>>64753765 Oh are you talking about the episode where he spits out a piece of ice, makes a joke about it being his tooth, then some faggot on /tv/ pretended it was really his tooth because he's a faggot?
>>64754059 Hobo with a Shotgun It Follows Turbo Kid Kung Fury
see also: Space Cop Feeding Frenzy
It's an increasingly popular trend that I have no affection for. I also imagine that "violent = weird and challenging" and "violent + comedy = artsy" as axioms are responsible for anyone thinking James Gunn has a talented bone in his body, which is just straight up incorrect.
Nothing about Jay Bauman or his film tastes are unusual or left of center. He is almost defiantly average.
>>64755030 I say ironically bad because it's just so bad they have to be doing it on purpose. Space Cop does not look funny, it's cringy. Their comedic tone for all their acting stuff is "so bad it's funny" but it never is unless you're some clinically retarded american that thinks Whose Line is it Anyway? is the height of comedy.
>>64755148 Have you seen any of their features? The style of comedy they do for their web videos isn't the same as their movies because they're smart enough to know you can't sustain that for 90 minutes. Again, Feeding Frenzy is just a comedy film. There's nothing "so bad it's funny" in it.
>>64753288 His point about Jurassic World stands though. Movies can be appreciated logically and/or aesthetic emotionally. As an aesthetic experience, the film largely succeeds. Same can be said about TDKR and even something like Prometheus. If you consider the movies from an emotionless, logical level, they're fucking retarded. But that's only one element of filmmaking or film appreciation. People can like things and still be well aware that they are kind of dumb. I enjoyed the shit out of Jurassic World, well-aware that it was logically a sack of shit.
As experiences, where tone and pacing and visceral manipulation build and work to create an emotional, aesthetic reaction, they largely work. Mike has always been much more about the aesthetic appeal of a film, whereas Jay sometimes gets caught up in little details and logical lapses. That doesn't make him more "patrician," it makes him more autistic. /tv/ fags tend to go full REEEE about nitpicking logic, disregarding movies as failing based on details, instead of considering the sum of their parts.
Great example right now, of course, is TFA. It has clearly worked for most people as an aesthetic emotional experience. It's a well crafted, well made film that FEELS like a Star Wars movie. The Mary Sue and "soft reboot" complaints don't really matter, because the sum of the movie was considerably greater than the relatively-petty negative parts.
>>64753969 Except for when Jay inexplicably doesn't. Jay has weirdly liked a lot shitty weird indie movies mainly because they were shitty and weird and indie. He judges big dumb tentpole movies over every lapse of reason and nitpick, and loves when small dumb movies don't make sense.
>>64755723 I don't consider TFA as a big dumb movie like something like Jurassic World is. And he didn't like either as much as Mike did. But yeah he's not necessarily super consistent. Shit like the Last Stand was pretty objectively shittier than Jurassic World. Something something they're both about profiting off of dinosaurs that used to be popular, but Last Stand was fucking worse.
>>64755881 I disagree. Almost like someone's reactive experience to entertainment is subjective. Some people are more inclined to acknowledge that a movie is retarded and then still be able to enjoy the experience. Jurassic Park 3 was probably more logically sound, and the characters were probably less retarded, but it just FELT wrong. Didn't have a pulse to it.
>>64756766 Jessi is not appearing on anymore RLM media ever again because autistic mouth-breathers like yourself convinced both Mike and Jessi that there was too much open sexualization and harassment for their tastes on reddit and youtube comments.
>>64756177 >That type of critique is annoying That critique of that critique can suck an autistic dick. Enjoyment is subjective, and there's a whole fucking lot more to filmmaking than having a logically bulletproof script. Jurassic World was well made, well shot, well acted, well edited with solid pacing, interesting art direction, the post effects were more than adequate, it achieved what it set out to do in terms of tone, intention, and world-building, it hit all the right story beats at about ideal times, and managed to generally tell a story with stakes, consequences, and adequate audience investment.
A person can appreciate all of those things, while still understanding that the villain was retarded, the park was full of retarded rides, the park reacted like a bunch of retards making an invisible hypersmart dinosaur, the park acted like retards dealing with the escaped invisible hypersmart dinosaur, the park was run by a retarded indian, the were somehow no other retarded helicopter pilots, the kid characters sucked, and it's ridiculous that that lady was running around in the jungle in goddamn stilettos. The movie failed at portraying believable characters behaving in a story where they and the story weren't retarded, but it succeeded technically and generally aesthetically. It FELT like a good movie, because it mostly was.
