And this is why we can't have nice things
By
Agonus,
Posted on: 2010-09-03 14:51 in Comic and Hero-Villain Culture
Heh...I would of thought it was more like this (as a previous poster said)...
Fans: OH You make it a movie and we'll see it over and over again!
Execs: Okay lets make it!
Fans: *waiting for download*
I can't help but hear so many times, "If you know were to look, you could of seen it already on the net for free!" Okay, maybe not SO MANY...but enough to figure, it's more than a handful.
I was PLANNING on seeing Scott Pilgram this weekend, but it was pulled from my local theater. 
It was either see Expendables or Scott Pilgram, and I made my choice (and was quite happy with it). Just glad to see it doing better than A-Team and The Losers (two movies I still don't see why they didn't do that good in theaters).
I really didn't think Scott Pilgrim was going to do so well. Not after Kick-*** only made like 48 million in the US, and I heard much more hype on it, than SP.
And I saw Kick-*** two times in the theater! So, I know it got my support. Sooo...that means I'd likely support a sequal (assuming no recasting and all).
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection
Quote:
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.|
Originally Posted by CaptainFoamerang
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.
|
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
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Quote:
Clearly you don't if you're going reply with such vanilla comebacks. I demand a better class of villain heh.| Well I already know you're a troll so I guess I've got one up on you. |
Quote:
| 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:
| 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. |
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.
Quote:
| 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. |
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.
- Justice
Lastjustice- lvl 50 defender
Leader of Eternal Vigilance.
- Freedom
Lastjudgment - lvl 50 corruptor
Member of V.A.M.P.
Beware:NERDS ARE THE WORST FANS!!
Quote:
hmm, depends, as a fan of stories like serial experiments lain and boogipop phantom, to me a setting that is seemingly mundane but has flashes of strangeness is what makes it interesting and the fact that they are not explained only gave me the curiosity to think about what was left unsaid, to interpret rather than to have everything fed to me. heck, what really went on in pi? you have to think about it, nothing is given to you. heck, the writings of h.p. lovecraft and neil gaimen are the same way, ostensibly in the real world but probing the underside to show something a great deal more fantastic that is never fully explained, and thats how they stay fantastic.
|
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 |
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.
- CaptainFoamerang
Silverspar on Kelly Hu: A face that could melt paint off the wall *shivers*
Someone play my AE arc! "The Heart of Statesman" ID: 343405
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. |
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. |
- CaptainFoamerang
Silverspar on Kelly Hu: A face that could melt paint off the wall *shivers*
Someone play my AE arc! "The Heart of Statesman" ID: 343405
A story whose internal mechanisms are consistent but so arcane and unknown as to defy the audience's sense of the real will, without some kind of explanation, likely cause them to lose suspension of disbelief. Especially if these internal mechanisms wind up/are central to the plot as presented.
Scott Pilgrim being, for lack of a better phrase, too much of an in-joke amongst gamers is probably one of those things.
Handwaving it as "it's the writers' point" is akin to telling people "shut your brain off and enjoy it", just as much as when it's done elsewhere.
I suspect there's different points being argued here, or I'm just missing something.
Dawncaller - The Circle of Dawn
Too many blasted alts to list, but all on Virtue.
FLCL... just about anything is better than that in terms of things making sense and I bet FLCL would make a lot of money...
loved flcl, very little was actually explained and the audience was forced to think and interpret for themselves as to what things meant. also about growing up, but sp seems to be more about young adulthood to maturity whereas flcl was about growing from a child to young adulthood.
Quote:
Kinda hard to say. If Hollywood made an FLCL movie? **** no. If it was made in Japan? Oh, absolutely. |
Originally Posted by Durakken
FLCL... just about anything is better than that in terms of things making sense and I bet FLCL would make a lot of money...
|
Because there, there IS a mass market for it.
Quote:
I think you've nailed it on these two points. |
Originally Posted by Ironik
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. 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. |
There is no reasoning for why Scott fights. SP is a bit of a commentary on video games in this regard. We never ask why Mario is going to such great lengths to rescue the princess. Scott, in the movie (if I recall correctly), doesn't question why he has to fight for Ramona. However, in the books, Scott and Ramona question each other at a point about why they're following the rules of people that absolutely hate them. It's all sort of addressing the narrative engine that gamers inherently accept.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lastjustice
I had a simliar complaint. At no point would you ever see why Ramona would want to be with Scott besides beating up her ex's.(I hate myself for using this analogy, but Scott Pilgrim is like Bella from twilight.*rips off the corner of his mancard.*) You find it hard to believe he's gotten with all women the movie claims as it goes so far to show what a massive loser he is. He has nothing of substance to him and he's incredibly awkward and clueless with girls as all Cera's characters seem to be.
