The Storytelling Thread

Topic

This is a thread to talk about a storytelling

Replies

Al-x wrote:

GoT caught on for a number of reasons – sex, cgi dragons, intrigue, suspense, overall storyline, characterization. Does Dune have all that?

Honestly, except for the dragons, every good story has all that. GoT actually had more than that. But I think your premise, which seems to be that GoT sort of still occupires the territory and people are not ready to get into another fantastic world again, is flawed, I believe. People don’t work like that.

As a film, we will have to see if Dune “has” it, of course, but the novel offers huge potential, and Villeneuve is an amazing film-maker. So let’s see, shall we?

Maybe what Al is saying is that Dune needs CGI Dragons.

I mean…. sandworms arent motherfucking Dragons

Christian wrote:

GoT sort of still occupires the territory and people are not ready to get into another fantastic world again, is flawed

GoT botched the landing so hard I think the opposite it true: People need to clear that foul taste out of their mouth.

Anonymous wrote:

Dune needs CGI Dragons

Ok, hear me out. What if they used…  real dragons?

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, njerry

I have to say that it takes time and some energy to invest in a
heavily detailed fantasy world. I just don’t think that the majority
will get into it. If the sets, characters, and leads are there then
the people will bite.

Either it gets interesting or boring.

Just saying…

I’d go even further than that and say that it will probably be successful or it won’t.

3 users thanked author for this post.

garjones, Christian, Todd

Ok…

When the movie comes out, there will be a thread on it.
A Dune movie was already made in the 80’s…
I just have my doubts that the overall story will work.

Fantasy stories are sometimes about some quest with a
crew of diverse archetypal characters and in their
journey/adventure they meet up with all these strange
creatures, magical people, etc. and/or… about some messiah
who starts out poor and develops himself to be the champion
and the reader is the witness to the character arc.

It has all been done before with a few variations and tweaks to
the theme or plot.

Let’s shift gears…

Yeah, neither of those two things is what Dune is like. (Also, Dune is sci-fi, not fantasy, not that those two genres aren’t often quite close…)

In fact, the comparison to GoT kind of works because it’s all about a feudal system with powerful Houses and the people who get crushed in their struggle for power.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

I just read Justice by Alex Ross and Ross is my age and
you can tell he is very nostalgic of the comics and shows
from way back in the day. His artwork sort of makes up for
the lapses in the stories like Justice and Kingdom Come.
He gets away with things because his artwork is like a
“special” comic. He seems stuck in the past and doesn’t
really advance any narrative… Thus I have said a few
words on nostalgic storytelling. A few others in the industry
are like that but I digress…

Any readers here of Robert A. Heinlein? I know he has written
a lot of Sci fi worlds and wonder if they can make it to the screen.

Al-x wrote:

Any readers here of Robert A. Heinlein? I know he has written
a lot of Sci fi worlds and wonder if they can make it to the screen.

I believe @miqque is well versed in Heinlein.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Miqque, Al-x

I find it interesting there that in looking at the appeal of Game of Thrones nobody mentioned characters. To me what drags you in initially (because it is hard to keep up with who is who and doing what) is the sparkling dialogue and performances. There are dozens of fantasy adaptations of varying success but only one had Tyrion Lannister played by Peter Dinklage.

As for Heinlein, adaptations of his later books could appear on the Hustler channel.

2 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, njerry

One of the first books I can remember reading was Heinlein’s Between Planets. The memory of the book stayed with me but not the author’s name, until years later I read more Heinlein and realized this was the writer who (arguably) made me a science fiction fan (Gerry Anderson could also make a good case for that, though).

Anyway, Between Planets is an awesome young adult story. Forget this Harry Potter and Percy Jackson drivel, studios should be fighting each other over the Between Planets rights. It’s even got dragons!

garjones wrote:

As for Heinlein, adaptations of his later books could appear on the Hustler channel.

Partially that’s due to the puritanical swing the culture has taken on both left wing and right wing opinions. Anything sexy has been targeted as both smut and perverted as well as demeaning and oppressive.  Nothing in the media really presents much of a healthy view of sex anymore.

garjones wrote:

I find it interesting there that in looking at the appeal of Game of Thrones nobody mentioned characters.

True and that’s where Dune is not very comparable to Game of Thrones. It’s characters are written deeper intellectually than they are emotionally real which was a trait of a lot of science fiction and fantasy in the 60’s like Herbert, Heinlein, Van Vogt and so on. Even PK Dick and Ursula Le Guin didn’t write very complex characters. Primarily, science fiction was more about the ideas than the characters and today many SF books are still focused on that, but a lot of genres started to mix it up so that today it is difficult to distinguish a horror novel from a thriller or supernatural adventure/romance.

