PSNOT 2.0 - I kind of want to subscribe to IndieBox.

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is all heading in a familiar direction, guys. Probably best to just go ahead and stop now as to not continue to clutter the thread with pointless argument. I've got to work on avoiding this crap more.

 
Zimm108 said:
So what I'm understanding, by your rationale, any movie/show that isn't completely focused on developing the characters is complete & utter shit? So something like The Matrix, which was focused on action and innovative new special effects technology instead of the characters, was no good to you?
Click to expand...
Nope. Read my later post. The problem is they did a bad job with the movies, not what kind of movie they were making. There are plenty of really great, fun action movies. Hell, the last few Fast and Furious movies have been great to watch. Those are almost entirely flash and action. There's not really any attempt at character development or internal conflict, which is absolutely fine. The problem is when a movie tries to introduce elements and then doesn't handle them properly.

Though I will say that the end of The Matrix pissed me off. Nothing about Neo being "The One" said his Matrix abilities were supposed to transfer over into the real world. When he died in the real world he should have stayed dead. Trinity could have hit him in the chest or used a defibrillator or something to bridge that gap, but that didn't happen, so that didn't work for me at all.

 
ProfessorStotch said:
You guys want to see something hilarious? This is an actual spoiler for SOA, so don't click if you're bothered by them.

Ld3BUZO.png

What a bitch that chick is. I planned to watch that show someday too.
Click to expand...
I don't think
the main character of the series dying in the final episode of the series
should be considered a spoiler since it happens in just about every show ever.

 
uglypete said:
I love when white people tell me racism and police discrimination don't exist.
Click to expand...
It doesnt.

When 15% of the population is doing 50 percent of the violent crime, yea there's going to be some skewed numbers when it comes to police interactions with a certain segment of the population.

But lets keep the focus on the negative interactions that this segment has with the police instead of the real reason why this segment commits half the violent crimes, which is the deteroriation of the family unit in this segment of the population.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Backlog_Overload said:
Speaking of TV, this chick sitting beside me at work just asked a co-worker to spoil the Sons of Anarchy finale. I was like no, don't do that. I want to watch it eventually. According to her, spoilers shouldn't bother you at all and she actually asks for them. What the heck is wrong with people?
Click to expand...
There was a study that said although they say they hate spoilers, people actually are more interested in shows after they hear them or something.
 
jimbo8574 said:
I generally like some story to go with the Special effects. Not sure why they can't include a story in a big production blockbuster to go along with the latest and greatest special effects.
Click to expand...

Thermopyle said:
Nope. Read my later post. The problem is they did a bad job with the movies, not what kind of movie they were making. There are plenty of really great, fun action movies. Hell, the last few Fast and Furious movies have been great to watch. Those are almost entirely flash and action. There's not really any attempt at character development or internal conflict, which is absolutely fine. The problem is when a movie tries to introduce elements and then doesn't handle them properly.

Though I will say that the end of The Matrix pissed me off. Nothing about Neo being "The One" said his Matrix abilities were supposed to transfer over into the real world. When he died in the real world he should have stayed dead. Trinity could have hit him in the chest or used a defibrillator or something to bridge that gap, but that didn't happen, so that didn't work for me at all.
Click to expand...
I agree that I would enjoy at least a semblance of a story in my big action movies. But my point was that Therm is almost always so narrowly focused on characters developing and characterization that it obscures his view of the movie if it attempts to do anything besides that. You always mention say "they started to do the character stuff but then went to do some action stuff so it was just unfocused and not good." Movies only have so much time to do everything. Sometimes you have to accept that a character isn't going to be completely backstoried out and developed. Just because a movie dabbles in its characters for a piece and doesn't come back doesn't mean the movie is crap. If i could be on wether or not you liked any random movie pulled out of the air, I would be a rich rich man.

And with that....I'm out of this debate.

 
Nice. Glad I don't care about the intricacies of super hero movies. Or maybe u guys are happy about that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So far I've been able to dodge SoA spoilers here luckily.  As soon as I see it mentioned I scroll on.  I'm only on Season 5 so the potential for spoilers is huge.

 
The first Thor was fine, it was funny.  Almost all the Marvel movies are good.  For popcorn movies, you guys sure take them seriously.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
kilik64 said:
It doesnt.

When 15% of the population is doing 50 percent of the violent crime, yea there's going to be some skewed numbers when it comes to police interactions with a certain segment of the population.

But lets keep the focus on the negative interactions that this segment has with the police instead of the real reason why this segment commits half the violent crimes, which is the deteroriation of the family unit in this segment of the population.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your input, Mr. O'Reilly.
 
I've said this before, but I have no problem with spoilers. I can understand why they bother people though, so I'm not going to be a dick and since I have no issue with them, that means I'll ruin it for others. For me, it doesn't matter if I know how something ends up, because I still have to see how it got to that point.
 
uglypete said:
I love when white people tell me racism and police discrimination don't exist.
Click to expand...
I love it when white people bait other white people into discussing race so that they can act like they are the more enlightened, super empathetic white person who totally understands the plight of minorities.

