|
Post by willywonka666 on Sept 24, 2018 8:17:58 GMT -5
I think it was a particularly bad call for Rob Zombie's first Halloween movie-there needs to be some mystique IMO
|
|
|
Post by Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill on Sept 24, 2018 8:48:32 GMT -5
My main issue with lore and backstory is that it becomes a lazy excuse for filmmakers to make glaring plot holes because they know the fanboys will always yell "BUT IT WAS EXPLAINED IN A ONE-PAGE COMIC IN A MAGAZINE PUBLISHED ONLY IN CHINA."
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Sept 24, 2018 10:37:01 GMT -5
This is what happens with all mythologies (and I consider today's pop culture narratives modern mythology). By the end of the Greek period, the existing mythologies had mutated, added on, changed and such to the point it became very confusing and a bit contradictory; nevermind the "reboot" it all received from the Romans.
Been that way in modern pop culture too.
First we had a simple story about Tom Sawyer, then we had a more important follow-up with his buddy Huck Finn, then we had Tom as a friggin' FBI agent. No joke, that's where League of Extraordinary Gentlemen got the idea. Wizard of Oz had something like four book sequels and five or six movie adaptations before the famous MGM one with Judy Garland ever came out.
We refuse to let our stories go and create new ones, so we just keep adding to the old ones.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
Celestial Princess in Exile.
Posts: 46,143
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Sept 24, 2018 15:09:50 GMT -5
I've never seen any of the superhero movies, but this constant same universe stuff just seems stupid to me. I like that people can nerd out about whatever they're into, and I like reading some of the super in-depth reddit posts/theories about TV shows I like. But if someone was like "Did you know that Cole Trickle from Days of Thunder and Paul Blake from Necessary Roughness exist in the same universe?" in real life, I would actively avoid talking to that person again despite the fact that I love those old trashy sports movies. Because I cannot imagine a timeline when I would ever be interested in something like that. So yes, have plenty of lore, but I'd rather not hear about it. Everything that ever existed was the dying dream of a disabled kid holding onto his snow globe.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Sept 25, 2018 14:07:32 GMT -5
My main issue with lore and backstory is that it becomes a lazy excuse for filmmakers to make glaring plot holes because they know the fanboys will always yell "BUT IT WAS EXPLAINED IN A ONE-PAGE COMIC IN A MAGAZINE PUBLISHED ONLY IN CHINA." Oddly enough I kind of feel the opposite way at times; like the need for lore pushes writers to include too much stuff as a means of cutting off fanboy-style criticisms at the knees. For example, the recent live action Disney version of Beauty and the Beast felt the need to address the whole "wasn't the prince just a kid?" line and the one where people ask "why don't the townspeople remember there being a prince and a bunch of servants just ten years ago?", and it felt like it came at the expense of the story being fulfilling because it was addressing factors that were unimportant to the main plot and the overall world the original animated film had built. Some things are just superfluous and don't really matter to the larger themes/plot of a film or story, even if they can technically be read as plot holes. Still, I should probably distinguish between stories where complex world-building feels like a natural outgrowth of the style of tale being told (e.g. high fantasy stories and the like), and ones where the end product feels hurt by diving too deep into "lore". Again, using something like Terminator as an example, the first two films worked amazingly well because they used the plot to set up one of the best suspense-chase films ever, and the one of the best straight up action films ever; they didn't get bogged down in the details of time travel or Cyberdyne or Skynet, instead using those things as a nice little bonus on top of what you were really enjoying, which was the placement of likable characters into extraordinary situations to tell a story within a particular genre. I have to think that's a big reason why the sequels haven't worked so well; even if they were better films independent of their various flaws, they're not working enough at being something that justifies their own existence, the way that "let's make one of the best action films ever" really justifies T2's existence as a sequel.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,076
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Sept 25, 2018 14:23:53 GMT -5
My main issue with lore and backstory is that it becomes a lazy excuse for filmmakers to make glaring plot holes because they know the fanboys will always yell "BUT IT WAS EXPLAINED IN A ONE-PAGE COMIC IN A MAGAZINE PUBLISHED ONLY IN CHINA." Oddly enough I kind of feel the opposite way at times; like the need for lore pushes writers to include too much stuff as a means of cutting off fanboy-style criticisms at the knees. For example, the recent live action Disney version of Beauty and the Beast felt the need to address the whole "wasn't the prince just a kid?" line and the one where people ask "why don't the townspeople remember there being a prince and a bunch of servants just ten years ago?", and it felt like it came at the expense of the story being fulfilling because it was addressing factors that were unimportant to the main plot and the overall world the original animated film had built. Some things are just superfluous and don't really matter to the larger themes/plot of a film or story, even if they can technically be read as plot holes. Still, I should probably distinguish