You used to be able to judge a book literally by its cover, but not so much anymore.

 

Partially that’s due to the puritanical swing the culture has taken on both left wing and right wing opinions. Anything sexy has been targeted as both smut and perverted as well as demeaning and oppressive.  Nothing in the media really presents much of a healthy view of sex anymore.

 

That’s a wholly inaccurate depiction of the left-wing view on sexual content. Most people on the left are sex-positive, in favour of porn and sex work and the like.  In fact, the people who are frequently depicted as being scolding anti-sex harridans on the left usually aren’t.

There’s a massive difference between wanting to reduce the objectification of characters in media, and considering “anything sexy to be demeaning and oppressive”

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Dave

Ha, my sister’s challenged me to one of these Facebook things where you post the cover of 10 books that influenced you and I would have completely forgotten to include Between Planets if not for this. Thanks, Al-x

I actually really liked Heinlein’s later books as a teen, stuff like Friday, but the sexual content is pretty strong and there’s a lot of taboo stuff like incest going on.

I wasn’t entering into a political analysis of it all, just that it removes it a little from his earlier work that may be more easily aimed at being family fare. Since we had multiple stark naked people fighting in Altered Carbon not long back it’s probably not a showstopper.

Some shows have lost their way.

I won’t get into the old “jump the shark” term
but two HBO shows the Sopranos and GoT just did
not end as well as they should have.

The GoT showrunners ran out of original GRRM material
to trace over and the Sopranos simply collapsed.
There are other shows, movies, books, etc. where people say:
“It was good the first half, but the ending …”

Maybe some ongoing shows should have ended sooner, who knows.

Al-x wrote:

The GoT showrunners ran out of original GRRM material to trace over

While that is correct and definitely a contributor to the demise of the quality, it’s not that simple. The show took a pretty apparent nosedive not only after running out of material, but also after Bryan Cogmans departure.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Al-x wrote:

but two HBO shows the Sopranos and GoT just did
not end as well as they should have.

Disagree on the Sorpanos.

Yeah I don’t think Sopranos collapsed either.

Although I’m not sure it warrants revisiting in this prequel thing that’s coming.

The last two seasons lacked proper direction imho,
but I don’t want to get into that debate.

I have never seen the Wire and am not that interested
in city politics etc. yet the storytelling was top notch
by critics and fans.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Al-x wrote:

but I don’t want to get into that debate.

I’m all in to thought-provoking as long as my own mind remains totally unprovoked.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Dave, DavidM, lorcan_nagle, garjones

Al-x wrote:

I have never seen the Wire and am not that interested in city politics

Try it out, the first season is mainly a cop show, just a brilliant one. You get drawn into the city politics later by the strength of the characters.

Even then it isn’t committees sitting down discussing sanitation (although Todd would have loved that).

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Dave

garjones wrote:

Al-x wrote:

I have never seen the Wire and am not that interested in city politics

Try it out, the first season is mainly a cop show, just a brilliant one. You get drawn into the city politics later by the strength of the characters.

Even then it isn’t committees sitting down discussing sanitation (although Todd would have loved that).

There were plans to do a spin-off around Baltimore City Hall with Aidan Gillan’s character as the lead, but nothing came of it, so that well could have had an arc about sanitation issues.

Of course, David Simon would later do Show Me a Hero, which was a gripping drama about low-income housing…

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Comics have a limitations to the storytelling

Batman will not have more dimension to his character
He will never marry Catwoman, or do anything permanent.
Reed Richards will never cure cancer or solve other
social problems. Same with Superman and the other high
powered beings.

Alan Moore advanced the storyline with Miracleman, and
Matt Wagner took chances with his Grendel storyline.
Wasn’t afraid to experiment.

Perhaps, the better stories lie with the analogues of
major characters, like Supreme, the original Squadron
Supreme, Watchmen, etc. or the Elseworlds stories and
so on.

Al-x wrote:

Comics have a limitations to the storytelling

Comics by the Big Two have limitations, because Marvel and DC don’t want to mess with their lucrative licensing arrangements. Meanwhile, Mike Mignola was able to kill his cash cow Hellboy, because he had finally reached the conclusion of the Hellboy storyline that began 25 years ago. And at Image, Robert Kirkman was able to cut off one of Rick Grimes’ hands, shoot out one of Carl Grimes’ eyes, and kill off numerous fan-favorite characters including, ultimately, the lead character. And so on…

4 users thanked author for this post.

garjones, Dave, lorcan_nagle

njerry wrote:

Meanwhile, Mike Mignola was able to kill his cash cow Hellboy, because he had finally reached the conclusion of the Hellboy storyline that began 25 years ago.

