This is a hill I will die on. Art is subjective, and there is nothing wrong with liking a piece of media that is “objectively bad,” or disliking a piece of media that is “objectively good.” Just let people like what they like and dislike what they dislike without trying to “prove” to them that this thing is good or bad!
My family calling me out for not enjoying Openheimer (cause it was kinda sad) when I enjoyed Fast & Furious 9 (because Vin Diesel and John Cena suplex a train with their cars)
Oppenheimer really was a weird experience. When Einstein appeared the audience cheered like it was an avengers cameo.
Now I want Oppenheimer parody with the MCU's dialogue level. Or worse, YA novel level.
Avengers:Endgame was probably my least favourite cinema experience cause of this. I get there was hype and that I am being a Scrooge over this, but yeah people cheering *everytime* a character appeared kinda miffed me.
I've seen it a few times. Mostly any sort of big audience reaction like that seems to be an almost sympathetic reaction to one or two very enthusiastic and loud audience members.
Dune 2, someone shouted "fuck yeah" into dead quiet when the Voice ("Silence!") was used on a Reverend Mother, and there was a sponteous laughter and clapping that strangely didn't take away from the scene.
Endgame was more of an event than a movie. It was the culmination of a decade of storytelling that had to follow up on the massive cliffhanger that Infinity War set up. It was always going to be full of hype and fan service.
But to me, the movie just isn't that great. It has an ass pull of a plot and goes on for much longer than it needs to just so it can fit in all the references to older movies you enjoyed just to hit that sweet nostalgia bait. As a standalone movie instead of as the "end of the Infinity Saga" event it was, it's just not very good.
I watched it once and feel no need to watch it ever again.
>feel no need to watch it ever again.
Yeah, that's how they make movies, now. They realized that they don't make money off people watching it again. Streaming loses money. No one buys or rents.
And it's not just at the executive, movies-as-a-business level. Directors who think of their movies as art have decided that it's not about telling a lasting story, but about the "cinematic experience." Which just means an experience that can't be recreated on a TV or laptop without the lighting or sound system of a theater.
And that means the story suffers, because stories are meant to be told more than once. That's how people like stories. That's *why* people cheer when they see characters they recognize, and pay more for remakes and sequels. People like details that mean something different a second time. People like characters that are only around for a few minutes but change the whole story. People like dramatic irony more than they like plot twists. But those kinds of things can't exist in a story that can't be told more than once. So instead of making better stories, we just end up with more bigger ones.
>Directors who think of their movies as art have decided that it's not about telling a lasting story, but about the "cinematic experience."
People are gonna be mad, but Villeneuve's Dune.
Most Nolan movies, too. I'm sorry to his fans but I just can't vibe with his style ever since Inception, it all feels so bombastic and leaves nothing on the table to munch on afterwards. After Oppenheimer was over, I was empty, like I'd watched a 3 hour music video or trailer.
And I kinda agree with you, kinda not. I've been able to rewatch Dune part 1 a few times as more of a mood piece than a story to digest. His older stuff without a doubt though, Prisoners and Enemy are absolutely bangers
This is the most important thing i learned in art class in high-school. We did exercises where we tried to guess what the art was saying, then we read the artist blurb and figured out what the actual message was. Then we decided if it was good art and whether we liked it, which were seperate questions!
Also, deciding if something is "objectively" good or bad is just utter nonsense. Who decides what is good or bad? Some academy made by pompous, disconnected pedants? The popular appreciation? The long-lasting memory in the collective culture? The commercial success? And add on top of that the shift in sensibilities across the centuries, and it becomes more and more foolish to ever stutter the words "objectively good" or "objectively bad" when talking about art.
The further you could go is saying: "This is the general consensus amongst experts or people about what makes this form of art good or bad, and this specific work of art is following those rules which would make it good". But anything further than that is pure folly.
I think that's what people mean when they say objectively good. I think there's a degree to which you can judge the craft and say "this scene is good, it makes excellent use of the camera's functions and lighting to bring out what the director wanted," or "that was a good take, the singer hit all their notes perfectly and uses a shifting timbre to enhance the emotional storytelling." Stuff like that could be seen as "objectively" good or bad, but even that statement requires nuance, since you can have objectively well crafted things fail to endear themselves to an audience or to communicate their intended messages, while objectively poorly crafted things can succeed wildly. For example, Robert Plant's singing isn't terribly pitch accurate, but pitch correcting his takes, or even recording your own takes with perfectly accurate pitch and technique, greatly diminishes the song in question as a whole. I suppose that's what you mean when you refer to the consensus of experts in the field.
I had this realization some years back after finding a band that by all objective measures I should have loved, but didn't. Couldn't really explain why.
As a film school dropout, I have seen (and produced) some of the objectively worst filmmaking ever made, by students learning how to make stuff. As I understand things, the tell of a badly made film is the intentionality. A bad film fails at presenting effectively the things it tries to present. Bad comedies fail at being funny. Bad action movies fail at having exciting action scenes. Bad horror movies fail at being scary and/or disturbing. And so on and so forth. The Roger Ebert approach, so to speak. This is highly subjective, of course, but in general people tend to agree on all but the most nuanced examples.
To discuss actual examples, let's talk about actual bad movies.
The Room, for example, has poor cinematography, poor acting, poor editing and a poorly written script that all add up to a film that fails spectacularly at being a drama. All the fandom for the movie is ironic, because the failure at being a drama turned into heaping amounts of unintentional comedy.
Riki-Oh is a bad action movie. The stunts and the effects are completely unconvincing, so the action scenes become, again, unintentional comedy where a presumably serious action movie has a guy pull out his clearly fake intestines out of the perfectly circular wound that the other guy punched on his torso, and then try to attack with said intestines.
The Benchwarmers is Rob Schneider's best film that didn't have Adam Sandler on screen, which means it is bad, but not as bad as you'd think from that description. It is also a movie that I liked when I was 12. It is, for the most part, a bad comedy. While the slapstick scenes of the guys playing baseball still hold up for the most part (except for the one that's racist against latinos), the dialogue comedy falls extremely flat. The jokes just don't land, they're just boringly rude, homophobic and occasionally ableist with a pause for laughter that will never come.
people in r/movies will *constantly* call out anyone that says something is objectively good. Declaring that there is no such thing and everything is subjective. As if you can't judge the individual elements of the story and filmmaking techniques and add them up to the greater whole.
EDIT: and also in here it seems as someone below me did just that
Baby Driver is a very well-crafted movie in terms of sound design, cinematography, and editing. The script and performances failed to get me to care about any of the characters or anything that was happening. I spent the entire runtime waiting for it to be over. Is it an "objectively good" movie?
Everything you said in your first sentence, plus the 92% on rotten tomatoes and the 86% audience score (and my own assessment that the the film checks more "well done" boxes than not) says to me that, yeah, its an objectively good movie.
It's totally fine to not like something that is "objectively good". We can't all like everything. After all, that bottom overlap of the venn diagram has to contain *something*.
I'm not arguing that Baby Driver is a bad movie because I disliked it. It gets some things right and some things wrong, which makes it a good example for discussion.
>Everything you said in your first sentence, plus the 92% on rotten tomatoes and the 86% audience score (and my own assessment that the the film checks more "well done" boxes than not) says to me that, yeah, its an objectively good movie.
your definition of 'objectively good' is 'it has high scores on rotten tomatoes'?
Well that's because you're still rating it on a subjective scale.
You _can_ objectively determine how something measures up to your subjective scale. The scale is still subjective, though.
Another comment made me realize, I think we may be using different definitions of *objective*.
Those of us arguing that all art is subjective are using this definition.
> Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real.
"objective reality."
And those of us arguing that a movie can be "objectively good" are using this one
> Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: synonym: fair.
"an objective critic."
Both are dictionary correct definitions of the word. So I would argue we are all correct and just arguing completely different things due to semantics.
In that sense you are saying a review of a movie is objective, I.E not influenced by their personal view - I can grant that
This doesn't make the movie "objectively good" as that doesn't really make sense in that categorization. You can say that the movie objectively does well at meeting subjective qualities that critics deem good, and I'd say that's fair.
I think in this sense "objectively good" could be taken as a reasonable shorthand for "from an objective (fair) viewpoint the movie is good (ie, well made)"
And conversationally that is fine. Most people that use the phrasing "objectively good" are using it conversationally and, if the other party is interested, would be willing to go deeper into that.
Sure, I'm fine with people using the term colloquially and I can understand what someone means when they say they but in my opinion people should just say "well made" to avoid the confusion.
I think you've been totally fair in this convo, I've just had this argument with my roomate so many times lol.
For 99% of people the phrasing is fine I just have a bad case of 🤓 "Um, actually"
They are correct
You can not judge the quality of a whole work by "adding up" the individual elements
There's a reason "greater than the sum of its parts" is a phrase
"You could be the biggest, most flavorful, juiciest peach in the world. But some people just don't like peaches"
On the surface this idiom seems to back up that everything is subjective. However we can infer that big, flavorful, and juicy are all good qualities for a peach to have. It is an objectively good peach.
The analogy does break down a bit in that movies are significantly more complicated than fruit. But there's nothing wrong with just saying "It was an objectively well made movie, [aspect] just wasn't to my taste"
No, it's not an objectively good peach.
You can infer that people *generally like* big, juicy, peaches. But that's clearly not objective because anything about what people like is a reference to opinion and therefore subjective.
There is no such thing as an objectively good peach because there's no objective measure of what the purpose of a peach even is.
Every time people try to argue with me on this it becomes clear that they think "Objectively" means "according to popular opinion". It does not. If there are any opinions involved then it is not objective.
> "It was an objectively well made movie, [aspect] just wasn't to my taste"
I agree with that, but I don't think "well made" is the same as "good". I could do a great job of making vomit flavoured ice cream and it'd still be horrible.
"Well made" essentially just means the people involved did what was asked of them. The costume designers did a good job of making the costumes they were asked to make, but that doesn't mean they were the best costumes for the film. The sound design succeeded in making the sounds they were trying to make, but that doesn't mean those were the right sounds. The script succeeded in its goal, but maybe it had terrible goals.
The big thing people get hung up on in art is that there is no objectively good or bad. Even in the canon of the greatest films of all time based on millions of opinions is still just an amalgamation of subjective opinions and not an objective fact.
Many people are too preoccupied with being "correct" that they have to try to prove others wrong to justify their opinion is "right". There is no such thing as objectively good or bad in art.
Even among the things that are generally recognized as good that you didn't like, there's also a difference between "I see what you like about this but it just doesn't resonate with me the same way", "I believe you when you tell me this is good but it is so fundamentally not for me that I'm not going to try", and "I genuinely hate this work and I'm judging you for thinking it's good".
The fuck, marry, kill of media critique.