between stories where complex world-building feels like a natural outgrowth of the style of tale being told (e.g. high fantasy stories and the like), and ones where the end product feels hurt by diving too deep into "lore". Again, using something like Terminator as an example, the first two films worked amazingly well because they used the plot to set up one of the best suspense-chase films ever, and the one of the best straight up action films ever; they didn't get bogged down in the details of time travel or Cyberdyne or Skynet, instead using those things as a nice little bonus on top of what you were really enjoying, which was the placement of likable characters into extraordinary situations to tell a story within a particular genre. I have to think that's a big reason why the sequels haven't worked so well; even if they were better films independent of their various flaws, they're not working enough at being something that justifies their own existence, the way that "let's make one of the best action films ever" really justifies T2's existence as a sequel. With The Terminator, there wasn't much to build on, we got pretty much the entire story in exposition. Humans make a super computer, it turns on us, humans have a resistance. There's not a lot of wiggle room to expand the lore there, no mysteries. In fact the biggest thing you could do, go after the creators before they start it, was a sub plot in T2.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2018 14:31:29 GMT -5
I was watching Teen Wolf a few weeks ago and was struck by the lack of explanation for anything. I guess they had the genes to be werewolves. The whole town seemed to accept it pretty easily. It really helped the movie move along, not having to worry about all the minute details of such a crazy situation. I watched WEIRD SCIENCE for the first time a couple years ago - right after Bill Paxton's death I think - and started to wonder about the basic logistics of, like, everything that was starting to happen....... Until this voice in my head said "It's called WEIRD SCIENCE. Stop asking questions." And somehow, I did (I like to overthink many things), and enjoyed the movie an awful lot. I've started to do that a lot since, to the point that I regularly roll my eyes when something new tries to delve too much into its new lore....
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Sept 25, 2018 22:25:15 GMT -5
I was watching Teen Wolf a few weeks ago and was struck by the lack of explanation for anything. I guess they had the genes to be werewolves. The whole town seemed to accept it pretty easily. It really helped the movie move along, not having to worry about all the minute details of such a crazy situation. I watched WEIRD SCIENCE for the first time a couple years ago - right after Bill Paxton's death I think - and started to wonder about the basic logistics of, like, everything that was starting to happen....... Until this voice in my head said "It's called WEIRD SCIENCE. Stop asking questions." And somehow, I did (I like to overthink many things), and enjoyed the movie an awful lot. I've started to do that a lot since, to the point that I regularly roll my eyes when something new tries to delve too much into its new lore.... That's a pretty good example; the point of the movie isn't how Lisa gets created, it's simply that she is created, and leads the guys to being more self-assured and mature about things. It'd be like making a new Gremlins movie and focusing on the origins of the Mogwai. It can be a fun little thing to throw into the background, but the point of the movie is the comedic-horror of the little nasty killer puppets who terrorize your typically peaceful hometown. Hell, a big reason Gremlins 2 is great to a lot of people is how it clearly took the piss out of the typical sequel "build on the first movie's stuff"/"better address plotholes!" lines of thinking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2018 6:31:32 GMT -5
I watched WEIRD SCIENCE for the first time a couple years ago - right after Bill Paxton's death I think - and started to wonder about the basic logistics of, like, everything that was starting to happen....... Until this voice in my head said "It's called WEIRD SCIENCE. Stop asking questions." And somehow, I did (I like to overthink many things), and enjoyed the movie an awful lot. I've started to do that a lot since, to the point that I regularly roll my eyes when something new tries to delve too much into its new lore.... That's a pretty good example; the point of the movie isn't how Lisa gets created, it's simply that she is created, and leads the guys to being more self-assured and mature about things. It'd be like making a new Gremlins movie and focusing on the origins of the Mogwai. It can be a fun little thing to throw into the background, but the point of the movie is the comedic-horror of the little nasty killer puppets who terrorize your typically peaceful hometown. Hell, a big reason Gremlins 2 is great to a lot of people is how it clearly took the piss out of the typical sequel "build on the first movie's stuff"/"better address plotholes!" lines of thinking. Just watched GREMLINS 2 the other day too, heh. And yes, that one just accepted the reality of its situation, satirized the hell out of itself and the world around it, still did a good job making a sequel too, and just ran for the goal line. And it all works wonderfully. If anything, as you get older not only does the movie still hold up really well, but you learn to appreciate many little things you didn't get the context of before. In other franchises, they get to their own Gremlins 2 several films down the line and it becomes more of a pathetic parody of itself. Gremlins did it in the first sequel and made it work as well (if not better) than the original........ Honestly, G2 > G1.