Hellboy’s dead?

JRCarter wrote:

Hellboy’s dead?

It’s a bit more complex than being dead, but effectively yes.

The world ended as per the prophecy, and Hellboy fused with another deity and created a new world on Earth.

Al-x wrote:

Comics have a limitations to the storytelling

Jerry already made the point about the big two. I’ll make the other one: You’re talking about superheroes, which is a genre, not comics, which is a medium.

6 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Todd, DavidM, garjones, Dave

6 of one
1/2 dozen of the other

You knew what I meant.

Back to storytelling…

I think it is an important point though: Comics do not have any limits. You can do anything with words and pictures.

It’s why I have very little interest in the superhero genre these days. But I still love comics as much as ever.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Dave, lorcan_nagle, garjones

Christian wrote:

It’s why I have very little interest in the superhero genre these days. But I still love comics as much as ever.

That gives me an idea.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Dave, lorcan_nagle, Christian

The ancient Greeks had this Deux ex machina format to their storytelling which is:

1 : a god introduced by means of a crane (see crane entry 1 sense 3a) in ancient Greek and Roman drama to decide the final outcome. 2 : a person or thing (as in fiction or drama) that appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and provides a contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty …

I saw that in a Ds9 episode where the beings in the wormhole helped out Sisko, but other than that episode, I can’t think of other examples right now.

Todd wrote:

Al-x wrote:

Any readers here of Robert A. Heinlein? I know he has written
a lot of Sci fi worlds and wonder if they can make it to the screen.

I believe @miqque is well versed in Heinlein.

Al, there’s a huge long story of Heinlein’s battles-to-the-death with Hollywood. It’s a goodly part of his posthumous autobiography Grumbles from the Grave. It started with George Pal and Destination: Moon, quickly got worse. Heinlein in the middle of this ran for political office in Los Angeles as one of the first Libertarians. Earlier, I think, he used an alias to write the Tom Corbett: Space Cadet series of juveniles and TV show. He had numerous battles with editors. To boil it down, he was a hardass old Navy dude who had been mustered out with bad lungs and resented it, which did not fit into the mold of Hollywood Screenwriter at the time. Films like The Puppet Masters with Donald Sutherland were tried, as was Starship Troopers. Heinlein would have rolled in the grave. What was cut was most of the military philosophy which was the reason for the book, and he would have been incensed.

Now, the funny part is I’m friends with Mike Moorcock, and he is the polar opposite of and completely despises Heinlein. I find this *highly* amusing. (Long article, but here: https://libcom.org/library/starship-stormtroopers-michael-moorcock )

 

3 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Todd

Al-x wrote:

I can’t think of other examples right now.

There are some pretty obvious ones out there. In Animal Man, when Buddy was faced with unsurmountable obstacles, Grant Morrison wrote himself into the comic book, conversing with Buddy and ultimately decided to give him his life back. It was a pretty literal take on Deus Ex Machina (literally = God out of the machine ~ God appearing on stage from outta nowhere)

Another literal one, in Final Crisis. Superman builds a literal god-machine (deus machina) that turns thoughts into reality, and then proceeds to sing Darkseid out of existence.

garjones wrote:

Christian wrote:

It’s why I have very little interest in the superhero genre these days. But I still love comics as much as ever.

That gives me an idea.

Is it the idea to found your own non-superhero comic publishing company?

I haven’t given up completely on the superhero genre. I’ve really only given up on the Marvel and DC policies of oversaturating the market with multiple titles featuring the same “hot” characters, of constantly rebooting and relaunching series, and of scheduling numerous “event” storylines that cross over multiple titles, with nothing ever really changing.

I still read Savage Dragon, one of the most unapologetic superhero books out there; I read Warren Ellis’ most recent attempt to jumpstart the WildStorm franchise; and I’ve enjoyed Mark Millar’s books in that genre like Starlight, Kick-Ass, and Jupiter’s Legacy. I still love superheroes; I just don’t like how the Big Two currently handle them.

4 users thanked author for this post.

JRCarter, Al-x, lorcan_nagle, Dave

njerry wrote:

I read Warren Ellis’ most recent attempt to jumpstart the WildStorm franchise

Yeah, I read that one, too.

I would still read any original superhero title by Ellis, really. And maybe by some other writers. I mean, I am also reading Blackhammer. But I am just done with the monthly big two books, and with anything that looks like it is a variation on that. Limited works are fine; there are still good stories to tell in the superhero genre in a limited format, as Mr. Miracle for example showed.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Dave

I am currently watching the old Marvel cartoons from the 60’s on Youtube. They are barely animated off of Kirby’s work and I have to say that while it is laughable now, they have to be taken into consideration relative to their time/era. It is all rather dated now but still fun for nostalgia.

