 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 22.12.2013 16:55, schrieb Stephen:
> On 22/12/2013 9:08 AM, Warp wrote:
>> In comics the bad guy basically never dies. It makes sense: The heros
>> are not murderers.
>>
>> In movies, however, the bad guy basically always dies.
>
> So at the very best, you know the ending as soon as you know who the bad
> guy is.
... which usually isn't very hard to tell either.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/12/2013 4:19 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 22/12/2013 03:55 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 22/12/2013 9:08 AM, Warp wrote:
>>> In comics the bad guy basically never dies. It makes sense: The heros
>>> are not murderers.
>>>
>>> In movies, however, the bad guy basically always dies.
>>
>> So at the very best, you know the ending as soon as you know who the bad
>> guy is.
>
> Unless it's Megamind, in which case the bad guy BECOMES the good guy
> after the good guy resigns and the bad guy creates a badder guy who
> tries to destroy the city and then they do a laser show to Welcome To
> The Jungle and have an epic battle that ends in OLLO...
>
> ....wait, that didn't make any sense, did it?
It makes perfect sense.
The good guy wins.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/12/2013 4:19 PM, clipka wrote:
>> So at the very best, you know the ending as soon as you know who the bad
>> guy is.
>
> ... which usually isn't very hard to tell either.
Indeed and he often has, what passes for, an English accent, too.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Orchid Win7 v1
Subject: Re: One of the greatest mysteries of screenwriting
Date: 22 Dec 2013 12:25:28
Message: <52b72088$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> So at the very best, you know the ending as soon as you know who the bad
>>> guy is.
>>
>> Unless it's Megamind, in which case the bad guy BECOMES the good guy
>> after the good guy resigns and the bad guy creates a badder guy who
>> tries to destroy the city and then they do a laser show to Welcome To
>> The Jungle and have an epic battle that ends in OLLO...
>>
>> ....wait, that didn't make any sense, did it?
>
> It makes perfect sense.
> The good guy wins.
Or rather, the bad guy BECOMES the good guy, and then wins.
And absolutely nobody dies. Although the fish nearly ended up sleeping
with the fishes... wait, what?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/12/2013 5:25 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>
>>> ....wait, that didn't make any sense, did it?
>>
>> It makes perfect sense.
>> The good guy wins.
>
> Or rather, the bad guy BECOMES the good guy, and then wins.
And the good guy wins.
Moral, the good guy wins.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: One of the greatest mysteries of screenwriting
Date: 22 Dec 2013 14:31:52
Message: <52b73e28@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 08:54:25 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> Generally speaking, I agree but it is tiring that the good guys always
> win and the black hats always lose.
That's one thing I really look for when I'm looking for a good film or TV
series - ambiguity in who the good guys and the bad guys are.
I really liked the remade Battlestar Galactica for this reason - I mean,
the clarity in the start between the "good" and "bad" guys was clear, but
as the programme progressed, you saw that it wasn't really as clear cut.
Breaking Bad was similar, in that there really weren't /any/ good guys at
all - all the characters were flawed to some extent.
But writers and producers seem less willing these days to write stories
that have such ambiguity in them. Well, let's face it - these days,
we're lucky to get anything that's actually a well thought-out story.
It's more likely to be some "reality TV" garbage that's cheap to produce
and makes shedloads of money from advertisers. Heck, the "Sci Fi"
channel (now sickeningly called "SyFy") is mostly *Wrestling* shows. WTF?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Orchid Win7 v1
Subject: Re: One of the greatest mysteries of screenwriting
Date: 22 Dec 2013 14:35:31
Message: <52b73f03$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> That's one thing I really look for when I'm looking for a good film or TV
> series - ambiguity in who the good guys and the bad guys are.
One of the things I look for is WHY is this guy evil?