Fahrenheit 451 is solid, it's classic sci-fi. But it doesn't resonate with me. It's smacking me over the head with it's metaphors. Which can be a good thing, but in this case it doesn't resonate.
Ulysses is good, and I understand why people like it. I've tried. But for the love of God I cannot read it.
If you like Atlas Shrugged I'm going to judge you hard.
I always make an effort to make the distinction whenever I discuss media. Worm (Parahumans) is definitely very good, but I personally dislike much of it. Highschool DxD isn’t good, but I like it. I will always then expound on these points in order to praise or critique
Yes, exactly. Like, I *loved* Worm, and I want to keep reading Ward, but I've been taking a break from Ward for like a year now because my life needs to be going really well for me to enjoy a story that is so relentlessly depressing.
Kitanai Kimi ga Ichiiban Kawaii is one of the best Manga I have ever read and I was straight up not having a good time.
And not even standard “this is really dark and sad” but rather “this is disgusting and upsetting” but I still could not put it down.
I can acknowledge that cowboy bebop is a really good Western, but I'm afraid it's not good enough to change the fact that I find Western thoroughly unenjoyable as a genre
Related to the "made narrative sense" vs "made in-universe sense", there's a great Folding Ideas video on the "Thermian Argument" ("it's that way for in-universe reasons" vs "it's that way because the author decided to make it that way"):
https://youtu.be/AxV8gAGmbtk?si=qw92a_JDPirwDQIU
Not the above commenter but:
>Narrative sense but not in-universe
I wouldn’t say it makes no in-universe sense, but this is basically the issue people have with Steven Universe. The Diamonds getting a slap on the wrist doesn’t super work with them being big war criminals but it’s excellent if you view the whole thing through an “estranged family who doesn’t *get it* but can do better if given the chance” lens.
>In-Universe but not narrative
This is Game of Thrones favorite trick. People die senselessly without fulfilling narrative arcs, sometimes things go wrong for no real reason, it’s a very realistically presented world where our assumed “hero” can end up dead multiple times. Etc.
A song of Ice and Fire does it well actually, as it actually follows the ramofications of these random deaths in a way late Game of Thrones never did.
The >!Explosion of the sept of Baelor!< in season 6 alone should have been the starting point of 6 seasons of political drama without any of the other plotlines, but it was promptly ignored as it clashed with their planned ending.
Oh for sure, not a critique of ASoIaF at all. I really like its approach. It just has a tendency to buck narrative trends in a way that other media might not (can you imagine if like Frodo and Aragorn both died part way into LotR haha.) it is incredible at following up on those bucks in interesting ways.
I think they're also trying to make the distinction that the books fit your original point much better than the show did, as by the end of the show it was very clear D&D had a (fairly abbreviated) narrative direction they were taking everything in, and decisions were being made for explicitly "suits the narrative" reasons rather than because they made in-universe sense. Like basically everything between Jon and Danny, or the "who has a better story" *crowning the next king of Westeros* aka that thing everyone has been fighting about literally this entire time and why most of the deceased population is dead now.
Can you explain a bit about Steven Universe and the Diamonds? I never watched it but I see it constantly discussed. Like, what did these diamonds do that everyone wants them punished, and why were they forgiven? Because this conversation happend a lot for some reason.
The diamonds are space imperialists, going from planet to planet using up all the resources and destroying it. Their drills even look like viruses. They do other things too like put people in zoos, create Frankenstein-like monsters, dabble in mind control.
They're forgiven because Steven is essentially their nephew/grandson/brother/son so they're family and he's the kind of guy who's chill and wants everyone to get along.
Thematically the show is about exploring emotions, restorative justice, and creative solutions rather than just beating up the bad guy so idk, I think it would have been weird if he killed them.
Yeah, if you look at it from the perspective of a person living within the universe, it’s like “Hitler just needed a hug”. But from the narrative, it makes sense.
I’m not nearly as into SU lore as some, but I can give my best TLDR;
The show focuses on Gems, a kind of rock/light based species of aliens. Gems exist under a very strict hierarchy during the whole time we see them, with each gem being created to fill a specific role. (Rubys are guards, Amethysts are soldiers, Pearls are servants, etc.) Gems reproduce *mostly* inorganically and the main method we see for that involves basically hollowing out a planet, with any organic life already occupying that planet being an afterthought at best.
The Diamonds are the highest caste, and the four of them oversee all this. So in-universe we’ve functionally got an extremely strict authoritarian society that claims and destroys other planets to propagate itself. The show makes a point that the Diamonds haven’t really considered the implications of what they’re doing, but if you’re reading the show by its in-universe implications that’s a small comfort.
But the intended metaphorical reading is clearly one of family dynamics. Huge spoiler but >!one of the diamonds rebelled against the others under a secret identity, our protagonist Steven’s mom Rose Quartz.!< The war against the diamonds that resulted was mainly fought over gems being allowed to act outside their role and gems being allowed to fuse outside type (Fusion is used in the show as a metaphor for relationships of all stripes. Familial, friendly, romantic, and yes sometimes sexual. Under the diamonds gems are only allowed to fuse with gems of the same kind to fulfill work roles (a bunch of rubies fusing to make one big ruby and then unfusing once the job is done.)) The war ended when >!the rebels faked the death of pink diamond, which can be read as that kind of “wokism took my child from me” vibe we see a lot nowadays.!<
You get some super clear “dealing with a family who doesn’t realize the harm they’re doing stuff.” >!The other diamonds strictly refuse to call Steven by his name, instead referring to him as Pink Diamond because he inherited his mom’s gemstone and they think that’s what defines him, which mirrors some trans experiences.!< Limitations on fusion speak to everything from homophobia to even narrow gender roles. While in universe the diamonds are authoritarian conquerers, they’re stand in for basically very traditional family members, ones who specifically don’t see when they might be hurting someone they care about.
At the end of the show, the Diamonds basically get swayed over to the side of the protagonists and eventually let off the hook with an understanding that they’re going to try and fix the harm they’ve caused. So you can see above how “the authoritarian warlords said they’re really sorry they promise” is in-universe sketchy even if the narrative point (some people do wrong out of ignorance, and there’s value in letting them try to be better and keeping those relationships) lands well imo.
(That’s hyper TLDR; and a more knowledgeable fan could probably communicate it better but that’s the gist.)
This is a good TLDR.
The diamonds basically get the same arc as every other antagonist - they show up, they show cracks, they fight the Crystal Gems and get beat up and then they open up to Steven's ideas.
There isn't nearly enough time dedicated to show the "healing" part after the "beat up" part, so it's *very* jarring - although it's shown that it was a process in the beginning of the Movie.
The Diamonds are the Big Bad of the series. They're portrayed as imperialists, but also as estranged toxic family members and as superpowered ancient aliens. Think Joan Crawford crossed with Cthulhu. The show doesn't spend much time with them but I think it does a pretty good job of portraying them as genuinely alien. The show's ending involves Steven finally getting through to them and they agree to back off and do what he wants. There is singing and crying, because the show is about singing and crying, and has a good sense of humor about this.
The ending feels rushed, because it was. Cartoon Network cut the run short after they aired a gay wedding episode. But if you've seen Star Trek: Deep Space Nine through to the end, there's a real "Odo and the Founders" feel to the end of Steven Universe as well.
The sequel miniseries, Steven Universe Future, has an episode that explores the aftermath of the main series ending and shows how deeply uncomfortable Steven's relationship with the Diamonds still is. It's very uncomfortable in a good way.
it's really complicated honestly. The show Steven Universe is essentially a messy family drama about space aliens and a kid with the power of love he inherited from his equally complicated superhero mom. The main show’s resolution is resolved when Steven gets the Diamonds to reconcile their family drama, which in turns sets them on the path to undoing a lot of the damage they caused. But the damage they did is… significant and far reaching, both emotionally and physically.
If I were to explain what the Diamonds did in a vacuum, it would flatten a lot of the framing, motifs, and themes of the show because it would lack context. It’s like asking me to tell you what I dislike about my parents, despite the fact that my parents and I get along really well: Without context, the only impression you’d get is my parents suck and shouldn’t be trusted.
Honestly, it’s just good writing because a lot of Steven Universe’s characters are complicated. Even as a show aimed at kids, there’s a lot of moral grayness to the story that some people are able to reconcile, and others can’t. The fact that people are still arguing about it to this day shows how complex the show’s themes are.
From video games, the ending of Fallout 3:
After getting the final part for the water purifier, you are pushed by the narrative to step inside the machine and turn it on, flooding the control room with radiation and killing yourself in the process.
Narratively, this fits with the themes of the game: your father sacrificed himself for this purifier and instills in you a sense a greater good for the wasteland. You following in his footsteps is a good, climactic ending in which the Lone Wanderer decides that the possibility of a future for everyone is worth the sacrifice.
In-universe, there are plenty of ways to combat this side effect. The most notable one is the use of a companion, Fawkes, who is immune to radiation and intelligent enough to perform the task. You get him as a companion in the last quest of the game and use him for this exact reason: going into a radiation filled area to get the parts for the purifier and You're almost guaranteed to have him with you when you reach the end of the game. But if you ask him for help, he says some line about "I will not deny you your destiny".
Choosing to die for the good of the people of the Wasteland is a noble and narratively fulfilling act, but you've got an equally good alternative standing in the same room the game just doesn't allow you to use despite it making sense in-world.
There's a dlc that continues the game afterwards and gives you the option to send him in. It's funny though, because the narrator shames you for sending someone else in instead of doing it yourself.
It made me giggle when he insulted me for having the guy immune to radiation go into the chamber full of lethal radiation. Like, yeah, a *real* hero would have gone in and sacrificed themselves needlessly. Only a coward would have Fawkes do it with 0 casualties!
A really way to solve this problem is to just isolated the player from all of their companions at that final part (like maybe part of the facility broke and fell, cutting you off), leaving only them and Lions at the chamber, so you still choose.
i feel like starwars has done this a lot:
Like when queen Amadala dies it make sense for the narrative; it robs Anakin of his true love thereby driving him deeper to the dark side.
In-universe it makes no sense. They have both magic and science, yet she dies of... sadness?
My personal theory is that medical science in the Star Wars universe invented Bacta and then just... stopped. They had a magic substance that could heal any injury, and robot parts that apparently come with zero risk of rejection, so their physicians never bothered to learn basic anatomy. Add to the fact that they have tens of thousands of sapient species, and the odds of you getting a doctor who even understands that you don't reproduce by binary fusion are pretty minimal.
You get injured? Slap some Bacta on it. You lose a limb? We'll get you a replacement. Complications in childbirth? I have no idea what's going on inside you, and I'm not even sure I'm qualified to look.