Interesting how radiation and the Cold War rivalry influenced the origins of the characters. Always a radioactive accident, always a battle with their foreign counterpart etc…

Al-x wrote:

They are barely animated off of Kirby’s work and I have to say that while it is laughable now, they have to be taken into consideration relative to their time/era.

I’m pretty sure they actually just cut out panels from Kirby’s comics and moved them around.

They don’t really need to be taken into consideration for their time. They were cheap assed efforts, not limits of the era. If you watch the Fleischer Superman cartoons from 20 years earlier the animation is beautiful.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

I know and I’ve seen those Superman cartoons…

Good nostalgia though, which brings me to the
topic of classic storytelling and dated.

Al-x wrote:

I am currently watching the old Marvel cartoons from the 60’s on Youtube.

garjones wrote:

They were cheap assed efforts

I watched those cartoons in the 60’s, and memorized the theme songs. I didn’t know anything about Fleisher’s Superman cartoons, I just knew that the Marvel ones were straight out of the comics and were AMAZING!!!.

Yeah, I realize now how cheaply-made they were, but adolescent me was mesmerized by these comic books being animated on my black and white television screen. A starving child will eat anything that looks halfway edible.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

I’m not saying anyone shouldn’t enjoy them, they still have the classic comic stories and yes the theme tunes are great.

Just saying the era doesn’t excuse the poor animation, they decided to do it that way to save money.

1 user thanked author for this post.

njerry

garjones wrote:

they decided to do it that way to save money

How unlike Marvel.

2 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Todd

Say…

Remember Three’s Company or the English original Man About the House?

The premise was the landlord wouldn’t allow those rooming conditions, but is that legal?

In the 70s, everything was legal.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Secret identity…

Clark Kent to me always was too clumsy and awkward so that he would stand out… almost as if he was hiding something. No one else is like that. Too contrived.
Also he is a reporter to stay close to the action, but how good of a reporter is he? He should be a blogger instead.

Bruce Wayne is a playboy who is a philanthropist too. Doesn’t he stand out too in Gotham? What is his net worth anyway?

As for the rest how good are their secret identities? How good of a photographer is Parker?
Who else?

Just asking.

Al-x wrote:

How good of a photographer is Parker?

Good enough to get a high-end coffee-table book of his work published at one point.

But with Peter Parker the whole point is that he doesn’t really have to be a fantastic photographer, he just gets these impossibly great shots of Spider-Man that no-one else could possibly get – for obvious reasons (or maybe not that obvious if you’re JJJ).

Technically he’s not even taking the photos himself, he just got the best vantage points and put it on automatic.

That’s not invalid though, it’s essentially what some of the best wildlife photographers do. Anticipate where something interesting will happen and leave it shooting.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Dave, Al-x

garjones wrote:

Technically he’s not even taking the photos himself, he just got the best vantage points and put it on automatic.

Well, for the photos of Spider-Man anyway.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd

Al-x wrote:

Bruce Wayne is a playboy who is a philanthropist too. Doesn’t he stand out too in Gotham?

He sure stands out. First,as a very successful and skilled businessman, as he is the owner and president of Wayne enterprises.

He’s not less noteworthy as a philanthropist. He pours massive amounts of money (money he could just as well has hoarded) into the Wayne foundation and various charities that not only improve the lives of countless Gothamite,they also supply medicine, technology, aid, education and care around the world. It’s put to good cause, but it’s just very expensive PR.

Third, as a playboy. He’s not a family man, and he’s been a loner ever since his parents were gunned down right in front of him. Sent around the world to grow up in boarding and business schools. That does something to a becoming man, and Mr Wayne clearly measures his lifes worth by the accomplishments of the business he’s inherited rather than settling down with someone.

You’re saying Bruce Wayne is Batman? That’s crazy talk, Wayne is a pompous, pretentious empty shell of a person, thinking himself better than others. He’s interested only in mending the scars his parents murder left on his psyche. And he does that by making his mother proud and fulfilling his fathers dream.

Batman? You’re a loony, Al-x…

2 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Todd

Anonymous wrote:

Al-x wrote:

Bruce Wayne is a playboy who is a philanthropist too. Doesn’t he stand out too in Gotham?

He sure stands out. First,as a very successful and skilled businessman, as he is the owner and president of Wayne enterprises.

He’s not less noteworthy as a philanthropist. He pours massive amounts of money (money he could just as well has hoarded) into the Wayne foundation and various charities that not only improve the lives of countless Gothamite,they also supply medicine, technology, aid, education and care around the world. It’s put to good cause, but it’s just very expensive PR.