 
I remember stotch spoiling the ending to the last of us in the old thread.  I was mildly annoyed but was all 'oh well, it's been out for a while and it sounds like the ending is pretty dumb anyways so no big deal'.  I finally finish the game a year later and I get through the end sequence and the credits and I realize that his unspoilered spoiler was total horseshit.  kudos, stotch.

 
I love it that people "spoil" shit on twitter and facebook.  I love the fact that so many people use these social media sites to either spy on their "friends" and family or just show off because "look at the cool (but really dumb) shit I did today!"  Then those same people want to complain about spoilers from their supposed "friends".

It really isnt hard to not read a spoiler either.  We all know people are just fuck tards that want to complain. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
pharmacrest said:
I love it that people "spoil" shit on twitter and facebook. I love the fact that so many people use these social media sites to either spy on their "friends" and family or just show off because "look at the cool (but really dumb) shit I did today!" Then those same people want to complain about spoilers from their supposed "friends".

It really isnt hard to not read a spoiler either. We all know people are just fuck tards that want to complain.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's not hard to read a spoiler if you take five minutes to read a sentence.
 
uglypete said:
Maybe it's not hard to read a spoiler if you take five minutes to read a sentence.
Click to expand...
I wasnt responding to anything in particular so I am not sure if you are referencing anything specific, but if you are not and your stating I just read slow.

You would be correct!

Touche?!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Zimm108 said:
I agree that I would enjoy at least a semblance of a story in my big action movies. But my point was that Therm is almost always so narrowly focused on characters developing and characterization that it obscures his view of the movie if it attempts to do anything besides that. You always mention say "they started to do the character stuff but then went to do some action stuff so it was just unfocused and not good." Movies only have so much time to do everything. Sometimes you have to accept that a character isn't going to be completely backstoried out and developed. Just because a movie dabbles in its characters for a piece and doesn't come back doesn't mean the movie is crap. If i could be on wether or not you liked any random movie pulled out of the air, I would be a rich rich man.

And with that....I'm out of this debate.
Click to expand...
You're misreading character development as characterization. They're two very different things. Character development is when a character has an internal problem, usually brought about by external stimuli, and they need to figure out how to deal with the issue. In the first CA movie, for example, CA had a big heart and lots of bravery. He wants to fight for his country and to fight against the Nazis, but he doesn't have a body to match. The first chunk of the story was about him trying to figure out how to overcome his physical limitations. This was an opportunity for him to develop some skill or ability to work around his physical issues. He could have become a spy, or a scientist, or a doctor, or helped with the war efforts in any number of ways. Unfortunately the problem of his physical limitations was resolved for him...which completely sidesteps any attempt to develop him as a character. There's no mental growth, no acceptance of what he's able to do and a decision to change his goals to fit what he can accomplish. This is an example of what I mean by saying that they made an attempt at character development and then threw it out the window. An easy counter-example is Iron Man 3; Tony loses his Iron Man suits and has to fend for himself. The movie is very much about his self-identification and uses the same physical limitation CA had to a very different effect.

You can't just "dabble" in character development. Bringing up a character conflict and then leaving it hanging is no different from having a murder mystery where you never find out who the killer is. Examples would be if Scrooge continued to be a greedy man through the end of A Christmas Carol, if Elsa never left her room in Frozen because she was scared of hurting people, if John Wick took his dog being murdered and car stolen and just remained miserable instead of going out for revenge, if Daniel never learned to defend himself via the glorious art of car waxing, etc.. Internal conflicts are very often the driving force behind a movie's progression and resolution.

Characterization is a different issue entirely. It's perfectly fine to have characters with no internal conflict. Something is happening around them and they're dealing with the situation. The Fast & Furious movies don't really have internal conflict past the first movie, and the last few have been great amounts of fun. The Bourne movies are really good about action and (aside from the "Who am I?" element in the first) also don't really do internal conflict. You don't see even the slightest bit of change in Jason Bourne's character from beginning to end. To reference the above movies, you also don't see the shitty prince in Frozen develop, nor does Mr. Miyagi. They're supporting characters and they provide a function to let the main character develop, but they don't need or have a fully-developed backstory.

Anyway...yes, it's an issue when a character has a problem that doesn't get resolved. A character doesn't have to have a problem, but any problems that are brought up need to be properly addressed.

 
Thermopyle said:
You're misreading character development as characterization. They're two very different things. Character development is when a character has an internal problem, usually brought about by external stimuli, and they need to figure out how to deal with the issue. In the first CA movie, for example, CA had a big heart and lots of bravery. He wants to fight for his country and to fight against the Nazis, but he doesn't have a body to match. The first chunk of the story was about him trying to figure out how to overcome his physical limitations. This was an opportunity for him to develop some skill or ability to work around his physical issues. He could have become a spy, or a scientist, or a doctor, or helped with the war efforts in any number of ways. Unfortunately the problem of his physical limitations was resolved for him...which completely sidesteps any attempt to develop him as a character. There's no mental growth, no acceptance of what he's able to do and a decision to change his goals to fit what he can accomplish. This is an example of what I mean by saying that they made an attempt at character development and then threw it out the window. An easy counter-example is Iron Man 3; Tony loses his Iron Man suits and has to fend for himself. The movie is very much about his self-identification and uses the same physical limitation CA had to a very different effect.

