expectations for such setup and explanation based on traits of the film, and for one that seems so stylized and comical, I have trouble understanding why people have relatively higher expectations for such details. -
Quote:Speaking of not paying attention, I was referring to your defense of Transformers 2. As in the sequel, whereas all your above references seem to pertain to the first one.Originally Posted by Lastjustice
Clearly you don't if you're going reply with such vanilla comebacks. I demand a better class of villain heh.
Actually the irony is you have. Rather than go and drag out last 2-3 years of posting history to support my point fully I'm going pass since it's likely drag this thread waaay off topic.
Actually if you read my responses to said plot holes most of the ones people say are bunk. I shot down most of them as the audience not paying attention. Such as "How did the first movie get covered up?" There was global communication blackout in the first movie of unknown length, an army of soldiers, and the transformers weren't in robot mode all that long and the battle was fairly brief among other factors. It didn't just get swept under the rug solely because the movie said so.
Well how the whole army base getting flatten and the global blackout were handled is probably a better question which I'd imagine was chalked up as terrorists of some sort along with the attack in Mission city. (Faux La.) As much as people love bash those films around here there's alot more attention to detail than given credit but most people too busy hating it to notice.
Stuff wasn't glossed over nearly as much and there's also comics and existing material to fill in most of the blanks. There's alot of understoods for the franchise that were established. Somethings just require a rule of cool outlook or it just will always fall flat. (Such as lightsabers.)
I'm fine with movies being a turn your brain off to a degree.But then don't turn around and tell me it's smart film when it requires that to work. I'm not contradicting myself as you claim. It's simple, you want to be a big dumb loud movie, then be it. You want to be a smart film then be it. This halfass attempt that fails at both don't work with me.
See the response to GG.Quote:Yes it is a fact that writers get to make whatever point they feel like.(and you'e still talking out of your rear since you missed Ironik's initial point BECAUSE you have not see the film and trying make a point that no one else asked because.. you tell me since it was pointless to bring up in the first place.) But (Wait for it.) good writing actually support it's points that are relevant and tries make a cohesive and coherent world. The setting can be fantastic but the people need to feel real for the points to be made or it all just falls flat. Any monkey can crowbar any random detail into a story for sake of a writer feeling it needs be there whether it actually makes a story better or not. That's lousy writing. Something you can't seem to get between all your overgeneralizations.
I don't think anyone is suggest every story needs be pages or scenes and scenes of geography porn that lord of the rings is to give us a world and setting that works. Rather we need to see why chaarcters feel way they do or if something radically out of the norm of the setting takes place in the story...it needs be explained why to some degree. I don't think that's too much to ask for. -
Quote:I will try to explain this as simply as I can for the trolls in the audience.Originally Posted by Golden Girl
Not really - the setting means there has to be plenty of info on why things are so wacky - because it's set in the present day, in the normal world we all know.
Audiences recognize straight away that Middle-earth or the galaxy far, far away are different worlds from the real world - the settings are instantly recognized as fantasies.
But for a fantasy set in the real world, the reasons for the fantasy elements to happen or exist have to be explained
I actually am aware of the fact that writers use character motivations and settings as a basis of plot points. However, all of those aspects of the story are coming from the writer because, for whatever reason, they decided to make it that way. That's why they are called the creator or part of a creative team, because, as creator/part of a creative team, they get to decide which aspects of the story to include or not. It is true that they can work off a basic setting, time period, or established character, but they always have the choice of going with the expected element (such as a character action) or something unexpected.
That is the only thing I am saying: the people that make something are ultimately the ones that decide how it is made.
I really have no ******* clue how people can disagree with that. -
Quote:Well I already know you're a troll so I guess I've got one up on you.Originally Posted by Lastjustice
I am beginning to think you're incapable of critical thinking.
Yes, that's exactly what I think. This is exactly what I've been saying in every post I've ever made regarding storytelling. Hur hur.Quote:You seem always make gross over generalizations as a defense for anything. Once it's fiction you seem think that the writers or directors can just cash this blank check for everything and it just gets a pass regardless how jarring said details are to have missing.
Holy **** sir you have completely blew my mind with your on-point assessment of my train of thought.Quote:Movies are like the Matrix, it has feel real and geniune enough to keep our attention. It doesnt we keep waking up from it. Leaving too many details out without support basically does that. While people don't have time to explain everything(you only get so much time to infodump before your audiences attention span expires.), you do need to atleast put enough skeleton to the story to get people up to speed to fill in the blanks.
Yes you can deconstruct anything to point it doesn't work, but there's a happy balance between making everything air tight and writing everything like it's loony tunes where the improbable happen all time and it's never explained because it's an understood that that world functions on that. You can't just give free passes to every plot holes solely on the basis it's fiction.(as you all too often do foamy.)
In case of Scott Pilgrim (which again makes all more assinine you're making one of your cliched overgeneralizations defenses about a movie you didn't even see.) the director needs show why Scott is in love with a girl he just met instead of a girl he was dating who he has real chemistry with since HE'S FIGHTING TO THE DEATH FOR HER. That's kind of important. Otherwise its because they said so and nothing more. People feel nothing and dislike movies telling not showing.
As I said before the movie doesn't give us any real indication why or let the audience know that it's supposed be a giant video game. (which not everyone plays tons of video games.) These are thing that the audience kind of needs to know and understand to enjoy the film. Not everyone is going be bought on flash alone. The fighting was good..but that doesn't make a movie...atleast not this one. This really is another Speed racer in that regard.
Oh wait, no you didn't. Because you've once again failed to take into account that people are inclined to tolerate a certain level of explanation from the storyteller based on characteristics of the story itself. In the case of movies, some of those characteristics include the actors and creative team involved.
For instance, you've stated before that you enjoyed Transformers 2, despite its numerous plot holes, so it stands that for whatever reason, most likely the involvement of Michael Bay and the nature of the film as a 2 hour long toy commercial, your tolerance for the unexplained was greater for that movie. Other posters have also expressed their enjoyment for the type of films where you "have to turn your brain off," and that's fine, but it comes off as a bit hypocritical when you bash a movie for having elements that weren't explained to your satisfaction because you arbitrarily raised the expectation level for explanations for the film.
All elements of a story are there because a writer wants it to be that way. That's what it all comes down to. They are the creator or facilitator of the story. That's not a gross overgeneralization to justify any unexplained plot points of a film I haven't even seen; it's a fact. -
Quote:He carried Youth in Revolt by himself just fine, I think.Originally Posted by Lastjustice
I don't hate him, but he just can't carry a movie himself. His performance was flatter than a week old soda. All secondary characters were for most part more entertaining than the leads were. Wallace was awesome, as he's by far the coolest gay character ever.
-
Quote:Uh no because all elements of a story boil down to "it's that way because that's the way the writer wants it." There are various extents to which you can separate the "why" of the story to the aforementioned basic reasoning, but don't try to say they're all either iron-clad or nonsensical. Hell, in the trailer you even hear the chick say, "If we're going to be dating you may have to defeat my 7 evil exes." so that's one of those supposedly unanswered "whys" answered right there.Originally Posted by Golden Girl
No, because the story has an internal logic that makes it understandable.
A good story gives the characters motivations for the things they say and do - a bad story has things happen "just because".