Third, as a playboy. He’s not a family man, and he’s been a loner ever since his parents were gunned down right in front of him. Sent around the world to grow up in boarding and business schools. That does something to a becoming man, and Mr Wayne clearly measures his lifes worth by the accomplishments of the business he’s inherited rather than settling down with someone.

You’re saying Bruce Wayne is Batman? That’s crazy talk, Wayne is a pompous, pretentious empty shell of a person, thinking himself better than others. He’s interested only in mending the scars his parents murder left on his psyche. And he does that by making his mother proud and fulfilling his fathers dream.

Batman? You’re a loony, Al-x…

Sounds like someone is buying into the Wayne Foundation propaganda!

I realise now that I have missed you posting Crackeds stuff.

And come tf on, the nolanverses two movies about Batman and a third about some person who bears a strong resemblance to Batman but clearly isn’t… isn’t canon.

If we are to evalute is as such, Batfleck wasted no time to showcase how Batman does in fact kill people, and put a stop to the “Batman doesn’t use a gun” idea.

What’s going to become canon with the new Battinson? His parents were never killed?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Let’s see…

We can also talk about plot armor of characters and…

Storytelling that is so heavy handed and takes itself way too seriously so as to be a little ridiculous. Which story or franchise come to mind?

Al-x wrote:

Storytelling that is so heavy handed and takes itself way too seriously so as to be a little ridiculous. Which story or franchise come to mind?

The MATRIX sequels. The original was perfect, but Reloaded and Revolutions tried too hard to be deep and complex.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Al-x wrote:

Storytelling that is so heavy handed and takes itself way too seriously so as to be a little ridiculous. Which story or franchise come to mind?

Oh, what’s the name of the one about the fucking space hairdresser and the cowboy? He’s got a tinfoil pal and a pedal bin. His father’s a robot and he’s fucked his sister. Lego! They’re all made of Lego! The original two-three were cool kids movies but whatshisname, that lumberjack cosplayer with the neckpouch, went and made some more half a century later.

SARS WARTS! That’s the one.

3 users thanked author for this post.

garjones, Christian, Dave

Does Star Wars take itself too seriously?

It had some comic relief scenes which were good, but
if it stuck with adult themes and Jedi mysticism more
of the movies would have been better. Lucas messed up
the prequels and Disney didn’t do it any favors either.

It is a tight rope of sorts in that it can be good and
dramatic (ESB) or very campy (Phantom Menace).

Todd wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Al-x wrote:

Bruce Wayne is a playboy who is a philanthropist too. Doesn’t he stand out too in Gotham?

He sure stands out. First,as a very successful and skilled businessman, as he is the owner and president of Wayne enterprises.

He’s not less noteworthy as a philanthropist. He pours massive amounts of money (money he could just as well has hoarded) into the Wayne foundation and various charities that not only improve the lives of countless Gothamite,they also supply medicine, technology, aid, education and care around the world. It’s put to good cause, but it’s just very expensive PR.

Third, as a playboy. He’s not a family man, and he’s been a loner ever since his parents were gunned down right in front of him. Sent around the world to grow up in boarding and business schools. That does something to a becoming man, and Mr Wayne clearly measures his lifes worth by the accomplishments of the business he’s inherited rather than settling down with someone.

You’re saying Bruce Wayne is Batman? That’s crazy talk, Wayne is a pompous, pretentious empty shell of a person, thinking himself better than others. He’s interested only in mending the scars his parents murder left on his psyche. And he does that by making his mother proud and fulfilling his fathers dream.

Batman? You’re a loony, Al-x…

Sounds like someone is buying into the Wayne Foundation propaganda!

I’ll see you and raise you:

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

JRCarter wrote:

Todd wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Al-x wrote:

Bruce Wayne is a playboy who is a philanthropist too. Doesn’t he stand out too in Gotham?

He sure stands out. First,as a very successful and skilled businessman, as he is the owner and president of Wayne enterprises.

He’s not less noteworthy as a philanthropist. He pours massive amounts of money (money he could just as well has hoarded) into the Wayne foundation and various charities that not only improve the lives of countless Gothamite,they also supply medicine, technology, aid, education and care around the world. It’s put to good cause, but it’s just very expensive PR.

Third, as a playboy. He’s not a family man, and he’s been a loner ever since his parents were gunned down right in front of him. Sent around the world to grow up in boarding and business schools. That does something to a becoming man, and Mr Wayne clearly measures his lifes worth by the accomplishments of the business he’s inherited rather than settling down with someone.

