 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/07/2012 07:55 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 7/25/2012 0:57, Invisible wrote:
>> Sure. But you can't just take somebody with no redeeming qualities and
>> say "he's the hero".
>
> You can if his redeeming trait is that he's fighting against the even
> more awful "legitimate" characters. Han Solo is a smuggler, a pirate, a
> card cheat, etc. But since he's giving the finger to Darth Vadar, we
> like him anyway.
Perhaps. But I'm not sure that's all.
For example, both Captain Sparrow and Captain Barbosa are pirates. They
both lie, cheat, steal, and generally look out only for themselves. And
yet, somehow Sparrow is the hero, and Barbosa isn't.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> For example, both Captain Sparrow and Captain Barbosa are pirates. They
> both lie, cheat, steal, and generally look out only for themselves. And
> yet, somehow Sparrow is the hero, and Barbosa isn't.
Who has the more charisma?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 24/07/2012 10:02 PM, nemesis wrote:
> > what good story is in Pirates of the Caribbean? Fun blockbuster? Sure! Makes
> > any sense? No.
>
> If you think the story doesn't /make sense/, you're clearly doing
> something very, very wrong.
says the dude who wouldn't figure out the narrative arc from monkeys to space in
A Space Odissey... -_-
Don't get me wrong, it does make sense as a sequence of banalities. It's just
non-sense by itself, specially irritating when actors act all serious and
dramatic spilling their irrelevant lines...
I'd say it's the most fun and expensive B movie(s) ever...
BTW, you guys do know it's based on the Disney attraction in their parks, right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 25/07/2012 07:55 PM, Darren New wrote:
> > On 7/25/2012 0:57, Invisible wrote:
> >> Sure. But you can't just take somebody with no redeeming qualities and
> >> say "he's the hero".
> >
> > You can if his redeeming trait is that he's fighting against the even
> > more awful "legitimate" characters. Han Solo is a smuggler, a pirate, a
> > card cheat, etc. But since he's giving the finger to Darth Vadar, we
> > like him anyway.
>
> Perhaps. But I'm not sure that's all.
>
> For example, both Captain Sparrow and Captain Barbosa are pirates. They
> both lie, cheat, steal, and generally look out only for themselves. And
> yet, somehow Sparrow is the hero, and Barbosa isn't.
Barbosa acts all serious and menacing. Sparrow is the unlucky and coward
bastard who somehow got hold of a ship, crew and a reputation as a pirate
legend. He's fun and we sympathise with him, not with Barbosa (or Davy Jones
for that matter). :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> If you think the story doesn't /make sense/, you're clearly doing
>> something very, very wrong.
>
> says the dude who wouldn't figure out the narrative arc from monkeys to space in
> A Space Odissey... -_-
2001 starts nowhere, goes nowhere, and ends up nowhere. It's almost
/literally/ a series of random shots with no connecting narrative at
all. (Except the middle part on the space station. /That/ almost makes
sense.)
> Don't get me wrong, it does make sense as a sequence of banalities.
It's one of my favourite films /ever/. So don't even /try/ to tell me
it's a bad film. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Jack Sparrow is an anti-heroical subversion of the classical swashbuckler
> archetype.
>
> In nostalgic/romantic storytelling, a swashbuckler has been traditionally
> a goody-goody merry adventurer, most often from the romantic period of
> 16th-17th century European baroque and the golden era of piracy (the three
> musqueteers being the quintessential example), although it can go much
> farther in the past (Robin Hood being another excellent example, whose
> stories are often dated to something like the 13th or 14th century)
This has always bothered me: How come the three musketeers are /never/
seen holding muskets? What is /that/ about??
Robin Hood is a set of tales which have morphed between many things over
the course of history. The "original" Robin Hood was quite different
from the fable we know today. It's changed with the times, depending on
what type of story audiences enjoy hearing. (I suppose the same can be
said of just about any really old story.)