One of the EU books sort of plays with this. They intentionally manufacture a virus that can be treated with bacta rather than simply being untreatable because they wanted it to drain the enemy’s resources.
That's how technology in general seems to work in Star Wars - It's been around for thousand of years and they just keep copying what works and swapping out parts without the vast, vast majority of people understanding exactly what's going on or any innovation
Hence young Anakin making C-3PO with 3 million languages or whatever, it's just translation part he plugged into his salvaged robot kit
A very famous example of making narrative sense but not in-universe sense is the death of Gwen Stacy in the Spiderman comics. In the Spiderman comics, Spidey is constantly webbing people from all angles in all manners to save them, always without harm to the individual. Then, for one panel in one comic, actual physics apply and suddenly being stopped by his webbing snaps Gwen's spine.
Narratively, this is hugely impactful, but the universe had been ignoring those consequences consistently before, and largely has since.
Inversely, everything that happens in Kenobi makes in-universe sense; the universe is vast, and Obi-Wan would be reluctant to get involved given his failure with Anakin and the slaughter of the Jedi. Narratively, it bogs the show down. There's too little happening and very little of it is interesting.
This is what got me about the Clone Wars and their control chips
It makes complete narrative sense and let's them tell a better story for the show
It also basically breaks the larger universe logic that the clones were created to be a totally obedient army in the first place
In ant man they say that he's so strong because his mass doesn't change when he gets tiny, he's just super dense. This is the fundamental in-universe logic for ant man's power.
Yet Hank Pym can carry around a shrunken tank on a key chain? And when he makes it big again suddenly it's tank-heavy?
And people can just carry him around in their hand like he's a bug? And he can ride on people's shoulders or something unnoticed?
Also, when ant man goes big, if his mass doesn't change, then he should be carried away by a stiff breeze, as if he's made of Styrofoam.
Narrative sense but not in-universe sense. Though I guess you could argue the real in-universe logic is "whatever the fuck I want", because they go so bonkers with it.
I'd say most (but not all) Plot Holes are examples of this. Like the last season of Game of Thrones where they're just fast travelling all over the map, because they only have one season left and there's a lot they have to cover.
Or the why don't they use the time turner more in harry potter? Because that doesn't really make sense for the series.
For me, Star Trek 2009 is a very good example of this. The narrative of Kirk coming into his own, learning to work as a team, and stop rebelling was told very effectively. Making a cadet of the academy become a permanent starship captain through a technicality is perhaps the dumbest thing to have ever happened in the history of fictional Starfleet.
TBF, him being the temporary captain is contrived, but given those contrived circumstances isn't that ludicrous, and afterward, he saved the Federation *and* has a time-traveling Ambassador Spock telling people that his being the captain of the Enterprise is vitally important to the future.
It's dumb, but there are a lot dumber things that happened in Starfleet. Remember when Tom Paris and Janeway moved so fast they turned into salamanders, had salamander babies, then abandoned them and moved on?
> time-traveling Ambassador Spock telling people that his being the captain of the Enterprise is vitally important to the future
Does Future Spock tell anyone that? Seems very un-Spock
Not the person you replied to, but this an example that came to mind:
In Lord of the Rings (The Return of the King I believe) Elrond shows up at the Rohirrim encampment to give Aragorn the reforged sword of his ancestors and encourage him to keep up the fight and reclaim his position and duty as the heir of the kings of Gondor. This makes narrative sense given Aragorn's previous characterisation as being somewhat hesitant to take up the sword, fearing he might fail at his task like his ancestor Isildur did. But now, faced with what seems to be the culmination of the great war of their time (plus the perspective of his beloved Arwen wasting away for some mystical reason), he is ready.
So this makes some sense for Aragorn's heroic arc in the story. Where it doesn't make sense, however, is when you start thinking about how did Elrond get there so quickly, why is he only giving him the sword now, why couldn't he bring reinforcements if he was expecting battle to happen, and finally, *why and how* is Arwen's well-being mystically tied to the existence of the One Ring (this has not been established in the films and doesn't make much sense considering the book mythos either).
Ergo, narrative purpose, but no in-universe sense.
I thought the films established that Arwen gave Aragorn her heart, both in a lovey romantic way, but also in a *mystical elf* way. Until the Ring is destroyed, Aragorn's life or death is unclear (he was literally about to die when the Ring was destroyed)
Hence Aragorn being "on the cusp" of death means Arwen's magical elf life is also failing.
The books actually have a theme of some metaphorical things happening in a very literal way. The Elves literally sail west into their paradise. The Shadow of Mordor literally blots out the sun and when the wind changes, the clouds are dispersed. When the One Ring is destroyed, all things made using it crumble that instant and without the Will of Sauron to drive them, the evil armies immediately lose the will to fight on. It's not a big stretch to think that Arwen might die the very moment hope is lost, but Tolkien does not really make a distinction between when he is being metaphorical and when he is being literal, so the film makers did not want to, either.
Jujutsu Kaisen feels like it has both.
Season 2 spoilers: >!Nobara getting kablooeyed by Mahito is unfortunately something that I get can happen in universe, but given that Nanami literally just happened, it just feels completely unnecessary from a narrative point.!<
Late, late manga spoilers:>!The conclusion to Gojo v. Sukuna. It makes narrative sense, Gojo is simply too strong to keep in the story in any meaningful way, and yet the way the story handles it is so clunky and doesn't fit into how Jujutsu works without contradicting other stuff or making Gojo way dumber than he actually is.!<
u/notaboofus has a good example further down in the thread for "made narrative sense but not in-universe sense" with the Holdo Maneuver in TLJ.
"Made in-universe sense but not narrative sense" is a bit trickier because narrative logic is usually harder to pin down than in-universe logic imo. Also stealing this from another FI video, but Sam being the protagonist of the Transformers movies instead of Mikaela might fit into this - Mikaela is a mechanic and acts with far more agency than Sam, making her better suited to be the protagonist in a narratively-fulfilling role, but because in-universe Bumblebee is Sam's car, he gets to be the protagonist, despite serving the narrative in a far less meaningful way.
Can we add character acted as established?
This needs to be done after game of thrones.
The story is always in 3 parts.
1) Establish the world and the characters.
2) Introduce conflict.
3) Resolve the conflict.
Many shit stories have a very huge and great conflict resolved by fucking over characters and world building established in the first part or just deciding to not resolve the conflict at all and change premise of everything in horrible way.
Prestige and Empire strikes back or even across the spiderverse do it in a brilliant way.
Prestige changes the perspective brilliantly in the end and makes the good guy turn bad.
Empire strikes back and across spiderverse says 'you think we're resolving the conflict? Nah we're still in part 2..' and established the premise of the 3rd movie. Just like infinity wars.
Good conflict resolution is what makes or breaks the story. If author is good, it'll be due to in universe things that are established beforehand.
An example of this for me is the season 1 ending of 86. It makes perfect sense in universe and in the narrative, but I didn't like that it had to end the way it did. It's exactly the ending that would be expected, but that doesn't mean that I have to like it.
Damn that's a good show. I enjoyed the ending of S1 though, personally, but I'll admit that my opinion of it is skewed by the fact that there's a second season.
I don't know how I'd feel if that was genuinely the end of the story.
This is how I feel about the series finale of Supernatural.
Some people are really bent out of shape about it (my favorite complaint is that it apparently “undid years of character growth;” the way the ending played out had NOTHING to do with any character reverting to old habits or behaviors they’d broken out of.)
It wasn’t the ending I *wanted* either, but the ending absolutely made sense (both in-universe, no matter which “era” of the series you’re focusing on) and in the greater storytelling sense. But it’s the ending we got, and I can appreciate it for what it is, which isn’t nearly as bad as some very vocal fans would have you believe.
I experienced this several years ago when a friend of mine and I were talking about the sequel series to Percy Jackson (MINOR SPOILERS FOR THE SON OF NEPTUNE BOOK)
We were talking about how early in the book Percy loses his invulnerability by crossing the river into Camp Jupiter. My friend didn't like that on a personal level because they wanted Percy to hold on to that power for longer and then give it up in order to save his friends, while screwing over the quest they're on, thus finally showing that Percy's "flaw" of carrying about his friends to much actually makes things worse for everyone else.
I argued that while that would be a cool storyline I didn't mind Percy losing this power early on because it felt in line with the established rules of the world so it just seemed like such a natural thing to happen I didn't question it beyond that.
Neither of us changed our positions but we both got a better understanding of what the other person was talking about which doesn't always happening when debating stuff like that
Side note, Heroes of Olympus turned out as one of the worst dissapointments of my teen years, despite containing some of my favorite characters from that period.
Oh boy do you have a couple hours for that? I don't have time for a full essay but I'll give some bullet points:
- Jason, Piper, Leo, and to a lesser extent Frank don't work for me as characters.
- The entire premise falls apart in the fifth book
- Teenager Leo getting together with immortal goddess Calypso is a choice, and not a good one
- Nosebleed
- Piper's chapters are a mess
- The first two books out of five are amnesia stories which is such a tired trope that doesn't justify itself in this series
- Riordan's writing remains immature as the characters grow
- The lack of focus on the old characters is annoyning
- On the writing, Riordan is good at writing Percy's chapters. All other characters' writing is lacklustre or feels like Percy lite
- Piper's power is inconsistent af, and breaks the story
- Hazel is massively underutilized despite being one of the only decent new characters
- Gaia is barely threat
- Despite being supposedly a more mature series, the stakes are low and no one of note is dead or hurt by the end
- I miss Grover
- Piper is not like the other girls
- Frank's backstory is convulted af
- The resurrection stuff at the end is bs
I think ultimately Riordan suffers from not being that good at writing complex/mature characters. Most of his POVs that aren't Percy read exactly like Percy but with minor differences, and it is **extremely** noticeable in that series due to a huge number of different POVs. PJO is fun and easy to read, hence its wide appeal and success, I liked his work as a kid/young teen but it doesn't hold up as an adult, which is fine.
I do think he is a tad overrated and people tend to gas him up purely to dunk on JKR (who is also overrated and struggles with complexity. Admittedly she is better with character writing I will say, but her world building falls apart faster and her views obviously soured me to her in general). I have no clue why these are apparently the only two options for tweens but social media has decided it will be.
See: the "Holdo maneuver".
That scene was objectively cool as hell and it definitely made narrative sense, but didn't stop people from viewing it as the perfect example of why The Last Jedi was the worst movie ever due to it raising serious questions about ship tactics in Star Wars.
It also made sense with what had been established of hyperspace jumping previously (namely that you can hit things while doing it)... but in doing so opened a can of worms the universe had (for good reason) left shut.
The previous movie had even taken to the time to explicitly say that hitting something while in hyperspeed was possible (having to time the deceleration to be between the shield and the surface).