You’re saying Bruce Wayne is Batman? That’s crazy talk, Wayne is a pompous, pretentious empty shell of a person, thinking himself better than others. He’s interested only in mending the scars his parents murder left on his psyche. And he does that by making his mother proud and fulfilling his fathers dream.

Batman? You’re a loony, Al-x…

Sounds like someone is buying into the Wayne Foundation propaganda!

I’ll see you and raise you:

1 user thanked author for this post.

JRCarter

Al-x wrote:

Does Star Wars take itself too seriously?

IMO, George Lucas took it too seriously and tried adding political intrigue to a franchise that was universally beloved for glowing swords. Not to mention he gave the robotic death machine antagonist, whose entire shtick was being a space-nazi loyalist religious zealot ultra-badass, a contrived origin and some really, really hamfisted character development.

I’m glad the image of Darth Vader as the ultimate unstoppable force of evil had been ingrained in us at that point. His badassery survived, where the the credibility of Anakins story… didn’t.

Need I mention the love scenes with Padmé?

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Christian

Anonymous wrote:

Need I mention the love scenes with Padmé?

Let us not speak of those. Ever.

Christian wrote:

Let us not speak of those. Ever.

Let us not speak of what exactly? I have no idea what you’re talking about.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Christian

Anonymous wrote:

Christian wrote:

Let us not speak of those. Ever.

Let us not speak of what exactly? I have no idea what you’re talking about.

These are not the love scenes you are looking for!

4 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, njerry, Todd

I’m going to blame this thread for the fact that last night I had a dream that they released a new replacement Episode IX with a story that involved Luke Skywalker’s ghost venturing to a war-torn dump of a planet and trying to bring peace to the warring factions, only for the climax of the movie to reveal that they were all battling in the ruins of Naboo. In a tear-jerking final scene he ended up in Padme’s tomb finding that necklace that Anakin made for her.

Then I woke up and had to repress my immediate instinct to go online and complain how shit it had been.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Christian, Todd

Dave wrote:

Then I woke up and had to repress my immediate instinct to go online and complain how shit it had been.

And taking into account what I just read, you failed.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Dave

I thought I made it sound quite good. #ReleaseTheWallaceCut

3 users thanked author for this post.

njerry, Todd

Christian wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Need I mention the love scenes with Padmé?

Let us not speak of those. Ever.

Dave wrote:

I thought I made it sound quite good. #ReleaseTheWallaceCut

#releasethesnydercutofthewallacecut

1 user thanked author for this post.

Dave

Luthor

The approach to Luthor: Once he was a mad scientist obsessed with beating Superman and with the universe change, he was some business tycoon wearing a corporate power suit and was also bent on beating Supes. I don’t know what he is nowadays.

I won’t debate which is the better approach to the character as each portrayal worked for their time… You can see Luthor as a twisted humanist who believes in man approaching its destiny on its own not needing a Superman. Or he sees Supes as a big challenge to beat. Maybe he just wants to take over the world and Supes is in his way. Or he is jealous of Supes. Or something else or all of the above.

Thoughts, Opinions on storytelling Lex Luthor…

Funniliy enough, Luthor is how you know which era of Superman you’re talking about, because Superman’s always a static character, always the same… but Luthor is always changed to reflect the current era.

3 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, JRCarter, Todd

He started out as an arms dealer. Then, he became a mad scientist. Then, after Crisis on Infinite Earths, he became a multi-millionaire industrialist, the one iteration that’s stuck since, for the most part.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Al-x wrote:

We can also talk about plot armor of characters and…

Picking up on this: I just finished season 9 of Walking Dead, and like with Game of Thrones, one of the things that makes this show interesting is that there is very little plot armor around. In that season, quite a few character deaths caught me by surprise, to the point that I was ready for them to kill off pretty much anyone.

It’s not something every show can or should do, but it can be very effective in the right kind of show to just (mostly) ignore plot armor and kill your darlings.

Well, I mean to be honest GoT had some pretty strong plot-armour as well, it’s just it took a couple of seasons to figure out WHO was the actual “main cast”, but once you figured the pattern, it wasn’t as surprising.

Yeah…

I remember when Jamie Lannister was being approaching the dragon and just when he was about to get blasted his partner leaped at him from his horse and drove him into the water and they both dodged the blast by the dragon. What plot armor! ..only to be fell by a brick in the end!

Hey… even Indiana Jones’ hat had plot armor but I digress…

Shifting gears:

I saw some of the Joker movie and felt it was too creepy for me. I’ll stomach the rest later on, but he was the clown prince of crime doing burglaries etc, then as the decades went on he was written as really creepy like now. Talk about changing the storytelling and characterization of a character to fit later generation of audiences!