>>64757142 Not the dude who's claiming "he's always done it." But seems to me that both Mike and Jay have been generally willing to dial down their dislike of something if the other person liked it. With some exceptions.
>>64757119 But Jurassic World has awful pacing with derivative, boring art direction, and awful overproduced visuals. No one who anyone cares about is ever in any meaningful danger, there are no consequences, and as a result every single challenge feels nothing, but tedious.
>it achieved what it set out to do You've said literally nothing with this statement. It's entirely circular and could be said about anything.
>more to filmmaking than having a logically bulletproof script The script informs the drama, action, and characters on screen. Context matters. A film is greater than the sum of it's parts.
>>64755511 Except Mike has talked in the past about structure being a big reason why he likes the movies he does. Goodfellas is his favourite movie for example.
Maybe he just doesn't give a fuck anymore when it comes to movie criticism and reviews. As long as a movie isn't totally obnoxious in every way, he seems to like and recommend it. Which makes for shit viewing when every movie that isn't an abortion is good enough in his books.
>>64757397 To the first part, I'll go ahead and suggest that audience score and box office probably indicate that a lot of people probably disagree with you. As a person that makes a living working in production, with years of experience working in art departments, I'll go ahead and disagree with you on some of the other points based on professional merit and appreciation.
>You've said literally nothing with this statement. It's entirely circular and could be said about anything. Pretty sure not only does that not say "literally nothing," it ambiguously says too much. There's multiple ways that it achieved what it set out to do. Chief among them, it's a business venture that set out to "soft reboot" a franchise and set itself up for a quick turnaround to begin production on sequels. Which it succeeded in doing. As a form of entertainment, it also achieved what it set out to do. Most audiences walked away having enjoyed the movie. It had good word of mouth in spite of the fact that it was retarded.
> A film is greater than the sum of it's parts. That's literally what my point was the entire time. The film succeeded in spite of it's stupid script. For one thing, the script was competent, it was just fucking stupid. And as it is a sum of it's parts, and the script is the fucking skeleton, it managed to be successful in spine of it's severe scoliosis. It was the adequate combination of the sum of it's parts that made it FEEL right even when it was so fucking stupid.
Mikes effort to entertain whilst clearly being diseased with depression is admirable yet disheartening. The vacant stares and the small, but genuine looks of disinterest glazed over his eyes, as if he is being forced to read a tedious research paper on the change in the colour of sand in Spain, are becoming more prevalent as time passes. His responses to films have become distinctively vague emotion, like a Monet painting washed of most of its colour. Everything he expresses seems to be fortified with Ready Oats and tap water, enough nutritional value to sustain, although devoid of any redeeming characteristics. During the skits, Mike looks as if he is carrying the weight of a thousand waterlogged duvets, visibly straining to excrete the very little positivity that remains within. He needs help, and I'm not sure he's getting it.
>>64757951 >He wanted to make movies >He ended up being a critic >On the internet >For an audience of teenagers and manchildren >He's the wrong side of 30, overweight and seriously depressed at how his life turned out
Jessi was shit. She had an annoying laugh, she knew nothing about movies and she just parroted what Mike said. She didn't belong on the show and I'm glad she's gone, it'd be like bringing your gf on a lads night out. The fuck are you doing, nigger?
>>64757546 Goodfellas is not a "structure" movie by any understanding of the term. It's so notable largely because of it's non-traditional story structure.
>Maybe he just doesn't give a fuck anymore when it comes to movie criticism and reviews. As long as a movie isn't totally obnoxious in every way, he seems to like and recommend it.
Good. People should be willing to appreciate all fucking movies, even flawed ones. Poopooing and nitpicking movies without meaningful commentary is such a waste of fucking time. Film appreciation and criticism should be about being able to find interesting things in any shit movie, and acknowledge flaws in any good one, not talking shit to stress how fucking cool and smart you are as is the /tv/ way. A person can like Kurosawa and Godard and still enjoy fucking Trevorrow or whoever else. It's not binary.
>>64757662 It's a tentpole studio film for an established franchise. So you are right. But it's been pretty adequately established outside of the 3edgy /tv/ hivemind that TFA is a considerably smarter script with considerably more going for it by about every measurable standard than Jurassic World. It's nowhere near as big and dumb as JW. Very few things are anywhere near as big and dumb as JW.