Let's face it, how many actual humans set out to do something "because
it's evil"? Mostly people set out to do things because they think it's
necessary, or because they don't see what trouble it will cause, or
whatever. Most people don't wake up and think "what's the most evil
thing I could possibly do today?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: One of the greatest mysteries of screenwriting
Date: 22 Dec 2013 14:37:17
Message: <52b73f6d$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 04:08:53 -0500, Warp wrote:
> In comics the bad guy basically never dies. It makes sense: The heros
> are not murderers.
[Spoiler warning: If you haven't watched Man of Steel and don't want to
know how it ends, don't read any further]
That was one of the things about Man of Steel that was disappointing.
Overall, I thought it was a good reimagining of the Superman / General Zod
story, but Superman basically was completely unaware of the scale of his
destruction both in Smallville and in Metropolis.
Which I can accept to a point - he was still figuring out who he was and
what he stood for in that version of the story. But he didn't find a way
to let Zod live.
As an American hero, Superman is supposed to represent the so-called
"American Exceptionalism" - but in this particular telling, the bar for
such exceptionalism has been lowered, rather than holding it to a high
standard with the character. So while I actually really liked the way
the story was told, with a focus on Clark's difficulties as a child, and
perhaps the violence of his defense of the planet being the product of 30
+ years of bottled-up-rage that he could never let out because if he did,
bad things would happen to his target - that was one part that was
disappointing.
But at the same time, it introduces some of that moral ambiguity, too,
which I like.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: One of the greatest mysteries of screenwriting
Date: 22 Dec 2013 16:22:38
Message: <52b7581e$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:35:31 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> That's one thing I really look for when I'm looking for a good film or
>> TV series - ambiguity in who the good guys and the bad guys are.
>
> One of the things I look for is WHY is this guy evil?
That's a good thing to look for. It's also interesting to listen to
actors talk about playing the "bad guy" - most of the time, what they're
looking for before they inhabit the role is the character's motivation -
and usually it's because they think it's the right thing to do.
> Let's face it, how many actual humans set out to do something "because
> it's evil"? Mostly people set out to do things because they think it's
> necessary, or because they don't see what trouble it will cause, or
> whatever. Most people don't wake up and think "what's the most evil
> thing I could possibly do today?"
That's one of the complexities of Zod in Man of Steel that was
interesting - he really thought he was doing the right thing, in order to
save the people of Krypton. That he was going to do it by wiping out
humanity was incidental to him, because it was about the survival of
*his* race.
That does make for an interesting story.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/12/2013 7:31 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 08:54:25 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Generally speaking, I agree but it is tiring that the good guys always
>> win and the black hats always lose.
>
> That's one thing I really look for when I'm looking for a good film or TV
> series - ambiguity in who the good guys and the bad guys are.
>
I've given up going to the movies and watching them on TV.
I've just watched a play about Kenneth Williams. A very troubled man,
indeed. There were no goodies nor baddies and it was a difficult watch.
Seeing how hard and sad life was for one of my childhood heroes.
> I really liked the remade Battlestar Galactica for this reason - I mean,
> the clarity in the start between the "good" and "bad" guys was clear, but
> as the programme progressed, you saw that it wasn't really as clear cut.
>
> Breaking Bad was similar, in that there really weren't /any/ good guys at
> all - all the characters were flawed to some extent.
>
It got good reviews but I knew that he would die in the end. Even in
American book, so my wife tells me. The character that does something
bad has got to pay for it.
> But writers and producers seem less willing these days to write stories
> that have such ambiguity in them. Well, let's face it - these days,
> we're lucky to get anything that's actually a well thought-out story.
> It's more likely to be some "reality TV" garbage that's cheap to produce
> and makes shedloads of money from advertisers.
That seems to be the way of most things now-a-days.
> Heck, the "Sci Fi"
> channel (now sickeningly called "SyFy") is mostly *Wrestling* shows. WTF?
>
Noy you know how we feel when we hear SF called Sci Fi. And while I am
on the subject. It is MATHS not math. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