I don’t want to see Juaquin Phoenix’s Joker in other Batman movies. It doesn’t fit. This Joker movie was taken as realistically as possible and trying to shoehorn this version into the rest won’t really work.

Marvel may have better quality comic movies, but DC has the Oscars. Just saying…

Jon wrote:

it’s just it took a couple of seasons to figure out WHO was the actual “main cast”, but once you figured the pattern, it wasn’t as surprising.

I’d argue it took a fair bit longer than that. The Red Wedding being at the tail end of season 3. Robb’s story was very central at that point, a lot more than Jon farting around in the snow.

I think there’s definitely a lot of truth that you get to a position where certain players have to be at the end game (even if they die in that), the armour came up for Tyrion and Jon and Bran as examples, but realistically it’s hard to avoid that without ruining any narrative. You need certain characters you’ve invested in because if that finale is Hot Pie facing off with Dennis Pennis then you would never have seen fan backlash like it.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Dave

The Walking Dead has a setup that is probably best placed to scupper expectations, unlike GoT there are no great machinations, no great overarching plot to resolve, it’s day to day survival in an ensemble cast. I think it can get away better than almost any structure because of that, you can easily tease the audience by setting up a romance and then ending the whole plot instantly with a club to the head.

Rick is the head of the group but he can instantly be replaced by say Michonne and the story carries on.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Christian

garjones wrote:

You need certain characters you’ve invested in because if that finale is Hot Pie facing off with Dennis Pennis then you would never have seen fan backlash like it.

Not that you’re wrong but the finale as is has produced fan backlash the like of which I have never seen before or since.

Anonymous wrote:

Not that you’re wrong but the finale as is has produced fan backlash the like of which I have never seen before or since.

I’ve seen before and since. Anything Star Wars.

However I’d say a repeated theme there was criticism of the pacing (with which I’d agree).

It’s also an interesting take on the whole storytelling concept I was looking at because a major criticism was the end of Cersei and Jaime was a bit of a damp squib and just happened but that’s essentially what the show was being praised for previously. I think the audience’s expectations change with a finale.

That Renly died quickly and with no notice, shutting off all his plot path, was praised, however if Tyrion had randomly died falling down the steps because he was drunk on the way to his trial they’d have been up in arms. We like surprise but can you trade only on that? I don’t think it would be very satisfying either. I could devise now a show where the contrary to what you expect always happens, that in itself then becomes a pattern. It becomes a Star Trek where only the Red Shirts survive.

garjones wrote:

We like surprise but can you trade only on that? I don’t think it would be very satisfying either. I could devise now a show where the contrary to what you expect always happens, that in itself then becomes a pattern. It becomes a Star Trek where only the Red Shirts survive.

Ah, but once you started to expect that then it would stop happening.

I think the tolerance for this kind of ‘surprise’ storytelling differs from person to person, and a lot depends on what you personally want out of a story. I hesitate to raise The Last Jedi but it’s a great example – lots of people found the breaks from expectations refreshing and energizing, while lots of other people were disappointed that the usual patterns weren’t followed.

There are advantages and disadvantages of both approaches but it also often comes down to the individual viewer’s tastes.

It’s true though that once a pattern is established it’s hard to maintain the thrill of the surprise of confounded expectations, if Rian Johnson made more Star Wars movies that kept deliberately bucking trends then we’d probably get tired of it and want a return to the old ways.

garjones wrote:

I’d argue it took a fair bit longer than that. The Red Wedding being at the tail end of season 3. Robb’s story was very central at that point, a lot more than Jon farting around in the snow.

Well a said “a couple” but yeah, 3… for sure, the Red Wedding is basically the “okay here’s how it’s gonna be like” moment, and to a point where I NEVER even for a second bought it that Jon would stay dead when he got stabbed… by that point the plot armour was really strong.

But agreed with your large point, and that’s basically what I argued in regards to GoT… but honestly, people who were still claiming that the deaths were “shocking/surprising” by season 6 and beyond, just weren’t paying attention.

Dave wrote:

There are advantages and disadvantages of both approaches but it also often comes down to the individual viewer’s tastes.

Yes and there’s a fine balancing act. I am one that liked the surprises from the norm in TLJ but it’s a series that also needs a satisfying conclusion. I’m sure Johnson even with leaving his cast in a precarious situation imagined if he helmed the next one they’d prevail. We must remember every second act in almost every story is the bit where shit goes wrong and probably can’t be salvaged.