>>64757924 Great job proving you can't actually make a coherent argument. Would you like to make some more bullshit appeals to authority? Demonstrate how box office success is at all a worthwhile indicator of quality?
Jurassic World succeeded financially because of timing. With effectively zero competition at a time when audiences were starving for a big blockbuster and a huge advertising budget, it's really no surprise.
>That's literally what my point was the entire time. It literally isn't. You're entire argument was that it's not fair to criticize the script because you can like it for other reasons. Except the script is an essential part of the movie that directly affects whether other parts of the movie work.
>>64758511 >Would you like to make some more bullshit appeals to authority? Demonstrate how box office success is at all a worthwhile indicator of quality? We're talking about subjective opinions on elements of filmmaking. I said I found the pacing to be good, you said it was shit. I said I found the post effects to be adequate, you said they were awful. We can go back and forth all day, or we can point out measurable standards to support or reject our subjective opinions about something. Even most of the negative critical reviews point out that the film manages to be "fun" in spite of it's flaws. >Jurassic World succeeded financially because of timing... it's really no surprise.
Not arguing it wouldn't have been successful regardless. But it did outperform basically every projection, was kind of inexplicably well-liked, and got memed the fuck up all summer. There's plenty of big dumb movies that are successful that are nowhere near as successful or as well-received as Jurassic World was. In spite of being retarded it hit the right tone with general audiences that Lost World and TP3 failed to hit. All of the Transformers movies are successful, but they don't ever resonate in the culture like JW managed. >You're entire argument was that it's not fair to criticize the script because you can like it for other reasons. I never once said "it's not fair" to criticize a fucking thing. I've been very actively criticizing the script. Do you always have a problem with strawmen? I'm saying it's quite possible to aesthetically enjoy something that you are well aware is logically fucking retarded. Doesn't mean any criticism of the retardation isn't valid, just means that there's considerably more to film appreciation than how sound the internal logic is. Sometimes it doesn't matter. Nolan is another example of someone who can make big swelling, emotionally-satisfying, really good retarded fucking movies
>>64758407 The TFA script is bad. There are no setup and payoffs, there's no defined set pieces and therefore no sense of anticipation, there's massive holes in characterisation and context. It's one the main reasons the movie was mediocre.
>And you're replying to at least 2 different people. I'm talking to the dude that I initially asked about sociopathy.
>>64758680 >Tumblr detected, fuck off this board and go get triggered about the patriarchy somewhere else.
Wait so who is triggered here? I don't mean toxic as a negative. It's just a trait. I'm not offended about anything, and I don't give a shit who you're talking about. Like I said, I'm just fascinated by personality disorders.
>>64758950 >we can point out measurable standards That's precisely what I was waiting for you to do. That's why I followed up all your meaningless babble with equally meaningless babble. You just vomited out a laundry list of things you liked without a single supporting example and then declared that your bullshit had more merit because of your "art department experience."
> There's plenty of big dumb movies that are successful that are nowhere near as successful or as well-received as Jurassic World was This is literally true every single time a movie breaks records. That doesn't mean that the movies that break them are actually good. Just that through a confluence of events they managed to defy expectations. Jurassic World happened to come out when there had been a long lull in blockbusters and among a crowd of films no one was particularly excited about. Even then, it sold on it's pedigree, not on it's own qualities.
>I never once said "it's not fair" to criticize a fucking thing. You clearly said that there were credible threats and meaningful consequences despite this not once being the case. You can't just ignore the script when that's precisely what defines those threats and consequences. You're arguing that they "feel" real despite nothing in the film communicating this at all and most character decisions actively damaging it.
>>64759058 >There are no setup and payoffs Yes there are. Almost every scene has a set-up and payoff, each character has an arc that is set up in the first act and payed off in the third.
>there's no defined set pieces and therefore no sense of anticipation Yes there very clearly are. Do you know what set pieces are? Are you just saying things? And "no sense of anticipation" at this point is like a parroted talking point. There was certainly a "sense of anticipation" in my experience, and it seemed evident from audience reactions that I wasn't alone.
> there's massive holes in characterisation and context Relatively minor holes in the characterization, that are mostly easily understood through context.
Seriously though. Are we just saying things we've heard other people say without actually considering them? It's like, just say such a vaguely idiotic criticism using words you read in a "fundamentals of screenwriting" blog or something, that the person responding either has to fucking spell out how scriptwriting works and then provide examples that prove you wrong, or tell you to go fuck yourself and stop saying things that don't mean anything. Define what you think setups and payoffs are and how there aren't any. Define what you mean when you say "set pieces" and explain how you think there aren't any.
