Yeah, see, the SOTRY of it doesn't do much for me. It's fine and all, I just don't see how it's the greatest SOTRY of all time.

Now the STORY, on the other hand, I will grant you, is pretty great.

Also, as for doing the big classics like that as commentaries, I'm of a dual mind about it.

On the one hand, as Trey says, if it gets you youngin's to watch a movie you should watch that you might not have otherwise watched, then score.

On the other hand, I would be hesitant to do a commentary about a movie that has already been subject to exhaustive discussion and analysis. If we're going to talk about a movie, I'd like to think we could say something new about it, and I doubt that's possible with some of the giants of the cinema Hall of Fame.

Oh hi, high school and college. It's been awhile.

How's the whole trying really hard thing?

Oh yeah?

Don't worry, I'm sure it'll work eventually.

We got Rico!

I'm rather proud of that.

When I was referring to "real" earlier, I was speaking in the suspension of disbelief sense, not the visual sense, that you believe these are real people going through a real emotional experience. As opposed to funny characters standing on a stage to make you laugh. The more they act like funny characters on a stage, the less you will believe they could be real people going through a real experience and thus, the less you'll empathize with what they're going through.

Like everything else, it's a balance. You can have slapstick moments in an otherwise affecting story. It's just a matter of how much you put on each side of the scale. If it's nothing but slapstick all the time, then you won't genuinely affect your audience. And the more slapstick there is, the more your audience will be subconsciously clued, "This isn't real, it's just a show."

Don't forget Perfect Dark. Goldeneye clone it may have been, but it was a Goldeneye clone set in the FUTURE.

You have now permanently put me on Dorkman's side. For everything, about everything.

So...uh, how about that new Star Trek movie, fellas?

No way is this more polarizing than JJ Trek.

If I had to give it a number, i'd say 4.5 to 5.

I've been taught that the actual definition of protagonist is the prime mover of the events of the story. In my screenwriting class, my teacher used Noah Cross in Chinatown as an example, Gittes may be the main character, but it's Cross that's causing the story to happen, even though he's a supporting character compared to Gittes in terms of screen time.

Shrug

Take it for what you will.

Not necessarily, it's just not straightforward storytelling. Which is much harder to do well, but is not automatically bad storytelling.

And I meant protagonist. I suppose you could consider this a pointless semantic argument, but the definition of the protagonist is the prime mover of the events of the story. Since it's Ozzy's plan and he's the one causing these events, he's more of the protagonist, while Night Owl and Rorschach (and the others) are his antagonists.

Kind of. I think if you asked Ozzy, he would say he was making a genuine self sacrifice. Taking on the heavy burden of being responsible for so much evil in an effort to accomplish even more good.

Well, presumably Ozzy had some way of propagating his own version of events, namely that Doc was "warning" humanity and that we better shape up. Given Ozzy's mastery of the media, it's hardly a stretch to think he could influence public opinion that way.