CaptainFoamerang
-
Posts
1484 -
Joined
-
Quote:But you can always ask an additional "why?" or however many it takes to get back to the original reasoning: because that's the way the writer wants it to be.Originally Posted by Golden Girl
Not really, no - well-constructed movies give reasons for the events of the plot to happen.
For example, right at the start of A New Hope, George Lucas quite literally spells out some of the key plot points in the opening text crawl, and dialogue and actions throughout the rest of the movie reinforce them and build on them - the audience doesn't need to ask why the Death Star is so dangerous, or why Leia has stolen the plans to it, or why the Empire wants to get them back, because the story tells them why in a clear and logical way. -
Quote:Also, Christina HendricksOriginally Posted by Vox Populi
Well, he's in a band.
got engaged to this guy.
So we can't attempt to unravel the female mind. -
Quote:Er but you can argue that point for pretty much every movie or story ever.Originally Posted by Ironik
Scott Pilgrim suffers from one main issue: It doesn't answer "Why?"
That's what I keep hearing from people who've seen it, even from people who liked it. (My 73-year-old mom went with us to see it even though I warned her repeatedly that it definitely wasn't her kind of movie and she would hate it. It wasn't and she did. So she was asking, "Why did I go to that?" And I replied, "Why *did* you go to that?")
But seriously... people are asking, "WHY does he have to defeat her seven evil exxes?" The answer, of course, is, "Because he does." Most movies at least offer up a reason for the goings-on, no matter how slim that reason might be. Scott Pilgrim doesn't bother. It's meta-commentary on stories: things happen because things have to happen to get from point A to point B.
o.O
While I haven't seen the film, I wanted to comment on this since it appears to include the obligatory Michael Cera bashing for every thread remotely related to Scott Pilgrim vs The World.Quote:The secondary question does come back to Michael Cera and the character he plays: WHY are these girls so hung up on him? Again, there's no reason given; you're just supposed to accept that they are. The movie pushes minimalist storytelling beyond where it should be, jettisoning *reasons* for plot and character. Turns out you still need those things, no matter how sketchily drawn. Without that emotional hook, it becomes an exercise in the Rule of Cool and nothing else. The Rule of Cool will get you through the scene you're watching, but it's the emotional impact that'll keep you talking about the movie later... and generate buzz about the film. Scott Pilgrim doesn't have that. It's all flash and no substance. Sure, the flick is enjoyable on a superficial level, but it's no Three O'Clock High.
Anywho, did I miss the meeting where we all got together and decided to hate Michael Cera? >.> -
Quote:Speed Racer was awesome. That is all.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
It has nothing to do with pandering. If you want to target a niche audience, that's fine. Just don't spend a hundred million dollars on something that targets a niche audience: that's stupid. And don't expect people to go see it just to subsidize your taste, no matter how smart or well crafted it might be.
The problem is that geeks aren't honest about geek culture. Sometimes it has crossover appeal, sometimes it doesn't. But they (we) rarely admit it. I had a pretty good idea that Scott Pilgrim wasn't going to be a $200m movie, and even $100m was going to take a miracle. Its crossover potential was iffy. Even Inception wasn't well received by everyone, but I had a pretty good idea that Inception was going to appeal to about ten times more people, even though it too was a fairly intelligent and well-crafted movie that wasn't typical summer blockbuster fare (turns out the number is more like thirty times as many, not ten).
It shouldn't be hard to understand why a movie like Star Trek did so well and a movie like Scott Pilgrim didn't. And its not because the movie going audience is "stupid." They sometimes are, but that's not the reason. That same stupid movie going audience turned out to see Gran Turino, they turned out to see District 9, and they even turned out to see Coraline. And I think the fact that it *is* virtually impossible for some people to come to grips with why Star Trek did well against the geek backlash and Scott Pilgrim did poorly with the geek support tells you why Scott Pilgrim failed. Its because people don't get this that they can't ever learn from it.
The bottom line is that Scott Pilgrim's audience was presumed, but Scott Pilgrim isn't even a wide-audience item in the geek culture. Its a subculture of a subculture of a subculture. Its basically a replication of the Speed Racer mistake.
Still, I think the final verdict on Scott Pilgrim isn't in yet. I always thought the very audience that would most want to see Scott Pilgrim would probably buy it on DVD or Netflix the thing. If it does exceptionally well in the home and rental market, it could yet end up being ultimately something of a success.