At this point I don't even give a shit about TFA, but this know-nothing key-word criticism is annoying as fuck.
>>64759626 >Almost every scene has a set-up and payoff >Rey is established as a pilot only as it becomes immediately necessary >starkiller base is introduced and fires half way through the movie with nary a mention before >the planetary shield is established and circumvented within the span of a single 30 second conversation between Han and Finn >the password to the shield is secured off screen when it suddenly cuts to Han and Finn having captured Phasma >Rey is able to pull off the entire Jedi playbook in a single film and the only explanation is that she's naturally talented
>>64759286 >This is literally true every single time a movie breaks records. That doesn't mean that the movies that break them are actually good. Just that through a confluence of events they managed to defy expectations. Jurassic World happened to come out when there had been a long lull in blockbusters and among a crowd of films no one was particularly excited about. Even then, it sold on it's pedigree, not on it's own qualities.
Way to talk shit about meaningless babble, then proceed to continue meaninglessly babbling. Audience score, cultural affect. Movie did better and was better liked than it had any right to be. My contention is that because it managed to be the fun kind of retarded. If you disagree, I don't really give a shit. We're talking about subjective experience, and if it didn't work for you. That sucks. My point is validated by literally every measurable standard there is. People knew it was retarded, liked it anyway, because it whole was greater than the sum of the shitty parts.
>you clearly said that there were credible threats and meaningful consequences despite this not once being the case.
Has nothing to do with you saying I said "it's not fair" to criticize. Criticize away bruh. And again, we're talking about subjective opinion. Retarded park owner gets into his retarded chopper and retardedly crashes into the flyin dino pit, escalating the situation when the flyin dinos get out. That's a meaningful consequence, whether you liked it or not. The entire movie is essentially one idiot decision compounding onto another as things escalate out of control. I actually enjoyed the movie, and the script, because unlike most shitty scripts, it's actually pretty fucking coherent. It's just that story progresses because everyone is retarded. It's a fucking interesting idea, that kind of came close to being a farce, but imo wasn't overt enough for it to truly work.
>>64755511 >People can like things and still be well aware that they are kind of dumb Fucking this. This is the exact reason why Furious 7 did well. No one takes it seriously. It's dumb fun and the movie is in on the joke
>>64759995 >then proceed to continue meaninglessly babbling Acknowledging how the climate during which a movie released impacted it's sales and perception is not meaningless babble. That's factual, objective evidence that demonstrates how such a success was possible.
>My point is validated by literally every measurable standard there is No it isn't. Box office success has nothing to do with movie quality. Neither do viewer scores. Analysis with real arguments does. Which you continue to desperately avoid while continuously appealing to meaningless bullshit.
>That's a meaningful consequence, whether you liked it or not. No it isn't, because those I-Rex had already loosed the avian dinosaurs. Their release is precisely what caused the helicopter to crash. And none of this counts for shit because their escape amounts to nothing. The only people affected by this are nameless extras and the least developed and least important character in the cast whose death is dragged out for such blatantly obnoxious shock value that it loses any impact at all.
>I actually enjoyed the script Of course you did. That was clear from the beginning when you kept trying to pretend like the script was bad, but wasn't a big deal. It's just a shittier version of the original that completely misses the point and relies on ostensibly intelligent characters constantly making terrible decisions. This damages any credibility these characters have and makes everything that happens feel incredibly cheap and contrived. Any tension is immediately lost as a result.
>>64759850 >Rey is established as a pilot only as it becomes immediately necessary Rey is established as someone who makes a living working on spaceships the first time we see her. And her ability as a pilot is something that occurs in the first act. And I've got bad news for you regarding A New Hope. Luke is suddenly established as a pilot when it is necessary at the beginning of the third act. >starkiller base It's mentioned before. Shown in the second act as the plot finds its way there. And more to the point, showing what it is capable of IS the set up, establishing the stakes for the protagonists when they have to try and destroy it before it does them. Their success is the payoff. >the planetary shield is established and circumvented within the span of a single 30 second conversation between Han and Finn That's not really a setup/payoff dynamic. It's exposition to establish why they need to personally infiltrate the base. >Han and Finn having captured Phasma Again, not really what the setup/payoff dynamic is. Removing the shields is a plot beat that needs to happen for the characters to get to their narrative beats. Most likely too much trimming the fat in editing. >Rey is able to pull off the entire Jedi playbook in a single film This ignores perhaps the most notable setup/payoff example of the film. Kylo Ren fucks up again when he tries mind-fucking Rey, leading to her escape. Her knowing the "Jedi playbook" can pretty rationally be understood by the fact that she lived down the road from the goddamn Church of The Force. Jedi abilities seemed to be pretty well-known. And her ability to fight was set up in the first act. And her defeating Kylo is a payoff of his self-frustration and doubt getting the better of him. He's the most dynamic, human antagonist in any of the star wars films, and he's deeply flawed. As it's written, she doesn't win, he loses.