Granted Ramona comes across as a fast woman(as she almost sleeps with him on the first date.) and bit of a B-witch based off her history with men. (G-man was probably the guy she really deserved as she made the evil exs.) You can understand easily why he'd want to date her initially but once Scott sees her baggage it's a wonder why he'd continue or be in love with a girl he barely knows besides the whole love at first sight/destiny crap. Their relationship ultimately just feels forced compared to Knives who I've seen play out simliarly in real life tons of times, as their interactions felt much more natural. Everything just ends up being this blank check the movie cashes because it says so. |
Quote:
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.| I will try to explain this as simply as I can for the trolls in the audience. |
Quote:
|
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. |
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.)
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. |
Quote:
| See the response to GG. |
- Justice
Lastjustice- lvl 50 defender
Leader of Eternal Vigilance.
- Freedom
Lastjudgment - lvl 50 corruptor
Member of V.A.M.P.
Beware:NERDS ARE THE WORST FANS!!
I consider myself a comic book fan, and a geek in general. I go to at least 2-3 comic book conventions every year, and haven't missed 2 SDCCs in a row since 1997.
I had never heard of Scott Pilgrim before the ads for this movie came out. Maybe that's why it floundered at the box office - because unlike Batman, Spider-Man or The X-Men, most geeks didn't know who Scott Pilgrim was.
Or, maybe I'm just old and out of touch. I'd only barely heard of Kick ***, but I went to see that one because it looked more interesting than Scott Pilgrim.
The late summer release also hurt Scott Pilgirm, as did the economy, and the ever-rising price of movie tickets. Last I heard, this was one of, if not the, worst summers at the box office in like the last 10-15 years.
As for Serenity, I still say Joss shot himself in the foot on that one. In the months leading up to its (again, LATE SUMMER) release, he went around the country and showed the movie to like 2/3rds of the people who were breathlessly anticipating it's release. Dummy.
(Sometimes, I wish there could be a Dev thumbs up button for quality posts, because you pretty much nailed it.) -- Ghost Falcon
Quote:
And it was bad advertising. I knew what the movie was from these boards. Not one trailer on TV that I saw gave me a feel for what it was about or made me want to see it. That tells me it translated poorly to the general public and failed to get outside of the geek only crowd.
|
Originally Posted by Father Xmas
Wow, $30 million on advertising.
|
City of Heroes was my first MMO, & my favorite computer game.
R.I.P.
Chyll - Bydand - Violynce - Enyrgos - Rylle - Nephryte - Solyd - Fettyr - Hyposhock - Styrling - Beryllos - Rosyc
Horryd - Myriam - Dysquiet - Ghyr
Vanysh - Eldrytch
Inflyct - Mysron - Orphyn - Dysmay - Reapyr - - Wyldeman - Hydeous
Quote:
Because he's a stalker who invented the nuclear bomb to deal with his mother issues, I believe.
|
Originally Posted by ketch
We never ask why Mario is going to such great lengths to rescue the princess.
|
I'll also chime in to say that I never heard about SP anywhere but this forum. Admittedly, I don't read comics, but I still do peruse other geek and game related sites. I'm sure it was mentioned on some of them, but it slipped under my radar. Even after hearing of it, the only reason I saw it was because MC does a really good job in everything I've seen him in.
As for Serenity, it was basically driven by DVD sales from a cenceled TV show, had a low budget for sci-fi, no A-list actors and was released in September. That's not a recipe for box office success.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dalantia
A story whose internal mechanisms are consistent but so arcane and unknown as to defy the audience's sense of the real will, without some kind of explanation, likely cause them to lose suspension of disbelief. Especially if these internal mechanisms wind up/are central to the plot as presented.
Scott Pilgrim being, for lack of a better phrase, too much of an in-joke amongst gamers is probably one of those things. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chyll
And it was bad advertising. I knew what the movie was from these boards. Not one trailer on TV that I saw gave me a feel for what it was about or made me want to see it. That tells me it translated poorly to the general public and failed to get outside of the geek only crowd.
|
I'm more of a nerd than a geek, but I do dabble a bit. I certainly AM a gamer. Yet if it wasn't for these boards I likely wouldn't have bothered seeing SP either. I'd say, "Eh, looks like a typical teen romance, but then it gets all wacky and 8-bit level and it's PG13 and The Expendables is out then too so I know what I'm gonna see." SP was a decent movie as it turns out, I was actually fearing another Crank type experience where I felt like I was being repeatedly punched in the face with meta.
The entire film was a deconstruction of Scott Pilgrim. He was a loser with no prospects and he treated women terribly. The video game motif explained why Scott was fighting for Ramona, because he *thought it was expected of him*. He was treating Ramona like the Princess in the damn castle. An object, a quest related item. Not until the end of the film where he gets a little self respect for himself and he realizes just how much a jerk he's been does he apologize and tries to do it right.
Its not a Romantic comedy, its a coming of age story in which the principal images of immaturity are that of video games. No wonder geeks aren't going to see it.