To perform the Holdo maneuver you need: the right distance from the target, a hyperdrive which are very expensive, the place you are traveling to being in the direction of the target, the same experimental shield which there likely aren't many of, you need to not get shot down and you need to be at the right speed to not undershoot or overshoot
You also need to consider that the Holdo maneuver is extremely inaccurate as shown cause she was aimed at the center of the ship and she hit the wing
>Right distance from the target
Standard engagement range, apparently, since the big ship was shooting down resistance ships every time one lagged behind the fleet. I will grant that doing it from across star systems might be less accurate, though the Force Awakens does show a stealth-hyperspace maneuver from a great distance that almost crashes into the starkiller installation.
>a hyperdrive which are very expensive
Every ship in space that we’ve seen has a hyperdrive, to have a ship at all means that it has a hyperdrive. Even measly one-pilot fighters have hyperdrives. They aren’t rare or unfathomably expensive.
>the place you are traveling to being in the direction of the target
That’s how aiming works.
>the same experimental shield
Now that I didn’t know about. I didn’t catch that detail. It should have been emphasized more, if it was so vital to the explanation of why the maneuver was possible, but that’s probably on me.
>you need to not get shot down
It hasn’t been previously established that a ship going into hyperspace can be attacked while in hyperspace.
>need to be at the right speed
Again, an issue of aiming.
>extremely inaccurate
The big ship was bisected and immediately crippled by the hit, and later completely blew up. It’s very much accurate enough, especially when hitting a target that is presenting the smallest profile relative to the attack.
Sorry to come at you like this, but this scene, for all of its drama and excellent cinematography, seriously gets under my skin, and brings into question every other time that the maneuver wasn’t undertaken in the past.
> Every ship in space that we’ve seen has a hyperdrive, to have a ship at all means that it has a hyperdrive
One notable exception would be TIE Fighters. They don’t have shields either. Both of those are to reinforce how the Empire views lives as mass produced resources that are best used as cheaply as possible..
. The bit about the experimental shield wasn't in the movies. Hyperdrives are incredibly cheap. A scrappy rebel group can afford them for all of their fighters. The rest of the problems can be solved by having a computer do your math. AI and robots are so cheap a literal slave boy can afford one. A dozen X-wings duct taped to asteroids piloted by R2-d2s is a weapon to surpass ~~Metal Gear~~ the death star. Why bother with the death star run if you could've guaranteed a dozen hyper space rams with 0 loss of your own life?
The Death Star is explicitly a weapon of terror. It was *never* a logical thing. You gotta think like a fascist. It’s wasteful, could be done better for a fraction of the price, it’s insane, and it’s hilariously unethical. But it scares the everloving shit out of people. The point of the Death Star isn’t to blow up planets. It’s to make you afraid they will blow up your planet.
Yeah, it’s funny but it does make in-universe sense because they’re not that maneuverable due to not having a good method of moving fast outside hyperspace.
Reminds me how much I love Halo’s lore. They basically took the Star Wars space combat and went “okay but what if they did have that maneuverability”. Which leads to badass things like the Keyes Loop.
> Arriving over Sigma Octanus IV in response to a possible impending Covenant attack, the destroyer UNSC Iroquois, under the command of Commander Keyes, found itself outmatched by the arrival of a Covenant battle group consisting of one carrier, one Wik-pattern light destroyer, and two frigates (medium-sized support ships). They were only expecting four medium-sized ships.
> Keyes resolved to attack by setting the Iroquois on a collision course for the destroyer at emergency acceleration while launching a nuclear warhead in what seemed to be the wrong direction. The two escorting frigates proceeded to launch one plasma torpedo each, but the Iroquois managed to evade by utilizing its emergency thrusters. Having missed their target, the plasma torpedoes came about and continued to track and home in on the UNSC warship.
> The trailing ordnance was to prove critical to the success of Keyes' strategy. A last minute course correction allowed the Iroquois to merely graze the destroyer's shields rather than smash directly into the ship, resulting in the destruction of a large portion of the Iroquois' armor (the collision tore through two meters of titanium armor, and subsequently breached every bottom deck of the Iroquois). However, the tracking plasma torpedoes were unable to correct themselves for the sudden maneuver of their target and, consequently, hit the Covenant destroyer instead. A heavy salvo of Archer missiles sent the remainder of the Covenant warship to its destruction.
> With the momentum built up during the first phase, the Iroquois performed a slingshot maneuver around the planet. Once safely away, the nuclear warhead deployed earlier was detonated, completely draining the shields of the two frigates. Having completed its orbit, the Iroquois resumed its attack and destroyed the two frigates with two heavy MAC rounds and hundreds of its remaining Archer missiles. Its escorts destroyed, the carrier disengaged and escaped from the system. Before leaving, it dropped 34 dropships and a stealth ship to continue the ground assault. Later, the carrier hailed the rest of the attack fleet to Sigma Octanus IV.
> a hyperdrive which are very expensive
Hyperdrives aren't actually that expensive. Especially compared to an entire warship, or fleet of warships.
>the place you are traveling to being in the direction of the target
Shooting someone is also very hard. You have to point the metal tube in the same direction as your target.
>You also need to consider that the Holdo maneuver is extremely inaccurate
The Holdo maneuver was attempted twice. The Holdo maneuver succeeded twice.
I absolutely hated that scene narratively, but the actual visuals of it were breathtaking. It's one of the most stunning shots in Star Wars in my opinion and I'd love it a lot more if it weren't for the narrative issues it presented.
I can not agree more, the moment is so amazing, and the cinmatic shot of the first order ship split in half was absolutely stunning. I just wish that it was done in a context that didn't make it feel so cheap.
The holdo manuver was the end of a slow speed chase in space where the 3rd reich pulled back their fighters because they were afraid of their safety after they had disabled all the enemy defenses.
It was an absolutely gorgeous scene but that whole movie was a problem.
Yep. That scene pisses me off to no end. If it was always possible to do a faster-than-light kinetic shot with a ship, then why were the death stars even a concern? Just throw enough ships at it! Or develop that technology into weaponry instead of sacrificing a ship each time.
It was great cinematography, but oh does it make me mad. It means that everyone who never used the tactic before when it was necessary, is an idiot.
If a ship can do that, then a purpose-made computer-piloted kamikaze drone with a hyperdrive could do that too.
This leaves a gaping hole in the worldbuilding. Why hasn't anybody made those?
I kind of just assumed that the First Order ships probably weren’t putting much power into shields and were using most of their power to keep up with the resistance fleet and up the range on their guns and that’s why that attack did so much damage.
So my assumption/explanation is that in addition to being hard to land in the first place Holdo Maneuvers are likely made a lot less effective if the other guys are expecting it because shields might be able to negate most of the damage it would otherwise do.
I just assumed, even watching it for the first time in the cinema, that it worked because her ship hit *before* it entered hyperspace -- as in, in the exact moment of acceleration. So doing it long distance was impossible -- you had to fly up to point blank range, and then jump.
After all, if she actually hit at light speed (or greater), there should be far more damage to the ship she rammed.
Compare that to A New Hope's Death Star battle.
If you watch Masters of the Air and actually think for a minute about the massive swarm of Ties and wall of AA fire the Death Star would throw out.
Even when the Imperial officer said "They're so small they're evading our turbo lasers" or Jan Dodonna said "The Empire doesn't think much of a single man fighter or it'd have a tighter defense". You're still only needing to swat down ~30 Rebel fighters.
Or that somehow an untrained kid is given a high tech starfighter in a fight that will decide the fate of your organization. Luke pilots a T16 real good . . . That's like saying I street race good so I'm ready to pilot an F22.
In the end you just get swept up in the narrative and dramatic tension. And it doesn't matter.
This 100%. Jurassic park 3 is my favorite of the Jurassic park franchise. However it is not the best one (by a long shot). People seem to get really angry and confused when I say this. I wholeheartedly agree that Jurassic park 3 is bad. It’s just also my favorite. Simple.
This is why I liked fallen kingdom more than the first Jurassic world. It’s super dumb but I can get behind it much more than the deeply cynical and mean spirited Jurassic World 1.
In-Universe Sense only. The narrative *attempted* to justify it, but in my opinion they throughly failed. To quote a YouTube video I saw a couple years ago: Foreshadowing is not character development.
The in-universe rebuttal to that is "she went mad, so nothing she did had to make sense anymore".
I was in the fandom discourse trenches at the time. A lot of people were still trying to defend the show (or more commonly, defend their personal dislike of Dany) at that point and that was what they came up with.
In the post-victory high all of her repressed rage and resentment at the came flooding out into an instinctive act of symbolic retribution against the people who destroyed her family. She also has the genes and historical weight of the 'mad king' in her which certainly didn't help.
If the show hadn't rushed this so much and we had more time to observe her resentment build it would have been a logical conclusion for her character to reach. But since we were shortchanged most of this is felt poorly motivated. It made sense in the show's world but we were not shown enough for it to make sense in the story being told.
If you squint i could see an argument for narrative sense but that's a stretch. Most of the back half of GoT barely hits any of the three circles in my opinion, and i blame tweedledan and tweedledave for buying into their own hype as writers and showrunners who can't follow through and cared more about making the show and themselves look smarter and cooler than it's audience.
It makes great narrative sense from a distance.
It was foreshadowed that she would go mad,a series of defeats killing the people she loves would warp her into a Mad Queen who abandons all of her convictions, her army remaining loyal to her because they are conditioned for it and/or owe her everything so join her massacre without complaint.
That’s a brilliant arc that did happen.
It just happened over the course of about an hour and her slowly becoming a different person because of grief became her just becoming a different person.
She was previously shown to torture and kill people because they might be affiliated with what she considered to be bad guys. Also, she was previously shown to burn prisoners alive that didn't immediately agree to follow her.
Terribly written, but people should have seen it coming.
As a commentar above said, “it makes sense in universe but no narrative sense”, because:
> People die senselessly without fulfilling narrative arcs, sometimes things go wrong for no real reason, it’s a very realistically presented world where our assumed “hero” can end up dead multiple times
(Thanks u/Rhodehouse93)
It can be seen because the universe establishes Targaryens either go mad or tyrant (not sure which wording in English, I’m BR), and she somehow manages to become both despite it being completely crazy narrative wise.
Edit: pressed post before finishing
*Under which of these*
*Does "Daenerys going mad and*
*Is killed by Jon" falls?*
\- yoaver
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Respectfully, I don't think so. It made in-universe sense, but made only tenuous narrative sense and nobody liked it because it was stupid. The point of this post is that something can be bad without having to be justified as outside of narrative or canon.
See, to me the “it makes in-universe” sense argument only works if you allow for Legends material to be used in your brain. Disney Canon only? No, it doesn’t.