>>64761266 >Rey is established as someone who makes a living working on spaceships the first time we see her No, she isn't. She's established as a scavenger. It's only when she needs to fly a ship that she suddenly mentions her ability.
>Luke is suddenly established as a pilot when it is necessary No, it's talked about several times throughout the film, both by Luke and other characters. Luke wants to leave for the academy, Obi-Wan says he's heard Luke is a good pilot, Luke he says he's a pretty good pilot to Han, He mentions he's can shoot while flying in the briefing. The fact that they give him a ship at all implies he can back up these repeated claims.
>It's mentioned before. Shown in the second act as the plot finds its way there. And more to the point, showing what it is capable of IS the set up, establishing the stakes for the protagonists when they have to try and destroy it before it does them. It isn't mentioned until it becomes plot relevant, which is the moment before it fires. Conversely, in A New Hope, the Death Star and it's capabilities are established in the opening crawl. The entire plot centers around securing the stolen plans. Alderaan is established very early on, with getting there being the first goal the characters have. The impact of it's destruction is felt both though characters we've come to know and in how it impacts their goals.
>>64761266 >Luke is suddenly established as a pilot when it is necessary at the beginning of the third act
But you're so, so wrong. You're just bullshitting or you haven't watched ANH in a long time.
When you bring up plot points immediately before you need them and then discard them just as quickly, it's a great signal for shitty, lazy writing. The way they rushed the entire Death Star setup was criminal and was a great example of this movie's inability to build anticipation.
>>64761266 >>64761659 >That's not really a setup/payoff dynamic. >Again, not really what the setup/payoff dynamic is. These are challenges that are defined and solves within a couple minutes at most. This is a clear case of a failure to set up meaningful problems with meaningful payoff. Nothing feels earned because it's accomplished far too easily and nothing seems to really be at stake. This is true for Starkiller base in general. It's easily defeated and it's impact on the heroes is negligible.
>Her knowing the "Jedi playbook" can pretty rationally be understood by the fact that she lived down the road from the goddamn Church of The Force No, it can't. She literally says earlier in the film that she thought it was all just stories. Her powers manifest suddenly and without reason, except in that it allows her to escape danger and overcome challenges. There is no setup, and as a result the payoff (successful use of her powers) feels hollow and arbitrary.
>>64761704 Rey pulling the mind trick on a stormtrooper does have a setup though. Rey was able to block Kylo mental probing, and saw into his mind instead. It's too matter-of-fact, but she basically had the trick attempted on her mind, and learned from it. Then mushy-willed stormtrooper nearby falls for it.
I usually don't compare these kinds of movies to a masterpiece like Raiders of the Lost Ark because it seems unfair, but considering Kasdan wrote both it's more appropriate here.
The Raiders script is fantastic in every way. One of the reasons though that the movie feels so cohesive with such terrific pacing is because there are fantastic setups and payoffs woven into the story.
TFA desperately lacks in this kind of foresight and planning.
>>64760310 >That's factual, objective evidence that demonstrates how such a success was possible. I'm glad you think so highly of yourself, but it's irrelevant conjecture. A movie can do well for all the reasons you listed AND still have been enjoyable in spite of being dumb. People liked the movie. >Analysis with real arguments does. Which you continue to desperately avoid while continuously appealing to meaningless bullshit. Said the dude repeatedly falling back on meta-conversations about the conversation. Said the dude arguing against strawmen. >And none of this counts for shit because their escape amounts to nothing. The only people affected by this are nameless extras and the least developed and least important character in the cast whose death is dragged out for such blatantly obnoxious shock value that it loses any impact at all. I agree that the assistant's death was crazily more brutal than she deserved, I agree that we do basically watch a bunch of extras get murdered. But that's generally how disaster movies go. Them's the stakes. Side characters die horribly and extras die in troves. You're not really lobbying a complaint or criticism that doesn't typically apply to the entire genre. And you're still not changing the fact that we clearly see tangible consequences of character actions. >Of course you did. That was clear from the beginning when you kept trying to pretend like the script was bad, but wasn't a big deal Who's pretending? The script was fucking bad. Doesn't mean I can't like it. I've read plenty of good scripts and watched plenty of good movies that I fucking hated. It's the entire point here. People can enjoy things that suck. Theres no amount of you trying to argue about tension or credibility that'll change that. It's a good bad movie. It hit on some emotional level with audiences and that was enough to override the retarded shit for most people who watched it. Top shelf shlock.