The amazing irony is that the reason why it isn't connecting with a cross over audience seems to be, at least in my experience, the characters are almost totally unrelateable to people outside the subculture. And that means if you aren't a fan of the work, and you can't connect with the characters, the movie is a bunch of random special effects with no story. Ponder that the next time someone says a big budget action film is just "pandering" to the stupid sheep movie going audience by just having dumb action stars blowing stuff up. What does it mean or matter if you write the smartest script in the world and its about characters so alien to the movie going audience that it might as well be about saguaro cacti. -
Quote:I think you mean Morpheus.Originally Posted by BafflingBeerMan
Orpheus was an alternate name for Dream in the comics. I felt like being formal about it
-
Meh, even if a movie doesn't do all that well in terms of box office, I find it is worth it just to make it so long as the movie is actually good. It may not feel like it was worthwhile to the studios, but at least down the line people will be able to look back and remember it for being a good movie, and that will be the determining factor for wanting to watch it again, not how much money it made.
-
Quote:Orpheus?Originally Posted by BafflingBeerMan
Yes, but that post was clearly made during the time when Orpheus was trapped in the basement of Roderick Burgess and hence, my perception was out of whack.
-
Quote:So it wasn't JLA/Avengers, then. And the insanity thing going with knowledge of the other universe may be backed up by Joker knowing who Spider-Man was in Marvel vs DC.Originally Posted by Durakken
From Wikipedia
He does later mention it again though when imo not "insane" but whatever. -
Quote:Well some Marvel and DC characters have the same name. What was the name?Originally Posted by Durakken
Azrael mentions a Marvel character at one point when when he is listing people's he's beaten and if I remember right that's from JLA/Avengers too
-
Quote:Yep, Kurt Busiek wrote JLA/Avengers and the Pain of the Gods arc of JLA, which had the reference to the Krona egg. I remember because it was the first time I was thoroughly disappointed in Busiek's writing with that arc.Originally Posted by Mr_Samoa
Was it? That may be the case. Well, while the crossover's canon is debatable, the DCU is some kind of entity. However, since Qweq (I think that's the spelling), or the Nebula Man, is also a fully grown universe, it can be called into question whether or not the universe-entities have much power (relatively) or control over what goes on inside of them.
-
Quote:I think it helps that the writer who referenced it was the same one who wrote that crossover.Originally Posted by Mr_Samoa
Normally no, but in the JLA/Avengers crossover, Krona gets jammed into the Cosmic Egg, which was brought back (with him inside) later on. That's the only canon part of the crossover I can think of offhand, though.
-
I think the biggest hurdle for this film is finding quality actors that are the right ages for the parts.
-
Quote:You really should pick up the first hardcover volume. It's a great buy.Originally Posted by Shadowrush
Here's a quote from Shadowrush.com
Here's the link to the article.
This sounds interesting. I haven't read the comic book series, but I have heard some good things about it. Will be looking forward to this as well. -
Quote:Warning: The Force does not work against incest.Originally Posted by beyeajus
Your answer: the force
The answer to any and all other questions regarding any inconsistancies with any Star Wars movie: the Force. -
So I was watching Clerks 2 the other night and as the movie ended with the camera pulling away and the color draining from the scene, I was struck by how appropriate the ending was for the movie.
It got me thinking about other perfect endings to movies, books, shows, etc: ones that have already happened and ones that should happen. For instance, I believe between Marcian and I, we thought it would be neat if The Office ended with Michael marrying Holly, and after Holly says, "I do," Jim says to the camera, "And that's what she said."
Are there any other past or potential perfect endings that come to mind? -
Quote:I must look this up post haste.Originally Posted by MunkiLord
Steve Carrel was recently a guest on The Colbert Report and they did a Steve and Steve segment. Good stuff.
-
Quote:Well there's a difference between being a d-bag and being outright evil as he apparently was. As I've been keeping up with True Blood, I can't help but be reminded of the recent treatment of Jason and Sam when I think of Cassidy, although their revealed level of douchebaggery wasn't as extensive as Cassidy's. Again, I saw it more as the writers attempting to come up with more content and flesh out the backgrounds in accordance with the Empire Strikes Back nature of this season.Originally Posted by JeNeSaisQuoi
Except that his history of being a ****-bag can be shown as far back as the New Orleans issues proving that Ennis had been laying the groundwork for it all along. Also, while Preacher is my favorite comic of all time, the book is ten years old now. I don't see any flaws in it personally, but even if you do, don't you think it's possible that he's had time to hone his skills as a writer over the past decade?