|
|
|
Post by Ryback on a Pole! on Sept 26, 2018 9:07:34 GMT -5
Depends on the genre.
Fantasy and Sci-Fi, I love there to be lots of lore. Back stories, in-universe legends and tales, complex motivations, woven pasts between characters etc. It makes it all feel more real. I guess because fantasy is pretty immersive and exists in it's own world so the extra lore makes it feel more alive.
Horror though, nah. The best horror needs a bit of mystery. A bit of the unexplained and speculation. We don't need to know every bit of say, Mike Myers past. It's fine enough knowing a little bit and then speculating. The mystery adds to him. Likewise most other horror movies, the mystery adds to the horror.
Action movies again, don't need anything complex. Keep it simple. I watch them for mindless fun, killing and explosions. I don't need Game of Thrones twists and motivations.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Sept 26, 2018 9:34:01 GMT -5
This is what happens with all mythologies (and I consider today's pop culture narratives modern mythology). By the end of the Greek period, the existing mythologies had mutated, added on, changed and such to the point it became very confusing and a bit contradictory; nevermind the "reboot" it all received from the Romans. Been that way in modern pop culture too. First we had a simple story about Tom Sawyer, then we had a more important follow-up with his buddy Huck Finn, then we had Tom as a friggin' FBI agent. No joke, that's where League of Extraordinary Gentlemen got the idea. Wizard of Oz had something like four book sequels and five or six movie adaptations before the famous MGM one with Judy Garland ever came out. We refuse to let our stories go and create new ones, so we just keep adding to the old ones. I'd also like to throw in that there have been plenty of comics that try to add to the backstory of stuff even before the rise of doing more movies expanding on lore. Heck, some of the crossovers had their own version of lore spread around. Spawn being attacked by Batman's Batarang was Image canon for a while, DC apparently had their own version of Skynet for the crossover with Superman and The Terminator etc. And don't get me started on the choas that was the Star Wars Extended Universe.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Sept 26, 2018 11:54:04 GMT -5
That's a pretty good example; the point of the movie isn't how Lisa gets created, it's simply that she is created, and leads the guys to being more self-assured and mature about things. It'd be like making a new Gremlins movie and focusing on the origins of the Mogwai. It can be a fun little thing to throw into the background, but the point of the movie is the comedic-horror of the little nasty killer puppets who terrorize your typically peaceful hometown. Hell, a big reason Gremlins 2 is great to a lot of people is how it clearly took the piss out of the typical sequel "build on the first movie's stuff"/"better address plotholes!" lines of thinking. Just watched GREMLINS 2 the other day too, heh. And yes, that one just accepted the reality of its situation, satirized the hell out of itself and the world around it, still did a good job making a sequel too, and just ran for the goal line. And it all works wonderfully. If anything, as you get older not only does the movie still hold up really well, but you learn to appreciate many little things you didn't get the context of before. In other franchises, they get to their own Gremlins 2 several films down the line and it becomes more of a pathetic parody of itself. Gremlins did it in the first sequel and made it work as well (if not better) than the original........ Honestly, G2 > G1. I really need to grab Gremlins 2 on DVD; don't know if I rank it above the first, but it's definitely brilliant in its own ways. But yeah, a modern Gremlins remake would try to address what "don't feed them after midnight" actually means, despite the fact that what it means is completely unimportant to enjoying and appreciating what the first movie was doing.
|
|