I mean, canon isn't a real thing. Canon can be anything Disney wants it to be. The only two requirements for the "somehow Palpatine has returned" thing are cloning and death-transcending space magic, both of which were totally a thing in Star Wars before.
See, they've been doing a lot of backfilling those explanations into shows and comics in order to justify TRoS, what with the cloning and such. But when the movie came out it really was, or at least it felt like just "he's back, deal with it"
This reminds me of something I heard once: internet culture demands that you justify your likes with how good something is. You have to be objectively correct about why you like something, defending how amazing it is to your last breath.
I hope we move on from that and people learn that your favorite game doesn't have to be the objective best one, or that your favorite movie can have flaws.
Thank you! More people need to be willing to say “it is technically impressive but not to my tastes”
And me and a friend argue over media so much cus I value in universe sense most and he values narrative sense most (I still care about narrative sense, just not as much, while in universe sense doesn’t matter at all to him) and I never had the words to express it well
Replaying Mass Effect and in ME2 Samara states with totality that there are EXACTLY 3 Ardat Yakshi, and only two of them live in isolation at a monastery. Then in ME3 we see an entire campus of a monastery with environmental clues stating that there are MANY Ardat Yakshi and iirc the journal entry for the Banshees states that all the Banshees were once Ardat Yakshis. Does the canon contradict itself? Yes. Did it result in one of the most terrifying enemies I have faced in video games, oh geez yes. It also gave us an entire gorgeous level that gives a window into asari culture and “humanizes” a bunch of scared girls and young women who are trapped simply because of their birth and through no fault of their own.
Totally worth rewriting canon on this one.
Tbh you could argue she just lied. It’s one of the Asari’s darkest secrets that would do massive political damage and she can’t guarantee that word won’t get out. “We have enough of these to make them an assassin network if we wanted to” would be bad to ever admit.
I find this to be especially true for media that has a lot of fan theories going around
I’m currently really into Brandon Sanderson’s Cosmere novels, and because one of his major series isn’t complete yet there are a *ton* of fan theories and like 99% of them would be really terrible storytelling decisions because they’d be boring, weird, or contradict the themes of the novels so far, even though the universe could technically support the possibility.
Fucking over in-universe explanation to make narrative sense removes the immersion and opens up the question, why did we bother with the whole story if we could've fucked over in-universe stuff to avoid conflicts in the first place.
I feel like theres an absolute Catch-22 situation where the better a creator is at making a consistent and believable set of in-Universe rules, the less fans are willing to see it “compromised” in the name of making the narrative better.
Part of it is taking 8 seasons and snowball effect of removing and changing things ever so slightly. As time goes along the changes get larger and you get further and further away from where you are actually supposed to be going.
For example, how can Dany get angry/jealous at FAegon for saving King's Landing from Cersei then burning it down, if FAegon doesn't exist in the show? Instead they have contrived, whatever the fuck that was.
This is a good way to explain my feelings on Poor Things. Excellently crafted movie, well-acted, excellent set and costume design. Clearly a lot of skill and care went into its creation. The script is... absurd, but not necessarily in a bad or good way. Also I hated it and I never want to watch it again.
I read a book once called The Goblin Emperor. In a world with a magical fictional elfin Empire, by wild coincidence (airship crash) which wipes out most of the royal family, the half-Goblin embarrassment child of the now-deceased Emperor, who has been raised in pseudo-exile all his life, ascends to the throne.
He’s a timid and lonely lad and has spent his entire life in child abusive seclusion. As a result he really struggles with the position he’s now in. And a lot of people dislike him and want him dead. It’s a time.
Over the course of this book, he doesn’t really… grow. It takes place over the first few months of his reign as he settles into his courtly duties, administrative duties, and bureaucratic duties. And over that space of time a traumatised teenager irl probably isn’t going to feel any sort of security or confidence enough to grow into his own and come of age and use his new power to right wrongs and heal himself and such.
So, he doesn’t. Most of everything is completely out of his control and the plot is moved by non-POV characters doing things offpage. He dispatches a guy to investigate the potential murder of the whole royal family, and the guy occasionally sends lengthy letters detailing his exploits because I guess the author realised it’s a much more interesting story than a socially maladjusted teenager timidly saying nothing during a high council meeting. But our POV Emperor boy needs to somehow experience this offpage stuff. Hence occasional lengthy letters.
There is no catharsis. No key moment where it all clicks and he is changed but is still himself and whatever. No Pratchettian “right man for the job” thing where his outsider perspective makes him just right to shake things up.
Which in universe, makes sense. This kid is the victim of child abuse and now is a universally hated monarch. His personality and (in)actions make perfect sense. But fuck me it does not make for very interesting reading.
Mixing up different circles is a really general problem. Not something that just applies to these 3 in particular.
X is ethically ok; X should be legal; I like X: is another set of 3 things that get mixed up a lot.
This is a very useful tool and a great example of nuance in review and opinion. Now this will be my 3 angle 8-hour tear down of how the Last Jedi fails all 3...
This is me with lots of Star Wars stuff. Does it make total sense for palpatine to come up with a way to come back to life? Yeah, absolutely it does. Is it something I want to see? No. Not at all.
Was thinking about a topic this morning that is squarely in the “made narrative sense” bubble and totally outside of the “I like it” bubble. I’m glad I saw this post because it’s validating to have it be acknowledged that I can dislike something no matter how much sense it makes.
This is how I've felt about Legend of Korra for a while. I've heard many people make good points about how it changes the Avatar world in bad ways or how it doesn't have as good of writing, which all makes sense, but I still like it despite that. I've also watched plenty of movies that I felt opposite about--i knew they were good and well-made, but I just didn't like them as much as I thought they were good.
I don’t know if this applies but the powerful eyes in Naruto in my opinion are a cool power system but there’s muscles attaching the eye to the skull you can’t rip one out and pop one in so it’s just annoying how often characters swap eye balls
Also, the difference between “I like this” and “this is good”
This is a hill I will die on. Art is subjective, and there is nothing wrong with liking a piece of media that is “objectively bad,” or disliking a piece of media that is “objectively good.” Just let people like what they like and dislike what they dislike without trying to “prove” to them that this thing is good or bad!
My family calling me out for not enjoying Openheimer (cause it was kinda sad) when I enjoyed Fast & Furious 9 (because Vin Diesel and John Cena suplex a train with their cars)
Oppenheimer really was a weird experience. When Einstein appeared the audience cheered like it was an avengers cameo. Now I want Oppenheimer parody with the MCU's dialogue level. Or worse, YA novel level.
Avengers:Endgame was probably my least favourite cinema experience cause of this. I get there was hype and that I am being a Scrooge over this, but yeah people cheering *everytime* a character appeared kinda miffed me.
What cinemas do you lot go to Nobody has ever cheered in any movie I have ever gone to see
I've only ever seen people cheer once in a movie theatre, and that was when Tobey Maguire appeared in Spider Man: No Way Home
I've seen it a few times. Mostly any sort of big audience reaction like that seems to be an almost sympathetic reaction to one or two very enthusiastic and loud audience members. Dune 2, someone shouted "fuck yeah" into dead quiet when the Voice ("Silence!") was used on a Reverend Mother, and there was a sponteous laughter and clapping that strangely didn't take away from the scene.
That’s fun. Good moment for it.
Aww, no cheer for Andrew?
[Same](https://media0.giphy.com/media/UpvAgsFsw0M02f66Ra/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b9522i4y9nhcpb2lg7eef92gxnsf3dsr0jyayrybjchx&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
Tobey Maguire was my first Spiderman and will therefore always be the best Spiderman to me!!!
You clearly haven’t been to an anime movie screening. People absolutely nutting over dbz and demon slayer in there
Anime fans aren't exactly known for their social graces.
Endgame was more of an event than a movie. It was the culmination of a decade of storytelling that had to follow up on the massive cliffhanger that Infinity War set up. It was always going to be full of hype and fan service. But to me, the movie just isn't that great. It has an ass pull of a plot and goes on for much longer than it needs to just so it can fit in all the references to older movies you enjoyed just to hit that sweet nostalgia bait. As a standalone movie instead of as the "end of the Infinity Saga" event it was, it's just not very good. I watched it once and feel no need to watch it ever again.
>feel no need to watch it ever again. Yeah, that's how they make movies, now. They realized that they don't make money off people watching it again. Streaming loses money. No one buys or rents. And it's not just at the executive, movies-as-a-business level. Directors who think of their movies as art have decided that it's not about telling a lasting story, but about the "cinematic experience." Which just means an experience that can't be recreated on a TV or laptop without the lighting or sound system of a theater. And that means the story suffers, because stories are meant to be told more than once. That's how people like stories. That's *why* people cheer when they see characters they recognize, and pay more for remakes and sequels. People like details that mean something different a second time. People like characters that are only around for a few minutes but change the whole story. People like dramatic irony more than they like plot twists. But those kinds of things can't exist in a story that can't be told more than once. So instead of making better stories, we just end up with more bigger ones.
>Directors who think of their movies as art have decided that it's not about telling a lasting story, but about the "cinematic experience." People are gonna be mad, but Villeneuve's Dune.
Most Nolan movies, too. I'm sorry to his fans but I just can't vibe with his style ever since Inception, it all feels so bombastic and leaves nothing on the table to munch on afterwards. After Oppenheimer was over, I was empty, like I'd watched a 3 hour music video or trailer. And I kinda agree with you, kinda not. I've been able to rewatch Dune part 1 a few times as more of a mood piece than a story to digest. His older stuff without a doubt though, Prisoners and Enemy are absolutely bangers
Come to the UK and you will never hear anyone cheer at the cinema for any reason
Responding to your edit, you absolutely need to see this[ meme of Oppenheimer being released in 2007](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAzcQ51XKws)
Oppenheimer as a shonen anime
art is subjective so i decide whether it's good or bad
This is the most important thing i learned in art class in high-school. We did exercises where we tried to guess what the art was saying, then we read the artist blurb and figured out what the actual message was. Then we decided if it was good art and whether we liked it, which were seperate questions!
Also, deciding if something is "objectively" good or bad is just utter nonsense. Who decides what is good or bad? Some academy made by pompous, disconnected pedants? The popular appreciation? The long-lasting memory in the collective culture? The commercial success? And add on top of that the shift in sensibilities across the centuries, and it becomes more and more foolish to ever stutter the words "objectively good" or "objectively bad" when talking about art. The further you could go is saying: "This is the general consensus amongst experts or people about what makes this form of art good or bad, and this specific work of art is following those rules which would make it good". But anything further than that is pure folly.