-
Quote:As I'm working through Preacher, I can't help but notice some of the shortcomings in Ennis' writing, however. Specifically, it almost seems like he was grasping for more content to fill out the series and shoe-horned Cassidy's affection for Tulip and history of bastardy.Originally Posted by JeNeSaisQuoi
Ennis absolutely hates superheroes. I wasn't aware that comics could only be good if they had superheroes in them. Ennis is the best writer alive as far as I'm concerned. I don't know of anyone else out there right now that can write something as hilarious as The Boys and then turn around and put out something as beautiful and heartbreaking as Dear Billy. And if you thought the point of Crossed was the gore, then you missed the point completely.
I can understand that what you've seen of his work doesn't appeal to you so you've not actually read any of it, as evidenced by the statement "As far as I can tell." He's not Geoff Johns, he's not going to write superhero stories where Captain Perfect Teeth always triumphs over the forces of Bad Guy Mcnasty. If you want to read nothing but superhero stories for ever and ever, then no, don't pick up his work. However, if you like just plain good writing--and yes, alot of it is quite dark, then check him out. -
Quote:I consider the time that he wrote JLA to be good, and he contributed a lot of neat ideas for 52. However, I think Final Crisis was the start of said full-retard period, in which he became full entrenched in the notion that the story was coherent and good, and that the fate he decided for Batman was fitting and necessary. Based on the behind-the-scenes stuff I've read, it was more likely that he was consciously or subconsciously sabotaging his work for DC due to the editorial interference, but the decline if not cliff-drop in writing quality was still apparent, and it remains a much less excusable cause than Loeb's son passing.Originally Posted by Nemo_Utopian
i am not sure if one title can be called "a phase"(even if i agreed that it was retarded).
to put it bluntly as someone that has read damn near everything of his that i can get my hands on, he is about the most experimental comic writer around. some of his stuff works out better then others(hell very little of Doom Patrol was all that great), but he has never fit any sort of metric for good,bad,sane,or coherent.
i am thankful as all hell that he continues to try and get the thoughts in his head poured out into comic book form though. -
Quote:Yes he did. It was called Final Crisis.Originally Posted by Nemo_Utopian
Morrison had a full retarded Phase?
did he do something as bad as life in the universe originated on earth first? or that emotions have colors? -
Just pick up anything from DC that has "Johns," "Waid," "Rucka," "Dini," "Brubaker," "Simone," or "Busiek" on it.
Loeb and Morrison are fine before their respective full-retard periods. -
Final Crisis should have ended with the last Golden Agers (Ted, Jay, and Alan) sacrificing themselves to save the universe, hopefully against something better than an enemy that's been defeated time and time again (Darkseid) or one that we haven't really heard of (the multiverse vampire monitor thing oh god I almost threw up in my mouth a little bit just remembering it). They could have actually stayed dead and it would have been more meaningful. At least, I think so.
-
Once again, **** you, Morrison.
-
Quote:I do miss the more regular inclusion of the correspondents, particularly Samantha Bee and Rob Riggle. **** that one unfunny fat dude and Olivia Munn.Originally Posted by Vox Populi
I like the Daily Show and Colbert Report, but neither match the heights the Daily Show reached with Stephen still there. Holy crap, those were hilarious years.
-
Quote:I enjoyed last season of Dexter as well. Unfortunately, it's starting to feel like they keep retreading old ground, what with almost all the seasons dealing with Dexter having to contend with another serial killer. I keep wishing for it to push forward a bit more, and hopefully with the circumstances laid out by last season's finale helps the show do that, even though we're having it revolve yet again about a fellow cop's suspicion of Dexter. It's somewhat less interesting because, as I've said before, Dexter was able to take care of Doakes, and Quinn is no Doakes. The only thing that kind of evens the odds is how Dexter may be less inclined to put as much effort into evading him.Originally Posted by MentalMaden
I honestly didn't think Dexter could have topped season 3 and Smits' character. Then the first episode of season 4 aired. Oh my. Lithgow at his grandest. The first scene of the season alone is so cringe worthy (you'll know what I'm talking about when you see it). As much as I love Lost and it's final season (yeah, I said it...so what), Season 4 of Dexter is darned near a masterpiece and was the best thing on TV last year.