> Unlike the typical swashbuckler, this is a *flawed* character. He commits
> crimes, he is selfish and does things for personal gain, not to help others
> (unless he is emotionally invested, eg. from a romantic perspective), yet
> he usually ends up being the unwitting hero of the story who defeats the
> actual villains.
>
> There's much more depth to this character, and the writers have a much richer
> variety of hijinks at their disposal for this character because he is not
> limited to the boundaries of what's good, ethical and lawful.
Sometimes a character starts out as an actual villain with an honest
streak - perhaps one he didn't even know he had - and by the end of the
story he changes sides.
But that's not what happens in this particular tale. In the beginning,
Jack is a pirate. At the end, he's still a pirate. And yet, we love him
for it.
It's not so much that he beat the Evil Authorities. Really, the Royal
Navy comes across as pretty righteous. And they aren't even IN the film
all that much. This is mostly a battle of Jack verses Barbosa. And Jack
wins. So, ultimately, it all comes back to which pirate is the good guy.
Another thing: I really /hate/ this idea that every character has to be
"flawed" in some way or the audience can't like them. Was Bambi a flawed
character? Did the audience like Bambi? Did little children cry when his
mother was shot? OK, now go watch Bambi II. (Yes, this film exists. No,
it isn't any good at all.) In order to make it "relevant" and
"accessible" to today's youth, they had to make it all so that Bambi's
father has difficulty relating to him, and that's the drama to be
resolved over the course of the film. Yuck!
While I'm here... It seems there are two types of villain too. Some of
them are just monsters. Purest evil. The kind that nobody could possibly
like. But it seems that all the /best/ villains are at least partially
likeable. Perhaps you understand what drove them to do it. Or maybe
they're just charismatic, even hypnotic. But the best ones all have
something about them...
...I really suck at writing, BTW.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> This has always bothered me: How come the three musketeers are /never/
> seen holding muskets? What is /that/ about??
>
The Musketeers were a militia serving the King. Athos, Portos and
Aramis were full-fledged members of that militia, and D'Artagnan was a
young kid from the country who was tired of fixing the water
condensators on his uncle's farm and wanted to join the Space Academy.
No wait! Wrong story!
The muskets - from which this militia gets its name - were kept at the
garrison. Just like today's military do not walk around with their
assault rifles all the time but.
> While I'm here... It seems there are two types of villain too. Some of
> them are just monsters. Purest evil. The kind that nobody could possibly
> like. But it seems that all the /best/ villains are at least partially
> likeable. Perhaps you understand what drove them to do it. Or maybe
> they're just charismatic, even hypnotic. But the best ones all have
> something about them...
Yep. Everyone thinks Darth Vader is cool. No one thinks that of Jabba
The Hut.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2012-07-26 03:26, Invisible wrote:
> Another thing: I really /hate/ this idea that every character has to be
> "flawed" in some way or the audience can't like them. Was Bambi a flawed
> character? Did the audience like Bambi? Did little children cry when his
> mother was shot?
...wait, what?
WAY TO SPOIL THE MOVIE, MAN.
:(
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26/07/2012 03:09 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
> On 2012-07-26 03:26, Invisible wrote:
>> Another thing: I really /hate/ this idea that every character has to be
>> "flawed" in some way or the audience can't like them. Was Bambi a flawed
>> character? Did the audience like Bambi? Did little children cry when his
>> mother was shot?
>
> ...wait, what?
>
> WAY TO SPOIL THE MOVIE, MAN.
>
> :(
Required bash quote: http://www.bash.org/?176169
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 26.07.2012 10:26, schrieb Invisible:
> Another thing: I really /hate/ this idea that every character has to be
> "flawed" in some way or the audience can't like them. Was Bambi a flawed
> character? Did the audience like Bambi? Did little children cry when his
> mother was shot?
/Who/ loved Bambi?
It was mostly children, wasn't it? Children don't need flawed
characters to love them.
Adults, OTOH, typically have learned that apparently flawless people are
actually just hiding their flaws, and that you have to be careful about
befriending such types.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
