LogFAQs > #921116027

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	PotdMon: Nerd/Geek
ParanoidObsessive 04/26/19 9:54:07 PM #167:	Entity13 posted... Eh... I chalk DKR up to other factors. One is the loss of Heath Ledger, so they couldn't re-use the Joker as needed. Second was the need to over-stuff as many plot threads and nods as possible rather than telling a cohesive story to send off Nolan's Batman toward the rest of his career. Yeah, but even there, you're just proving my point. You don't NEED shove as many plot threads in or "send the main character off" unless you're making the arbitrary decision that the movie NEEDS to be an epic conclusion to a trilogy, rather than "just another installment in a serial story" or "the third in a series of relatively stand-alone movies". Thinking in narrative framework of epic storytelling (or three-act structure) is what creates the pressure to "end" everything, which generally contributes to the mess. Entity13 posted... Therein lies a difference between mediums, for one thing. True, but serialization isn't a new thing for cinema - if anything, serialized cinema predates comic books as we know them (but not comic strips as a whole), because Flash Gordon predated Superman by a couple years. Serialization mostly fell out of favor in cinema once it effectively moved to TV and became the conceptual "TV show", but film as a medium isn't inherently anathema to the narrative form. Entity13 posted... Star Wars of late is a great example of this, because the fatigue set in by the time "Solo" finally came out, and then people were too wary to truly appreciate the better half of Episode VIII. Star Wars doesn't really prove the point - if anything, it proves the opposite. They've been giving us terrible Star Wars movies for almost 20 years now, yet we STILL keep going to them. Maybe THIS will be the one where they figure things out! Maybe THIS is the one where it gets good again! As a collective, we WANT more Star Wars. The main reason why so many people are burned out on it is because they keep giving us BAD Star Wars. Repeatedly. Over and over. There's a reason why Rogue One got such a positive reaction, and why The Last Jedi drowned the Internet in blood. Solo was doomed from the start because it told a story no one wanted to hear. It's the same reason the MCU can put out nearly 20 films and leave people still obsessively excited about the next one, while DC couldn't even maintain their own cinematic universe for three films before everyone wants it dead. Quality DOES matter. Entity13 posted... I sometimes think the Rocky movies are another example to this. Before V came out, how tired were people of the Rocky movies, regardless of how good they managed to be? This falls into the same category. The Rocky movies get progressively worse - and honestly, as much as I LOVE Rocky IV for being quintessentially 80s, it's terrible when you compare it to what Rocky originally was (see also, the difference between Rambo 1 and 2). People stopped caring about Rocky because the movies sucked. Then they came out with a couple new ones that were good again and people started caring again. Repetition doesn't kill interest, shit movies kill interest. Entity13 posted... ~~...We totally should have gotten a third Tron movie by now, though. It sucks that we didn't.~~ This is straight up Star Wars' fault. Disney execs literally said "We don't need that sci-fi franchise that sort of appeals to teen boys, we have Star Wars now". --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:921116027] in PotdMon: N... [t:77558720]...</cite> <quote><cite>Entity13 posted...</cite> <quote>Eh... I chalk DKR up to other factors. One is the loss of Heath Ledger, so they couldn't re-use the Joker as needed. Second was the need to over-stuff as many plot threads and nods as possible rather than telling a cohesive story to send off Nolan's Batman toward the rest of his career.</quote> Yeah, but even there, you're just proving my point. You don't NEED shove as many plot threads in or "send the main character off" unless you're making the arbitrary decision that the movie NEEDS to be an epic conclusion to a trilogy, rather than "just another installment in a serial story" or "the third in a series of relatively stand-alone movies". Thinking in narrative framework of epic storytelling (or three-act structure) is what creates the pressure to "end" everything, which generally contributes to the mess. <cite>Entity13 posted...</cite> <quote>Therein lies a difference between mediums, for one thing.</quote> True, but serialization isn't a new thing for cinema - if anything, serialized cinema predates comic books as we know them (but not comic strips as a whole), because Flash Gordon predated Superman by a couple years. Serialization mostly fell out of favor in cinema once it effectively moved to TV and became the conceptual "TV show", but film as a medium isn't inherently anathema to the narrative form. <cite>Entity13 posted...</cite> <quote>Star Wars of late is a great example of this, because the fatigue set in by the time "Solo" finally came out, and then people were too wary to truly appreciate the better half of Episode VIII. </quote> Star Wars doesn't really prove the point - if anything, it proves the opposite. They've been giving us terrible Star Wars movies for almost 20 years now, yet we STILL keep going to them. Maybe THIS will be the one where they figure things out! Maybe THIS is the one where it gets good again! As a collective, we WANT more Star Wars. The main reason why so many people are burned out on it is because they keep giving us BAD Star Wars. Repeatedly. Over and over. There's a reason why Rogue One got such a positive reaction, and why The Last Jedi drowned the Internet in blood. Solo was doomed from the start because it told a story no one wanted to hear. It's the same reason the MCU can put out nearly 20 films and leave people still obsessively excited about the next one, while DC couldn't even maintain their own cinematic universe for three films before everyone wants it dead. Quality DOES matter. <cite>Entity13 posted...</cite> <quote>I sometimes think the Rocky movies are another example to this. Before V came out, how tired were people of the Rocky movies, regardless of how good they managed to be?</quote> This falls into the same category. The Rocky movies get progressively worse - and honestly, as much as I LOVE Rocky IV for being quintessentially 80s, it's terrible when you compare it to what Rocky originally was (see also, the difference between Rambo 1 and 2). People stopped caring about Rocky because the movies sucked. Then they came out with a couple new ones that were good again and people started caring again. Repetition doesn't kill interest, shit movies kill interest. <cite>Entity13 posted...</cite> <quote>...We totally should have gotten a third Tron movie by now, though. It sucks that we didn't.</quote> This is straight up Star Wars' fault. Disney execs literally said "We don't need that sci-fi franchise that sort of appeals to teen boys, we have Star Wars now". --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1