 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
An unusually positive review of the movie:
http://thecinemasnob.com/2009/12/19/avatar-review.aspx
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Captain Jack <Cap### [at] comcast net> wrote:
> In acting classes that I have attended as well as taught, we talk about "two
> dimensional characters", "cardboard cutouts", and "characters with no
> depth", all referring to the same thing.
Btw, was the original expression "two-dimensional character" (meaning a
character with no depth), after which some people started using an
exaggerated version of the expression, "one-dimensional character" in
their desire to say "a really, really flat character", and after years
of using that, it has basically replaced the original expression and thus
everybody nowadays says "one-dimensional character" when they really mean
what "two-dimensional character" meant originally?
Do I understand correctly that when a character in a story exists basically
for one single purpose (eg. to be a jerk, a greedy executive, a naive
Mary Sue, or such) with no other personality traits or history, and when
this character maintains the role in its purest form throughout the entire
story, it's usually a bad case of two-dimensionality?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> You've done this in a couple of recent posts, which is why I mentioned
> it.
The The Matrix reference was a joke, mind you.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/22/10 12:41, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> And if they hadn't made the characters so one dimensional, then I'd
>> have liked the movie more.
>
> Btw, I have always wondered exactly what is it meant by "one dimensional
> character". I assume it's something related to character development,
> but maybe concrete examples of "one-dimensional" characters and
> "non-one-dimensional" characters in some movies (and why they are
> considered such) could help understanding better.
One dimensional typically means that they're very simple.
My use of the phrase is probably problematic/invalid. By 1-D, I meant
so strongly stereotyped. People like the jealous friend, military
commander, the corporate guy were all fairly simple characters, some of
whom were taken to silly extremes. The romance was also fairly
stereotyped, as was the response of the natives to the main character, etc.
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:02:27 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> You've done this in a couple of recent posts, which is why I mentioned
>> it.
>
> The The Matrix reference was a joke, mind you.
Well, I suspected it was. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Captain Jack wrote:
> I've always been a big fan of the "seven basic plots" idea.
Which of those would The Dark Knight fall under, I wonder.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:19:07 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Captain Jack wrote:
>> I've always been a big fan of the "seven basic plots" idea.
>
> Which of those would The Dark Knight fall under, I wonder.
That would be "Overcoming the monster".
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Captain Jack <Cap### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
>> In acting classes that I have attended as well as taught, we talk about "two
>> dimensional characters", "cardboard cutouts", and "characters with no
>> depth", all referring to the same thing.
>
> Btw, was the original expression "two-dimensional character" (meaning a
> character with no depth), after which some people started using an
> exaggerated version of the expression, "one-dimensional character" in
> their desire to say "a really, really flat character", and after years
> of using that, it has basically replaced the original expression and thus
> everybody nowadays says "one-dimensional character" when they really mean
> what "two-dimensional character" meant originally?
>
That is probably it, yeah. Though extending the metaphor in that way
does yield some useful ideas.
That the character lacks all dimensionality except as a single thrust,
or file. Hints at the
possibility of a no-dimensional character, a single point, useful as a
reference, a position, and that is all.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:19:07 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Captain Jack wrote:
>>> I've always been a big fan of the "seven basic plots" idea.
>>
>> Which of those would The Dark Knight fall under, I wonder.
>
> That would be "Overcoming the monster".
I disagree that covers it. If it does, then the categories are so broad as
to be meaningless. When your seven plots are "funny", "sad", "conflict",
"romance", ..., I think the analysis is pointless. It's like saying "All
programs fall into only a few categories: GUI, CLI, Server, ..." It tells
you nothing useful about the program itself.
Which one is the monster? The city? The mob? The joker? Two-face? Crane?
Batman's own fear?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > That would be "Overcoming the monster".
> I disagree that covers it.
Movies rarely fall into one single category.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