>>64757924 The new Jurassic World has almost no identity of it's own. Jurassic Park is incredibly well designed self contained story that poses a series of philosophical and logistical questions about what it would mean to bring dinosaurs back to life. Over the course of the movie it answers these questions.
We didn't need two sequels and we hardly needed a reboot. The only original ideas Jurassic World had was SUPER T-REX HYBRID and TRAINED RAPTOR MEMES. Everything else was a retread. If that's enough for you good w/e. Yes it set out what it meant to do, which was have just enough fresh content to get your ass in a chair and your money in their wallets.
>>64762094 We're talking about the handful of examples from TFA where things are rushed along and occur without clear setup/payoff. The film doesn't exist in a vacuum other than these complaints, and half of these complaints aren't really very valid. Particularly not in terms of setup/payoff. Things that ARE setup/payedoff from memory:
>Kylo notices Finn not participating in the village slaughter. Payed off when Kylo learns that one of their own escaped with Poe. He automatically knows who it was, and starts smashing shit because he's mad at himself for letting it go.
>Kylo accidentally force awakens rey during the mind rape, gets frustrated and leaves her alone. When he realizes that doing this allowed her to escape, we see tantrum #2. With bonus gag payoff of Stormtroopers noping the fuck out of there.
>I'd also point out that even outside of Rey's relevant work experience, her interests in piloting are clearly set up by her fucking around with the helmet and the x-wing doll.
>Setup: Big fat guy only gives her 1/4 food shekel for her hard days work. Payoff: Big fat guy offers her hundreds of them or whatever for BB8. BB8's value established, Rey's character established when she rejects the offer.
>Setup: We see Kylo mindrape Poe, and the immediate results he gets. Payoff: We see him try it on Rey, and it backfires dramatically. Establishes how powerful she is, how weak he is.
>Setup: They arrive at Maz's bar. We see one side talk about the First Order, we see one side talk about the Resistance. Payoff: First Order fucks shit up, Resistance saves the day.
>Setup: Poe's Jacket. Payoff: Multiple times.
>Setup: Rey talks about the sinking sand in some part of the desert. Payoff: We see the crashed Tie Fighter sink.
>Setup: We see Finn lie about being resistance. We see him stress about the lie. Payoff: Averted, the characters don't give a shit where he came from. He's proven his worth.
>>64762303 You can go on and on all day. I agree with you. Still liked the fucking movie. Enjoyed the shit out of it. It's a case of aesthetic trumping logic. If it didn't work for you, that's fine. Nobody is saying the shit was an objectively good movie. It's just a pretty good bad movie.
>>64762608 >Fucking plebs these days let movies get away with not being self contained stand alone stories. Nature of how the industry is shifting. TV is in it's golden age and movies are becoming more and more serialized. Lots of variables for why that is, but complaining about tentpole franchise pictures not being "self contained stand alone stories" was some pleb shit to do like 10 fucking years ago. Welcome to now.
>>64764121 A good setup is one that is seemingly unimportant until the payoff is revealed.
For example: >"I hate snakes Jock, I hate them!" is seemingly a throwaway comedic line after all Indy's been through. Until: >"Snakes. Why'd it have to be snakes" And suddenly the Well of the Souls scene reaches new levels of tension and danger that it wouldn't have without the plant at the very start of the movie that Indy is terrified of snakes.
It's probably more correct to say there are little to no GOOD setups and payoffs in TFA.
>>64764570 >It's probably more correct to say there are little to no GOOD setups and payoffs in TFA.
Subjective statement at best. TFA is a pretty damn good movie, and it will continue to be long after the /tv/ contrarians find something new to nitpick. And of the things in Raiders, the snakes gag is dead as fuck after they beat that shit into the ground.
And I understand that setup/payoff SHOULD normally apply to gags like the snake bit, but I'm responding to people who are arguing that it extends to essentially every element of expositional storytelling. TFA on the whole does a pretty good job setting the tables.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.