Re: Spider-Man 2

Brian Finifter wrote:

Right, the real heart of believability is human behavior. Do the characters behave in such a way that feels true?

And that's why I'm ok with Spider Man 2.  Toby and Kirsten aren't my first choices for the characters, by any stretch.  As written, there aren't great explanations for his choices, but at the end of the day, they perform well enough to where I believe his longing for her and her complete exasperation/infatuation with him.  The details don't always add up, and as such this film will never be in heavy rotation for me, but I liked in the theaters, and I liked it in a subsequent viewing. 

Same with Inception.  There was probably easier ways for Leo to see his kids, but I totally bought his desperation to see them.  So when the opportunity came for an elaborate plot to see them again, I was along for the ride.  It's not a perfect movie for it, but I had fun.

Eddie Doty

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Spider-Man 2

Twig24 wrote:

Batman = lotr

Wait, what?

Eddie Doty

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Spider-Man 2

Brian Finifter wrote:

Right, the real heart of believability is human behavior. Do the characters behave in such a way that feels true?

The perfect comparison is the original and prequel Star Wars trilogies. Exact same fantastical settings and one grips you while the other bludgeons you.

You can get away with a lot if your characters act like human beings (even if their elves or mutants or aliens).

I agree and I think the characters in spiderman 2 are as on point as other very successful movies such as Indiana Jones, Who framed roger rabbit?, the princess bride or back to the future.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Spider-Man 2

Back to the Future is sci-fi, pure and simple. It has time travel.

Last edited by Jimmy B (2011-01-25 23:37:29)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Spider-Man 2

Shifty Bench wrote:

Back to the Future is sci-fi, pure and simple. It has time travel.

Im not really talking about genre im really talking about the reality of the characters actions and responses in the film.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Spider-Man 2

Oh, so you've stopped claiming that every sci-fi film is fantasy? Sorry, my bad.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Spider-Man 2

Astroninja Studios wrote:
Twig24 wrote:

Batman = lotr

Wait, what?

if spider man is = the princess bride ( a simple emotionally narrow fantasy tale)

Then The dark Knight is = Lord of the rings ( a very complex layered fantasy film)

Im just saying both styles of film making can work and not every film needs to be one or the other.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Spider-Man 2

Shifty Bench wrote:

Oh, so you've stopped claiming that every sci-fi film is fantasy? Sorry, my bad.

that was pretty much my first post saying that the characters act like characters from a fantasy/ fairytale world.

I was just trying to come up with a definition for fantasy (I repeated this in both posts) and never tried to claim all scifi is fantasy.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Spider-Man 2

The Dark Knight isn't really fantasy either. Not like, say, Batman and Robin may be.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

60

Re: Spider-Man 2

Brian Finifter wrote:

Right, the real heart of believability is human behavior. Do the characters behave in such a way that feels true?

I explain this to people as the difference between plot-driven and character-driven stories.

Brian Finifter wrote:

The perfect comparison is the original and prequel Star Wars trilogies. Exact same fantastical settings and one grips you while the other bludgeons you.

My favourite comparison is Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan versus Star Trek: Nemesis: the former has a story pushed along by clearly-defined characters each doing their best in the immediate circumstances in pursuit of larger goals; the latter has muddled ciphers tramlining through a cocktastically insulting plot that was desperately cookie-cuttered from Wrath of Khan itself.

Re: Spider-Man 2

AstroNinjaStudios wrote:

And that's why I'm ok with Spider Man 2.

And that's the simple unresolvable difference between us. You believe it, I don't. I don't generally consider myself to be the kind of person so married to my own point of view that I can't even conceive of someone else's, but in this case, I'm afraid I really just can't fucking imagine how anybody could believe a single, solitary moment of this godforsaken piece of shit.

fcw wrote:

I explain this to people as the difference between plot-driven and character-driven stories.

That's a false distinction I think. If your characters are properly crafted, they will create the plot that you want. "Plot driven" is just a nice way of saying what happens in the movie happens because the filmmaker wants it to happen, as opposed to crafting the characters that would create those events organically.

62

Re: Spider-Man 2

Brian Finifter wrote:
fcw wrote:

I explain this to people as the difference between plot-driven and character-driven stories.

That's a false distinction I think. If your characters are properly crafted, they will create the plot that you want. "Plot driven" is just a nice way of saying what happens in the movie happens because the filmmaker wants it to happen, as opposed to crafting the characters that would create those events organically.

Yeah, by plot-driven, I mean that the character's decisions are not flowing from who they are, what they believe and what they need right now, but apparently arbitrarily, according to what the next scene in the story requires them to have done by then. Sure, the writer will probably have had a plot in mind when crafting the characters, but it has to seem like the characters are in charge of their own destinies for it to be character-driven to me.