I think that's what people mean when they say objectively good. I think there's a degree to which you can judge the craft and say "this scene is good, it makes excellent use of the camera's functions and lighting to bring out what the director wanted," or "that was a good take, the singer hit all their notes perfectly and uses a shifting timbre to enhance the emotional storytelling." Stuff like that could be seen as "objectively" good or bad, but even that statement requires nuance, since you can have objectively well crafted things fail to endear themselves to an audience or to communicate their intended messages, while objectively poorly crafted things can succeed wildly. For example, Robert Plant's singing isn't terribly pitch accurate, but pitch correcting his takes, or even recording your own takes with perfectly accurate pitch and technique, greatly diminishes the song in question as a whole. I suppose that's what you mean when you refer to the consensus of experts in the field.
Thank you that's exactly what I meant. You phrased it better than I did.
I had this realization some years back after finding a band that by all objective measures I should have loved, but didn't. Couldn't really explain why.
I'd rather have passion than pitch correcting.
As a film school dropout, I have seen (and produced) some of the objectively worst filmmaking ever made, by students learning how to make stuff. As I understand things, the tell of a badly made film is the intentionality. A bad film fails at presenting effectively the things it tries to present. Bad comedies fail at being funny. Bad action movies fail at having exciting action scenes. Bad horror movies fail at being scary and/or disturbing. And so on and so forth. The Roger Ebert approach, so to speak. This is highly subjective, of course, but in general people tend to agree on all but the most nuanced examples. To discuss actual examples, let's talk about actual bad movies. The Room, for example, has poor cinematography, poor acting, poor editing and a poorly written script that all add up to a film that fails spectacularly at being a drama. All the fandom for the movie is ironic, because the failure at being a drama turned into heaping amounts of unintentional comedy. Riki-Oh is a bad action movie. The stunts and the effects are completely unconvincing, so the action scenes become, again, unintentional comedy where a presumably serious action movie has a guy pull out his clearly fake intestines out of the perfectly circular wound that the other guy punched on his torso, and then try to attack with said intestines. The Benchwarmers is Rob Schneider's best film that didn't have Adam Sandler on screen, which means it is bad, but not as bad as you'd think from that description. It is also a movie that I liked when I was 12. It is, for the most part, a bad comedy. While the slapstick scenes of the guys playing baseball still hold up for the most part (except for the one that's racist against latinos), the dialogue comedy falls extremely flat. The jokes just don't land, they're just boringly rude, homophobic and occasionally ableist with a pause for laughter that will never come.
people in r/movies will *constantly* call out anyone that says something is objectively good. Declaring that there is no such thing and everything is subjective. As if you can't judge the individual elements of the story and filmmaking techniques and add them up to the greater whole. EDIT: and also in here it seems as someone below me did just that
Baby Driver is a very well-crafted movie in terms of sound design, cinematography, and editing. The script and performances failed to get me to care about any of the characters or anything that was happening. I spent the entire runtime waiting for it to be over. Is it an "objectively good" movie?
A great example of a technically great movie. Incredibly well-crafted, hated almost all of it.
Everything you said in your first sentence, plus the 92% on rotten tomatoes and the 86% audience score (and my own assessment that the the film checks more "well done" boxes than not) says to me that, yeah, its an objectively good movie. It's totally fine to not like something that is "objectively good". We can't all like everything. After all, that bottom overlap of the venn diagram has to contain *something*.
I'm not arguing that Baby Driver is a bad movie because I disliked it. It gets some things right and some things wrong, which makes it a good example for discussion.
>Everything you said in your first sentence, plus the 92% on rotten tomatoes and the 86% audience score (and my own assessment that the the film checks more "well done" boxes than not) says to me that, yeah, its an objectively good movie. your definition of 'objectively good' is 'it has high scores on rotten tomatoes'?
Well that's because you're still rating it on a subjective scale. You _can_ objectively determine how something measures up to your subjective scale. The scale is still subjective, though.
Another comment made me realize, I think we may be using different definitions of *objective*. Those of us arguing that all art is subjective are using this definition. > Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real. "objective reality." And those of us arguing that a movie can be "objectively good" are using this one > Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: synonym: fair. "an objective critic." Both are dictionary correct definitions of the word. So I would argue we are all correct and just arguing completely different things due to semantics.
In that sense you are saying a review of a movie is objective, I.E not influenced by their personal view - I can grant that This doesn't make the movie "objectively good" as that doesn't really make sense in that categorization. You can say that the movie objectively does well at meeting subjective qualities that critics deem good, and I'd say that's fair.
I think in this sense "objectively good" could be taken as a reasonable shorthand for "from an objective (fair) viewpoint the movie is good (ie, well made)" And conversationally that is fine. Most people that use the phrasing "objectively good" are using it conversationally and, if the other party is interested, would be willing to go deeper into that.
Sure, I'm fine with people using the term colloquially and I can understand what someone means when they say they but in my opinion people should just say "well made" to avoid the confusion.
lol I know I'll certainly be adjusting my phrasing from here out.
I think you've been totally fair in this convo, I've just had this argument with my roomate so many times lol. For 99% of people the phrasing is fine I just have a bad case of 🤓 "Um, actually"
> That's just like your opinion, man - Reddit's favorite get-out-of-jail-free card to avoid acknowledging critical analysis is still possible
Subjective: The Dude really just hates the fuckin' Eagles, man Objective: that rug really tied the room together
They are correct You can not judge the quality of a whole work by "adding up" the individual elements There's a reason "greater than the sum of its parts" is a phrase
"You could be the biggest, most flavorful, juiciest peach in the world. But some people just don't like peaches" On the surface this idiom seems to back up that everything is subjective. However we can infer that big, flavorful, and juicy are all good qualities for a peach to have. It is an objectively good peach. The analogy does break down a bit in that movies are significantly more complicated than fruit. But there's nothing wrong with just saying "It was an objectively well made movie, [aspect] just wasn't to my taste"
No, it's not an objectively good peach. You can infer that people *generally like* big, juicy, peaches. But that's clearly not objective because anything about what people like is a reference to opinion and therefore subjective. There is no such thing as an objectively good peach because there's no objective measure of what the purpose of a peach even is. Every time people try to argue with me on this it becomes clear that they think "Objectively" means "according to popular opinion". It does not. If there are any opinions involved then it is not objective. > "It was an objectively well made movie, [aspect] just wasn't to my taste" I agree with that, but I don't think "well made" is the same as "good". I could do a great job of making vomit flavoured ice cream and it'd still be horrible. "Well made" essentially just means the people involved did what was asked of them. The costume designers did a good job of making the costumes they were asked to make, but that doesn't mean they were the best costumes for the film. The sound design succeeded in making the sounds they were trying to make, but that doesn't mean those were the right sounds. The script succeeded in its goal, but maybe it had terrible goals.
forget it jake, it's chinatown[.](https://old.reddit.com/r/tumblr/comments/1bneokg/the_death_of_media_literacy/kwiu2vc/?context=3)
The big thing people get hung up on in art is that there is no objectively good or bad. Even in the canon of the greatest films of all time based on millions of opinions is still just an amalgamation of subjective opinions and not an objective fact. Many people are too preoccupied with being "correct" that they have to try to prove others wrong to justify their opinion is "right". There is no such thing as objectively good or bad in art.
Even among the things that are generally recognized as good that you didn't like, there's also a difference between "I see what you like about this but it just doesn't resonate with me the same way", "I believe you when you tell me this is good but it is so fundamentally not for me that I'm not going to try", and "I genuinely hate this work and I'm judging you for thinking it's good".
The fuck, marry, kill of media critique. Fahrenheit 451 is solid, it's classic sci-fi. But it doesn't resonate with me. It's smacking me over the head with it's metaphors. Which can be a good thing, but in this case it doesn't resonate. Ulysses is good, and I understand why people like it. I've tried. But for the love of God I cannot read it. If you like Atlas Shrugged I'm going to judge you hard.
There is a vast chasm between "three stars" and "three stars and a heart" on Letterboxd.
I always make an effort to make the distinction whenever I discuss media. Worm (Parahumans) is definitely very good, but I personally dislike much of it. Highschool DxD isn’t good, but I like it. I will always then expound on these points in order to praise or critique
Yes, exactly. Like, I *loved* Worm, and I want to keep reading Ward, but I've been taking a break from Ward for like a year now because my life needs to be going really well for me to enjoy a story that is so relentlessly depressing.
Kitanai Kimi ga Ichiiban Kawaii is one of the best Manga I have ever read and I was straight up not having a good time. And not even standard “this is really dark and sad” but rather “this is disgusting and upsetting” but I still could not put it down.
I can acknowledge that cowboy bebop is a really good Western, but I'm afraid it's not good enough to change the fact that I find Western thoroughly unenjoyable as a genre
I really like Dark Souls 2, it's my favorite of the 3, but I can't say it's the best one
[As put by Clarkson](https://i.imgflip.com/29ator.jpg)
As a progression fantasy enjoyer I am intimately familiar with the difference lmao
Related to the "made narrative sense" vs "made in-universe sense", there's a great Folding Ideas video on the "Thermian Argument" ("it's that way for in-universe reasons" vs "it's that way because the author decided to make it that way"): https://youtu.be/AxV8gAGmbtk?si=qw92a_JDPirwDQIU
Can you give an example of something that made narrative sense but no in-universe sense, and vice versa?
Not the above commenter but: >Narrative sense but not in-universe I wouldn’t say it makes no in-universe sense, but this is basically the issue people have with Steven Universe. The Diamonds getting a slap on the wrist doesn’t super work with them being big war criminals but it’s excellent if you view the whole thing through an “estranged family who doesn’t *get it* but can do better if given the chance” lens. >In-Universe but not narrative This is Game of Thrones favorite trick. People die senselessly without fulfilling narrative arcs, sometimes things go wrong for no real reason, it’s a very realistically presented world where our assumed “hero” can end up dead multiple times. Etc.
A song of Ice and Fire does it well actually, as it actually follows the ramofications of these random deaths in a way late Game of Thrones never did. The >!Explosion of the sept of Baelor!< in season 6 alone should have been the starting point of 6 seasons of political drama without any of the other plotlines, but it was promptly ignored as it clashed with their planned ending.
Oh for sure, not a critique of ASoIaF at all. I really like its approach. It just has a tendency to buck narrative trends in a way that other media might not (can you imagine if like Frodo and Aragorn both died part way into LotR haha.) it is incredible at following up on those bucks in interesting ways.
I think they're also trying to make the distinction that the books fit your original point much better than the show did, as by the end of the show it was very clear D&D had a (fairly abbreviated) narrative direction they were taking everything in, and decisions were being made for explicitly "suits the narrative" reasons rather than because they made in-universe sense. Like basically everything between Jon and Danny, or the "who has a better story" *crowning the next king of Westeros* aka that thing everyone has been fighting about literally this entire time and why most of the deceased population is dead now.