It’s the bit in every standard rom-com where the couple split up or fall out.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Dave

Oh yes, I’m sure they would have. It’s less that than “breaking” characters like Luke and Rey by doing something unexpected with them in a way that works for Johnson’s movie but maybe doesn’t fit in with the wider saga so well.

I liked TLJ for what it did but at the same time I’m not sure what it did was best for the overall story of the final trilogy or the nine movies overall.

Dave wrote:

lots of people found the breaks from expectations refreshing and energizing, while lots of other people were disappointed that the usual patterns weren’t followed.

Some of us were disappointed that Last Jedi pretended to break from expecations while at the same time actually following the exact same patterns once more and wasting everybody’s time overall.

garjones wrote:

The Walking Dead has a setup that is probably best placed to scupper expectations, unlike GoT there are no great machinations, no great overarching plot to resolve, it’s day to day survival in an ensemble cast. I think it can get away better than almost any structure because of that, you can easily tease the audience by setting up a romance and then ending the whole plot instantly with a club to the head.

Rick is the head of the group but he can instantly be replaced by say Michonne and the story carries on.

Yeah, that’s very much it.

And Jon, you’re right about GoT, of course, I could’ve specificied “first half of”.

Christian wrote:

wasting everybody’s time overall

Yeah, that movie wasted my time… at least 20 times. Clocking in over 2 hours per time, that’s like two days of waste. How dare they!

1 user thanked author for this post.

DavidM

Christian wrote:

Some of us were disappointed that Last Jedi pretended to break from expecations while at the same time actually following the exact same patterns once more and wasting everybody’s time overall.

It did both, really. It rehashed a lot of elements while also taking a different route with some elements, like Rey’s parentage, which I don’t think you could argue was in keeping with the series’ trends.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

Christian wrote:

Some of us were disappointed that Last Jedi pretended to break from expecations while at the same time actually following the exact same patterns once more and wasting everybody’s time overall.

To be honest though a couple of years on I’ve found the ‘some’ holding strongly to that idea, from the hater and lover side, basically boils down to  ‘Christian’ and nobody else.

There are some thematic echoes, Jedi training and a salt world that looks like a snow world but in many places it takes a contrary approach. The family link – irrelevant, the big bad behind it all – dead. I think if it had aped the story of Empire and not just nods, it would have been far less divisive.

 

2 users thanked author for this post.

Dave, lorcan_nagle

garjones wrote:

To be honest though a couple of years on I’ve found the ‘some’ holding strongly to that idea, from the hater and lover side, basically boils down to  ‘Christian’ and nobody else.

AND OUR MOVEMENT IS STILL GOING STRONG!!!!!

Completely agree with the family link, and I’ve always liked that. But the movie very much echoes the plot – the rebels on the run from the Empire throughout the movie while the Jedi-to-be trains with the master; the Jedi-to-be ending his training to confront his enemy (whom he turns out to have a special bond with) and so on.

Johnson wouldn’t have needed to go down the same road in order to then turn into unexpected directions; he could’ve gone down a different road altogether from the start.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Rocket

Let’s be honest, if Johnson was really serious about overturning expectations then he could have made Episode VIII a nature documentary about penguins.

4 users thanked author for this post.

garjones, Christian, Todd

Dave wrote:

Let’s be honest, if Johnson was really serious about overturning expectations then he could have made Episode VIII a nature documentary about penguins.

Forget Fury Road, that was the best Mad Max sequel

1 user thanked author for this post.

Dave

If Johnson was serious about overturning expectations he should have got his hair cut by a professional and joined Labour.

 

… what thread is this again?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

I mean, Ryna Johnson wrote Looper… I really don’t know why people were expecting anything better…

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

He also wrote Brick, which is in my all-time top 10. That movie is masterly written, IMO.

Yeah, Brick was awesome. And I liked Lopper, though the script wasn’t perfect.

Still haven’t seen Knives Out. Need to correct that soon.

Christian wrote:

Still haven’t seen Knives Out.

Better than Looper, but not on the level of Brick IMO.

I wish you a pleasant viewing experience.

I need to rewatch Brick… that thing came out ages ago… it migth be overhyped…

I guess Knives Out was fine, nothing great though.

Knives Out was just a fun movie. Nothing deep or profound, just solid entertainment.

Todd wrote:

Knives Out was just a fun movie. Nothing deep or profound, just solid entertainment.

A very appropriate description.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Anonymous wrote:

Todd wrote:

Knives Out was just a fun movie. Nothing deep or profound, just solid entertainment.

A very appropriate description.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Say…

I don’t want to mention any names, (I leave it up to you) but like an athlete who has their best years behind them and are getting old, aren’t there writers/creators who have had their best stories behind them? Shouldn’t they just hang it up and pass the mantle on to someone younger?