My experience of analyzing stories is that, written well, characters pull every compelling story along, and the plot only becomes apparent when you back at the tracks they left. Whereas, those stories that fail have the bones of the plot sticking out like ribs on a supermodel. I can't think of a movie, off-hand, whose story could be fairly described both ways.

Re: Spider-Man 2

fcw wrote:

Yeah, by plot-driven, I mean that the character's decisions are not flowing from who they are, what they believe and what they need right now, but apparently arbitrarily, according to what the next scene in the story requires them to have done by then. Sure, the writer will probably have had a plot in mind when crafting the characters, but it has to seem like the characters are in charge of their own destinies for it to be character-driven to me.

Right, totally. My only contention is that plot versus character driven are not so much two equally valid sides of the same coin as one is diligent storytelling and the other is lazy storytelling.

Re: Spider-Man 2

I don't think he was saying they were equally valid in the first place.

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

65

Re: Spider-Man 2

Brian Finifter wrote:

Right, totally. My only contention is that plot versus character driven are not so much two equally valid sides of the same coin as one is diligent storytelling and the other is lazy storytelling.

Oh, I agree. I think of plot-driven as an insult, and character-driven as how you're supposed to do it; I didn't mean to suggest they're equally good.

Re: Spider-Man 2

Yeah, I think we're on the same page, I'm just asserting my opinion to make sure everyone knows how big my dick is.


8===============>

Where 1 "=" = your penis

Re: Spider-Man 2

Brian Finifter wrote:

8===============>

*Actual size

big_smile

Thumbs up Thumbs down

68

Re: Spider-Man 2

Brian Finifter wrote:

Yeah, I think we're on the same page, I'm just asserting my opinion to make sure everyone knows how big my dick is.


8===============>

Where 1 "=" = your penis

Your dick is plot-driven.

Re: Spider-Man 2

And your mom's hole is driven by dick.

Plot...hole...none of this worked.

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Spider-Man 2

Brian Finifter wrote:

I don't generally consider myself to be the kind of person so married to my own point of view that I can't even conceive of someone else's, but in this case, I'm afraid I really just can't fucking imagine how anybody could believe a single, solitary moment of this godforsaken piece of shit.

You generally don't consider yourself to be that type of person, all the way up until the moment you totally are.

There are tons of relationships in, oh say, TNG that absolutely don't work for me, that might work for you.  I recognize that this ultimately boils down to preference as opposed to some mythical litmus test that definitively distills good from bad. 

Again, I barely have a dog in this fight.  Spider Man 2 is not going to be the film I go down swinging for.  But it's worth recognizing your hate for this movie has become self aware and spawned an engine of perpetual motion that cannot be dissuaded from its supposition of this movie sucking, irrespective of wether or not the performance of two actors simply "works," for someone else or not.

p.s. For the record, every time Tasha Yar and Data's "love affair," got referenced as evidence of Data being more than machine, I wanted to knock the books out of Star Trek's hands and pants it in front of the entire gym class.

Eddie Doty

Thumbs up Thumbs down

71

Re: Spider-Man 2

Down in Front wrote:

And your mom's hole is driven by dick.

Plot...hole...none of this worked.

And that's why writers get the big bucks.

Re: Spider-Man 2

Astroninja Studios wrote:

You generally don't consider yourself to be that type of person, all the way up until the moment you totally are.

Yes, that's why I used the word "generally."

73

Re: Spider-Man 2

Astroninja Studios wrote:

There are tons of relationships in, oh say, TNG that absolutely don't work for me, that might work for you.

For some reason, I'm thinking of Deanna and Worf as a couple.

Astroninja Studios wrote:

But it's worth recognizing your hate for this movie has become self aware and spawned an engine of perpetual motion that cannot be dissuaded from its supposition of this movie sucking, irrespective of wether or not the performance of two actors simply "works," for someone else or not.

I have a friend who really likes Star Trek: Nemesis. I think it's an object lesson in bad story-telling, and I was once tempted to rigorously prove to them, with diagrams and everything, just why they were objectively wrong to like it. But I didn't, because I figured they were as entitled to enjoy it as I was to rigorously prove its suckiness.

Re: Spider-Man 2

People are not entitled to be wrong.

[serious face!]

Re: Spider-Man 2

Brian Finifter wrote:

Yes, that's why I used the word "generally."

No, I saw that.  It was very deft.  Here, I'll give it a try.

"I generally don't consider myself to have an infallible position on movies, nor do I generally bifurcate audiences into those who get it, and fucking morons who shouldn't be allowed to see movies, let alone enjoy them.  But in this case I'm going to be."

You're right!  Through the use of the word "generally," I was able to fortify my position of irrational hate AND insulate myself from perceptions of snobbery.  Thanks, generally!

Generally.  Coming to a sentence near you.

Eddie Doty

Thumbs up Thumbs down