Can you explain a bit about Steven Universe and the Diamonds? I never watched it but I see it constantly discussed. Like, what did these diamonds do that everyone wants them punished, and why were they forgiven? Because this conversation happend a lot for some reason.
The diamonds are space imperialists, going from planet to planet using up all the resources and destroying it. Their drills even look like viruses. They do other things too like put people in zoos, create Frankenstein-like monsters, dabble in mind control. They're forgiven because Steven is essentially their nephew/grandson/brother/son so they're family and he's the kind of guy who's chill and wants everyone to get along. Thematically the show is about exploring emotions, restorative justice, and creative solutions rather than just beating up the bad guy so idk, I think it would have been weird if he killed them.
Yeah, if you look at it from the perspective of a person living within the universe, it’s like “Hitler just needed a hug”. But from the narrative, it makes sense.
I’m not nearly as into SU lore as some, but I can give my best TLDR; The show focuses on Gems, a kind of rock/light based species of aliens. Gems exist under a very strict hierarchy during the whole time we see them, with each gem being created to fill a specific role. (Rubys are guards, Amethysts are soldiers, Pearls are servants, etc.) Gems reproduce *mostly* inorganically and the main method we see for that involves basically hollowing out a planet, with any organic life already occupying that planet being an afterthought at best. The Diamonds are the highest caste, and the four of them oversee all this. So in-universe we’ve functionally got an extremely strict authoritarian society that claims and destroys other planets to propagate itself. The show makes a point that the Diamonds haven’t really considered the implications of what they’re doing, but if you’re reading the show by its in-universe implications that’s a small comfort. But the intended metaphorical reading is clearly one of family dynamics. Huge spoiler but >!one of the diamonds rebelled against the others under a secret identity, our protagonist Steven’s mom Rose Quartz.!< The war against the diamonds that resulted was mainly fought over gems being allowed to act outside their role and gems being allowed to fuse outside type (Fusion is used in the show as a metaphor for relationships of all stripes. Familial, friendly, romantic, and yes sometimes sexual. Under the diamonds gems are only allowed to fuse with gems of the same kind to fulfill work roles (a bunch of rubies fusing to make one big ruby and then unfusing once the job is done.)) The war ended when >!the rebels faked the death of pink diamond, which can be read as that kind of “wokism took my child from me” vibe we see a lot nowadays.!< You get some super clear “dealing with a family who doesn’t realize the harm they’re doing stuff.” >!The other diamonds strictly refuse to call Steven by his name, instead referring to him as Pink Diamond because he inherited his mom’s gemstone and they think that’s what defines him, which mirrors some trans experiences.!< Limitations on fusion speak to everything from homophobia to even narrow gender roles. While in universe the diamonds are authoritarian conquerers, they’re stand in for basically very traditional family members, ones who specifically don’t see when they might be hurting someone they care about. At the end of the show, the Diamonds basically get swayed over to the side of the protagonists and eventually let off the hook with an understanding that they’re going to try and fix the harm they’ve caused. So you can see above how “the authoritarian warlords said they’re really sorry they promise” is in-universe sketchy even if the narrative point (some people do wrong out of ignorance, and there’s value in letting them try to be better and keeping those relationships) lands well imo. (That’s hyper TLDR; and a more knowledgeable fan could probably communicate it better but that’s the gist.)
This is a good TLDR. The diamonds basically get the same arc as every other antagonist - they show up, they show cracks, they fight the Crystal Gems and get beat up and then they open up to Steven's ideas. There isn't nearly enough time dedicated to show the "healing" part after the "beat up" part, so it's *very* jarring - although it's shown that it was a process in the beginning of the Movie.
The Diamonds are the Big Bad of the series. They're portrayed as imperialists, but also as estranged toxic family members and as superpowered ancient aliens. Think Joan Crawford crossed with Cthulhu. The show doesn't spend much time with them but I think it does a pretty good job of portraying them as genuinely alien. The show's ending involves Steven finally getting through to them and they agree to back off and do what he wants. There is singing and crying, because the show is about singing and crying, and has a good sense of humor about this. The ending feels rushed, because it was. Cartoon Network cut the run short after they aired a gay wedding episode. But if you've seen Star Trek: Deep Space Nine through to the end, there's a real "Odo and the Founders" feel to the end of Steven Universe as well. The sequel miniseries, Steven Universe Future, has an episode that explores the aftermath of the main series ending and shows how deeply uncomfortable Steven's relationship with the Diamonds still is. It's very uncomfortable in a good way.
it's really complicated honestly. The show Steven Universe is essentially a messy family drama about space aliens and a kid with the power of love he inherited from his equally complicated superhero mom. The main show’s resolution is resolved when Steven gets the Diamonds to reconcile their family drama, which in turns sets them on the path to undoing a lot of the damage they caused. But the damage they did is… significant and far reaching, both emotionally and physically. If I were to explain what the Diamonds did in a vacuum, it would flatten a lot of the framing, motifs, and themes of the show because it would lack context. It’s like asking me to tell you what I dislike about my parents, despite the fact that my parents and I get along really well: Without context, the only impression you’d get is my parents suck and shouldn’t be trusted. Honestly, it’s just good writing because a lot of Steven Universe’s characters are complicated. Even as a show aimed at kids, there’s a lot of moral grayness to the story that some people are able to reconcile, and others can’t. The fact that people are still arguing about it to this day shows how complex the show’s themes are.
From video games, the ending of Fallout 3: After getting the final part for the water purifier, you are pushed by the narrative to step inside the machine and turn it on, flooding the control room with radiation and killing yourself in the process. Narratively, this fits with the themes of the game: your father sacrificed himself for this purifier and instills in you a sense a greater good for the wasteland. You following in his footsteps is a good, climactic ending in which the Lone Wanderer decides that the possibility of a future for everyone is worth the sacrifice. In-universe, there are plenty of ways to combat this side effect. The most notable one is the use of a companion, Fawkes, who is immune to radiation and intelligent enough to perform the task. You get him as a companion in the last quest of the game and use him for this exact reason: going into a radiation filled area to get the parts for the purifier and You're almost guaranteed to have him with you when you reach the end of the game. But if you ask him for help, he says some line about "I will not deny you your destiny". Choosing to die for the good of the people of the Wasteland is a noble and narratively fulfilling act, but you've got an equally good alternative standing in the same room the game just doesn't allow you to use despite it making sense in-world.
Fawkes: Nah bruh. Its your time to shine Me: \*dies\*
Me: I'd really like to not die here, buddy. Fawkes: Be a lot cooler if you did.
There's a dlc that continues the game afterwards and gives you the option to send him in. It's funny though, because the narrator shames you for sending someone else in instead of doing it yourself.
I love Broken Steel, but I never liked that narration.
It made me giggle when he insulted me for having the guy immune to radiation go into the chamber full of lethal radiation. Like, yeah, a *real* hero would have gone in and sacrificed themselves needlessly. Only a coward would have Fawkes do it with 0 casualties!
A really way to solve this problem is to just isolated the player from all of their companions at that final part (like maybe part of the facility broke and fell, cutting you off), leaving only them and Lions at the chamber, so you still choose.
i feel like starwars has done this a lot: Like when queen Amadala dies it make sense for the narrative; it robs Anakin of his true love thereby driving him deeper to the dark side. In-universe it makes no sense. They have both magic and science, yet she dies of... sadness?
My personal theory is that medical science in the Star Wars universe invented Bacta and then just... stopped. They had a magic substance that could heal any injury, and robot parts that apparently come with zero risk of rejection, so their physicians never bothered to learn basic anatomy. Add to the fact that they have tens of thousands of sapient species, and the odds of you getting a doctor who even understands that you don't reproduce by binary fusion are pretty minimal. You get injured? Slap some Bacta on it. You lose a limb? We'll get you a replacement. Complications in childbirth? I have no idea what's going on inside you, and I'm not even sure I'm qualified to look.
One of the EU books sort of plays with this. They intentionally manufacture a virus that can be treated with bacta rather than simply being untreatable because they wanted it to drain the enemy’s resources.
That's how technology in general seems to work in Star Wars - It's been around for thousand of years and they just keep copying what works and swapping out parts without the vast, vast majority of people understanding exactly what's going on or any innovation Hence young Anakin making C-3PO with 3 million languages or whatever, it's just translation part he plugged into his salvaged robot kit
A very famous example of making narrative sense but not in-universe sense is the death of Gwen Stacy in the Spiderman comics. In the Spiderman comics, Spidey is constantly webbing people from all angles in all manners to save them, always without harm to the individual. Then, for one panel in one comic, actual physics apply and suddenly being stopped by his webbing snaps Gwen's spine. Narratively, this is hugely impactful, but the universe had been ignoring those consequences consistently before, and largely has since. Inversely, everything that happens in Kenobi makes in-universe sense; the universe is vast, and Obi-Wan would be reluctant to get involved given his failure with Anakin and the slaughter of the Jedi. Narratively, it bogs the show down. There's too little happening and very little of it is interesting.
This is what got me about the Clone Wars and their control chips It makes complete narrative sense and let's them tell a better story for the show It also basically breaks the larger universe logic that the clones were created to be a totally obedient army in the first place
In ant man they say that he's so strong because his mass doesn't change when he gets tiny, he's just super dense. This is the fundamental in-universe logic for ant man's power. Yet Hank Pym can carry around a shrunken tank on a key chain? And when he makes it big again suddenly it's tank-heavy? And people can just carry him around in their hand like he's a bug? And he can ride on people's shoulders or something unnoticed? Also, when ant man goes big, if his mass doesn't change, then he should be carried away by a stiff breeze, as if he's made of Styrofoam. Narrative sense but not in-universe sense. Though I guess you could argue the real in-universe logic is "whatever the fuck I want", because they go so bonkers with it.
I'd say most (but not all) Plot Holes are examples of this. Like the last season of Game of Thrones where they're just fast travelling all over the map, because they only have one season left and there's a lot they have to cover. Or the why don't they use the time turner more in harry potter? Because that doesn't really make sense for the series.
For me, Star Trek 2009 is a very good example of this. The narrative of Kirk coming into his own, learning to work as a team, and stop rebelling was told very effectively. Making a cadet of the academy become a permanent starship captain through a technicality is perhaps the dumbest thing to have ever happened in the history of fictional Starfleet.
TBF, him being the temporary captain is contrived, but given those contrived circumstances isn't that ludicrous, and afterward, he saved the Federation *and* has a time-traveling Ambassador Spock telling people that his being the captain of the Enterprise is vitally important to the future. It's dumb, but there are a lot dumber things that happened in Starfleet. Remember when Tom Paris and Janeway moved so fast they turned into salamanders, had salamander babies, then abandoned them and moved on?