You can't just "dabble" in character development. Bringing up a character conflict and then leaving it hanging is no different from having a murder mystery where you never find out who the killer is. Examples would be if Scrooge continued to be a greedy man through the end of A Christmas Carol, if Elsa never left her room in Frozen because she was scared of hurting people, if John Wick took his dog being murdered and car stolen and just remained miserable instead of going out for revenge, if Daniel never learned to defend himself via the glorious art of car waxing, etc.. Internal conflicts are very often the driving force behind a movie's progression and resolution.

Characterization is a different issue entirely. It's perfectly fine to have characters with no internal conflict. Something is happening around them and they're dealing with the situation. The Fast & Furious movies don't really have internal conflict past the first movie, and the last few have been great amounts of fun. The Bourne movies are really good about action and (aside from the "Who am I?" element in the first) also don't really do internal conflict. You don't see even the slightest bit of change in Jason Bourne's character from beginning to end. To reference the above movies, you also don't see the shitty prince in Frozen develop, nor does Mr. Miyagi. They're supporting characters and they provide a function to let the main character develop, but they don't need or have a fully-developed backstory.

Anyway...yes, it's an issue when a character has a problem that doesn't get resolved. A character doesn't have to have a problem, but any problems that are brought up need to be properly addressed.
Click to expand...
This is objectively a long ass post that no one will read.
 
Rocksmith 2014 is still $40 on amazon in case anyone's interested. Apparently there's a free jimi hendrix dlc pack coming on 12/16 also work 12 songs? So, neat.
 
uglypete said:
This is objectively a long ass post that no one will read.
Click to expand...
Thankfully we dont have to read it. It may have taken me five minutes, but as soon as I read "character development" in the first sentence of his post I stopped reading. We all know what Therm will say about that at this point.

 
Thermopyle said:
You're misreading character development as characterization. They're two very different things. Character development is when a character has an internal problem, usually brought about by external stimuli, and they need to figure out how to deal with the issue. In the first CA movie, for example, CA had a big heart and lots of bravery. He wants to fight for his country and to fight against the Nazis, but he doesn't have a body to match. The first chunk of the story was about him trying to figure out how to overcome his physical limitations. This was an opportunity for him to develop some skill or ability to work around his physical issues. He could have become a spy, or a scientist, or a doctor, or helped with the war efforts in any number of ways. Unfortunately the problem of his physical limitations was resolved for him...which completely sidesteps any attempt to develop him as a character. There's no mental growth, no acceptance of what he's able to do and a decision to change his goals to fit what he can accomplish. This is an example of what I mean by saying that they made an attempt at character development and then threw it out the window. An easy counter-example is Iron Man 3; Tony loses his Iron Man suits and has to fend for himself. The movie is very much about his self-identification and uses the same physical limitation CA had to a very different effect.
Click to expand...
....but that's the Captain America story. Scrawny dude becomes super soldier. I don't understand how you can go into a Captain America movie and be upset that this weakling with big ambitions doesn't become a spy or scientist. I mean. Really? The whole point of him existing is super soldier serum comic book shit.

And I hate getting all in depth on these movies. They are meant to be fun popcorn flicks and if you are tearing them apart this much you should maybe just stop watching them. I know I said I was done but dum statements bring me back

 
MildObstruction said:
fuck didn't mean to talk about games and game related deals, sorry dudes.
Click to expand...
Asshole. It isnt even a good deal by CAG standards. If your going to post deals here they need to be games that are under $3 or a "deal" where you go buy 6 sets of games in specific order then return or trade in half of them in another specific order. Oh and make sure to get your price match as wel!!

 
pharmacrest said:
Learn how to spell "dumb". Dummy.
Click to expand...
Can I just look it up online? Or is that just an easy side-step to developing any of my inner character and I should just accept my spelling limitations by striving to get better by studying the history of the english language and becoming a professor of reading & writing at Pretentious University?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's totally unfair to hold comic book movies to any sort of cinematic standards since the source material is so ridiculous.

I mean I do love comics, but have you read these things? They're crazy!
 
What the fuck did I miss? They're super hero movies people. We're really going to argue about super hero movies? Can we argue about the character development in fuck ing Frozen next?

 
I used to read comic books all the time back in the image/top cow/onslaught days. That's how I can relate with today's videogames. I started up infamous second son and I was like, ok so this is a dude version of Rogue. There ya go

 
Castlevania LoS2 update: 

Had another "stealth" section last night against a boss.  It was retarded.  I kept dying only to pass it on my 4th or 5th attempt because he stopped moving and I was able to just walk around to the goal or whatever.  Such a waste of time. 

The combat in the game is still fun but holy shit there are too many of these dumb stealth sections that serve 0 purpose other than to slow the game down. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top