Infinity
Sam Varden 50 MA/Reg Scrap
Doomtastic 50 SS/Inv Brute
Ceus 50 Eng/Kin Corr
Cinderstorm 50 Fire/Fire Blaster
I think the main reason this movie bombed was the trailer was incredibly bad. After watching the trailer, I just wasn't interested in seeing the movie. It gave no reason for me to care about the movie.
Quote:
That's categorically untrue. The reason he kept reliving that day was so he could learn to be a better person. He went from being self-absorbed and selfish to thoughtful and caring about others. |
Originally Posted by Vox Populi
Why things happen isn't always important. It didn't matter why Bill Murray kept re-living Groundhog Day, for example.
|
Groundhog Day is actually an excellent example of "show, don't tell." Never is it explicitly stated that he must improve as a person in order to get out of the loop, but as the film goes along, he gets rewarded for doing good deeds and punished for doing bad ones. When he finally gets the message, he wakes up and it's tomorrow.
By contrast, Scott Pilgrim doesn't even have that. There's no undercurrent to the film: it's all surface, no depth. Scott has to defeat Ramona's evil exxes in order to date her. There's nothing to be learned from that for Scott or for the audience. That's just how it is. There's no reason given for anything else that happens, either. Why is Scott in love with Ramona? One can see why he's attracted to her, but *love*? Why is Ramona willing to date Scott? Why are all the other girls so hung up on him? There's nothing intrinsically interesting or compelling about him, because the story doesn't offer any reasons.
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World may just be the ultimate brainless entertainment, a Nintendo video game brought to life just because it's based on a graphic novel and for no other reason.
The Alt Alphabet ~ OPC: Other People's Characters ~ Terrific Screenshots of Cool ~ Superhero Fiction
Quote:
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.|
Originally Posted by CaptainFoamerang
I will try to explain this as simply as I can for the trolls in the audience.
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. |
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."
The Alt Alphabet ~ OPC: Other People's Characters ~ Terrific Screenshots of Cool ~ Superhero Fiction
It's not surprising. Just look at the schism we had in these forums alone in my SP vs The Expendables thread.
Many posters said they refused to see SP because it was
A) To much like a rom com
B) Did not like Cera
C) Conflicted ideas on who the target age was
D) Did not feel the movie was "manly" or had enough action.
E) Did not like that type of movie (They hate fun?)
F) Any combination of the above.
I mean, this should have been shoe in on the boards and it failed even that.
It's frustrating that such a good movie was out done by Eat Pray Love and Vampires Suck, much less an action movie that had the flimsiest story with no character development. Yet, there we go. At least I can understand why the Expendables beat out SP in the end, even if I disagree with that.
Quote:
In Serenity's case, one huge strike against it was that most people had never heard of the TV show. When they found out, the reaction seemed to be, "They're making a movie based on a failed TV show?!" nevermind that the failure of the show had nothing to do with the quality of the product -- it was enough that it was labeled a failure.|
Originally Posted by mousedroid
As for Serenity, I still say Joss shot himself in the foot on that one. In the months leading up to its (again, LATE SUMMER) release, he went around the country and showed the movie to like 2/3rds of the people who were breathlessly anticipating it's release. Dummy.
|
The other big thing was the bad luck of timing of the release. After a summer that was jam-packed with sci-fi and similar genre pictures, people were fatigued by the genre and going to the movies in general. The year Serenity came out saw the release of Star Wars III, Fantastic Four, Wallace & Gromit, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, War of the Worlds, Batman Begins, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Sin City and Mr. & Mrs. Smith. On top of that, school had started, always a slow-down time for movies.
And in the month prior, America suffered the one-two punch of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the number one and number four most-powerful hurricanes in recorded history. Katrina killed nearly 2,000 people in America and effectively tied up 1/3 of the US population dealing with the aftermath. Rita had only dissipated the DAY BEFORE Serenity's release. Those two hurricanes alone caused more than $100 billion in damage across the entirety of the Southern US.
I think if Serenity had been released in late January or early February '06 instead of September '05, it would've done significantly better business. Against a weaker schedule and in the lull when most holiday releases are winding down, it would've stood out more. But hindsight is 20/20.
The Alt Alphabet ~ OPC: Other People's Characters ~ Terrific Screenshots of Cool ~ Superhero Fiction
You know, as I read some of the other posts, I see the questions they are asking, and I wonder howmany actaully watched SP.
Ramona says why she is dating Scott. She actually explains that she has been playing the Witch (Convert to the real word as you will.) in her past. She also explains why she is into Gideon, and her other relationships.
Scott realizes, and explains his own personality quirks, such as his ****** baggery. Wallace, his conscience as it were, is one of his friens that TRY to make him a better man, an support him. They answer all the questions.
I am not seeing why people are missing that.
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.
- CaptainFoamerang
Silverspar on Kelly Hu: A face that could melt paint off the wall *shivers*
Someone play my AE arc! "The Heart of Statesman" ID: 343405