Doctor John <j.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 19/12/2013 21:13, Warp wrote:
> > I'm really wondering if Hollywood screenwriters have to sign a contract
> > where they make an oath that in any story where there are multiple
> > characters, if one of them is wounded, sick or otherwise not completely
> > right, they always, and I mean always, have to hide it from the others,
> > even in situations where there's literally zero reasons to do that, it
> > makes absolutely no sense, it has no purpose whatsoever, and it only
> > makes things worse for everybody, and even if telling the others would
> > actually be beneficial.
> >
> > I'm sick of seeing this again and again and again. It's like a holy rule
> > of screenwriting. It has been seen in like a million movies, and there's
> > no sign of it ever stopping.
> >

> Which is why I rarely, if ever, watch Hollywood cr*p

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly the reason.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 20/12/2013 6:01 PM, Warp wrote:
>> >Which is why I rarely, if ever, watch Hollywood cr*p
> Yes, I'm sure that's exactly the reason.

I bet that there are a few more reasons.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 20/12/2013 18:03, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/12/2013 6:01 PM, Warp wrote:
>>> >Which is why I rarely, if ever, watch Hollywood cr*p
>> Yes, I'm sure that's exactly the reason.
>
> I bet that there are a few more reasons.
>

Abominable English, screwed-up Scottish accents, plots that a child 
could through .....

... yeah, a few more

John

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John <j.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Abominable English .. plots that a child could through

Hmm... Ok, maybe I don't know the idiom.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 20/12/2013 10:40 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 20/12/2013 18:03, Stephen wrote:
>> On 20/12/2013 6:01 PM, Warp wrote:
>>>> >Which is why I rarely, if ever, watch Hollywood cr*p
>>> Yes, I'm sure that's exactly the reason.
>>
>> I bet that there are a few more reasons.
>>
>
> Abominable English, screwed-up Scottish accents, plots that a child
> could through .....
>
> .... yeah, a few more
>

See through, Warp.

The thing that annoys me most is the moral tone. No bad deed or person 
goes unpunished. So like life.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 21.12.2013 21:38, schrieb Stephen:

> The thing that annoys me most is the moral tone. No bad deed or person
> goes unpunished. So like life.

I'm fine with moral tone - if it's a positive moral. But Hollywood (and 
unfortunately the vast majority of other movies as well) demands that 
anything adversary - be it people or conditions - needs to be 
/defeated/; reconciliation is rarely ever presented as an option.

Post a reply to this message

On 22/12/2013 2:29 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 21.12.2013 21:38, schrieb Stephen:
>
>> The thing that annoys me most is the moral tone. No bad deed or person
>> goes unpunished. So like life.
>
> I'm fine with moral tone - if it's a positive moral.

Generally speaking, I agree but it is tiring that the good guys always 
win and the black hats always lose.

> But Hollywood (and
> unfortunately the vast majority of other movies as well) demands that
> anything adversary - be it people or conditions - needs to be
> /defeated/; reconciliation is rarely ever presented as an option.
>

That too.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> I'm fine with moral tone - if it's a positive moral. But Hollywood (and 
> unfortunately the vast majority of other movies as well) demands that 
> anything adversary - be it people or conditions - needs to be 
> /defeated/; reconciliation is rarely ever presented as an option.

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.

One example in particular comes to mind because of how the creators
regretted killing the antagonist: The 1989 Batman movie. Since the
character of the Joker became so immensely popular, the producers
regretted having killed him, and thus he couldn't be in the sequels.
They were seriously thinking of bringing him back using some dumbass
reason.

This might have been one of the reasons why they made an unusual
exception in The Dark Knight: They probably learned their lesson.

Too bad nobody else has learned it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

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?

Post a reply to this message