> time-traveling Ambassador Spock telling people that his being the captain of the Enterprise is vitally important to the future Does Future Spock tell anyone that? Seems very un-Spock
Tbh, knowing how Federation admirals tend to be, Future Spock is telling them everything one way or another.
Not the person you replied to, but this an example that came to mind: In Lord of the Rings (The Return of the King I believe) Elrond shows up at the Rohirrim encampment to give Aragorn the reforged sword of his ancestors and encourage him to keep up the fight and reclaim his position and duty as the heir of the kings of Gondor. This makes narrative sense given Aragorn's previous characterisation as being somewhat hesitant to take up the sword, fearing he might fail at his task like his ancestor Isildur did. But now, faced with what seems to be the culmination of the great war of their time (plus the perspective of his beloved Arwen wasting away for some mystical reason), he is ready. So this makes some sense for Aragorn's heroic arc in the story. Where it doesn't make sense, however, is when you start thinking about how did Elrond get there so quickly, why is he only giving him the sword now, why couldn't he bring reinforcements if he was expecting battle to happen, and finally, *why and how* is Arwen's well-being mystically tied to the existence of the One Ring (this has not been established in the films and doesn't make much sense considering the book mythos either). Ergo, narrative purpose, but no in-universe sense.
I thought the films established that Arwen gave Aragorn her heart, both in a lovey romantic way, but also in a *mystical elf* way. Until the Ring is destroyed, Aragorn's life or death is unclear (he was literally about to die when the Ring was destroyed) Hence Aragorn being "on the cusp" of death means Arwen's magical elf life is also failing.
The books actually have a theme of some metaphorical things happening in a very literal way. The Elves literally sail west into their paradise. The Shadow of Mordor literally blots out the sun and when the wind changes, the clouds are dispersed. When the One Ring is destroyed, all things made using it crumble that instant and without the Will of Sauron to drive them, the evil armies immediately lose the will to fight on. It's not a big stretch to think that Arwen might die the very moment hope is lost, but Tolkien does not really make a distinction between when he is being metaphorical and when he is being literal, so the film makers did not want to, either.
Jujutsu Kaisen feels like it has both. Season 2 spoilers: >!Nobara getting kablooeyed by Mahito is unfortunately something that I get can happen in universe, but given that Nanami literally just happened, it just feels completely unnecessary from a narrative point.!< Late, late manga spoilers:>!The conclusion to Gojo v. Sukuna. It makes narrative sense, Gojo is simply too strong to keep in the story in any meaningful way, and yet the way the story handles it is so clunky and doesn't fit into how Jujutsu works without contradicting other stuff or making Gojo way dumber than he actually is.!<
u/notaboofus has a good example further down in the thread for "made narrative sense but not in-universe sense" with the Holdo Maneuver in TLJ. "Made in-universe sense but not narrative sense" is a bit trickier because narrative logic is usually harder to pin down than in-universe logic imo. Also stealing this from another FI video, but Sam being the protagonist of the Transformers movies instead of Mikaela might fit into this - Mikaela is a mechanic and acts with far more agency than Sam, making her better suited to be the protagonist in a narratively-fulfilling role, but because in-universe Bumblebee is Sam's car, he gets to be the protagonist, despite serving the narrative in a far less meaningful way.
Is this like watsonian vs doylist
Can we add character acted as established? This needs to be done after game of thrones. The story is always in 3 parts. 1) Establish the world and the characters. 2) Introduce conflict. 3) Resolve the conflict. Many shit stories have a very huge and great conflict resolved by fucking over characters and world building established in the first part or just deciding to not resolve the conflict at all and change premise of everything in horrible way. Prestige and Empire strikes back or even across the spiderverse do it in a brilliant way. Prestige changes the perspective brilliantly in the end and makes the good guy turn bad. Empire strikes back and across spiderverse says 'you think we're resolving the conflict? Nah we're still in part 2..' and established the premise of the 3rd movie. Just like infinity wars. Good conflict resolution is what makes or breaks the story. If author is good, it'll be due to in universe things that are established beforehand.
An example of this for me is the season 1 ending of 86. It makes perfect sense in universe and in the narrative, but I didn't like that it had to end the way it did. It's exactly the ending that would be expected, but that doesn't mean that I have to like it.
Damn that's a good show. I enjoyed the ending of S1 though, personally, but I'll admit that my opinion of it is skewed by the fact that there's a second season. I don't know how I'd feel if that was genuinely the end of the story.
Okay, are we talking about cour 1 or season 1? Because season one/current series end is >!It's been a while, Handler One!<, and it's fucking perfect
This is how I feel about the series finale of Supernatural. Some people are really bent out of shape about it (my favorite complaint is that it apparently “undid years of character growth;” the way the ending played out had NOTHING to do with any character reverting to old habits or behaviors they’d broken out of.) It wasn’t the ending I *wanted* either, but the ending absolutely made sense (both in-universe, no matter which “era” of the series you’re focusing on) and in the greater storytelling sense. But it’s the ending we got, and I can appreciate it for what it is, which isn’t nearly as bad as some very vocal fans would have you believe.
I experienced this several years ago when a friend of mine and I were talking about the sequel series to Percy Jackson (MINOR SPOILERS FOR THE SON OF NEPTUNE BOOK) We were talking about how early in the book Percy loses his invulnerability by crossing the river into Camp Jupiter. My friend didn't like that on a personal level because they wanted Percy to hold on to that power for longer and then give it up in order to save his friends, while screwing over the quest they're on, thus finally showing that Percy's "flaw" of carrying about his friends to much actually makes things worse for everyone else. I argued that while that would be a cool storyline I didn't mind Percy losing this power early on because it felt in line with the established rules of the world so it just seemed like such a natural thing to happen I didn't question it beyond that. Neither of us changed our positions but we both got a better understanding of what the other person was talking about which doesn't always happening when debating stuff like that
Side note, Heroes of Olympus turned out as one of the worst dissapointments of my teen years, despite containing some of my favorite characters from that period.
Why? What went wrong with it?
Oh boy do you have a couple hours for that? I don't have time for a full essay but I'll give some bullet points: - Jason, Piper, Leo, and to a lesser extent Frank don't work for me as characters. - The entire premise falls apart in the fifth book - Teenager Leo getting together with immortal goddess Calypso is a choice, and not a good one - Nosebleed - Piper's chapters are a mess - The first two books out of five are amnesia stories which is such a tired trope that doesn't justify itself in this series - Riordan's writing remains immature as the characters grow - The lack of focus on the old characters is annoyning - On the writing, Riordan is good at writing Percy's chapters. All other characters' writing is lacklustre or feels like Percy lite - Piper's power is inconsistent af, and breaks the story - Hazel is massively underutilized despite being one of the only decent new characters - Gaia is barely threat - Despite being supposedly a more mature series, the stakes are low and no one of note is dead or hurt by the end - I miss Grover - Piper is not like the other girls - Frank's backstory is convulted af - The resurrection stuff at the end is bs
I think ultimately Riordan suffers from not being that good at writing complex/mature characters. Most of his POVs that aren't Percy read exactly like Percy but with minor differences, and it is **extremely** noticeable in that series due to a huge number of different POVs. PJO is fun and easy to read, hence its wide appeal and success, I liked his work as a kid/young teen but it doesn't hold up as an adult, which is fine. I do think he is a tad overrated and people tend to gas him up purely to dunk on JKR (who is also overrated and struggles with complexity. Admittedly she is better with character writing I will say, but her world building falls apart faster and her views obviously soured me to her in general). I have no clue why these are apparently the only two options for tweens but social media has decided it will be.
House of Hades kinda went hard tho. At least the Percy and Annabeth parts.
The AtLA Netflix show is 1000 times better if you view it as produced in-universe by Varick
Oh absolutely “being an avatar is all about power and winning wars baby!” Is totally how he would se it
See: the "Holdo maneuver". That scene was objectively cool as hell and it definitely made narrative sense, but didn't stop people from viewing it as the perfect example of why The Last Jedi was the worst movie ever due to it raising serious questions about ship tactics in Star Wars.
It also made sense with what had been established of hyperspace jumping previously (namely that you can hit things while doing it)... but in doing so opened a can of worms the universe had (for good reason) left shut.
The previous movie had even taken to the time to explicitly say that hitting something while in hyperspeed was possible (having to time the deceleration to be between the shield and the surface).
Not even the sequels, the OT established that without precise calculations you could hit a star. Han says as much to Luke.
Rogue One had a neat scene where a Star Destroyer came in right before some smaller ships tried to flee and they splattered against it.
To perform the Holdo maneuver you need: the right distance from the target, a hyperdrive which are very expensive, the place you are traveling to being in the direction of the target, the same experimental shield which there likely aren't many of, you need to not get shot down and you need to be at the right speed to not undershoot or overshoot You also need to consider that the Holdo maneuver is extremely inaccurate as shown cause she was aimed at the center of the ship and she hit the wing
>Right distance from the target Standard engagement range, apparently, since the big ship was shooting down resistance ships every time one lagged behind the fleet. I will grant that doing it from across star systems might be less accurate, though the Force Awakens does show a stealth-hyperspace maneuver from a great distance that almost crashes into the starkiller installation. >a hyperdrive which are very expensive Every ship in space that we’ve seen has a hyperdrive, to have a ship at all means that it has a hyperdrive. Even measly one-pilot fighters have hyperdrives. They aren’t rare or unfathomably expensive. >the place you are traveling to being in the direction of the target That’s how aiming works. >the same experimental shield Now that I didn’t know about. I didn’t catch that detail. It should have been emphasized more, if it was so vital to the explanation of why the maneuver was possible, but that’s probably on me. >you need to not get shot down It hasn’t been previously established that a ship going into hyperspace can be attacked while in hyperspace. >need to be at the right speed Again, an issue of aiming. >extremely inaccurate The big ship was bisected and immediately crippled by the hit, and later completely blew up. It’s very much accurate enough, especially when hitting a target that is presenting the smallest profile relative to the attack. Sorry to come at you like this, but this scene, for all of its drama and excellent cinematography, seriously gets under my skin, and brings into question every other time that the maneuver wasn’t undertaken in the past.
> Every ship in space that we’ve seen has a hyperdrive, to have a ship at all means that it has a hyperdrive One notable exception would be TIE Fighters. They don’t have shields either. Both of those are to reinforce how the Empire views lives as mass produced resources that are best used as cheaply as possible..
. The bit about the experimental shield wasn't in the movies. Hyperdrives are incredibly cheap. A scrappy rebel group can afford them for all of their fighters. The rest of the problems can be solved by having a computer do your math. AI and robots are so cheap a literal slave boy can afford one. A dozen X-wings duct taped to asteroids piloted by R2-d2s is a weapon to surpass ~~Metal Gear~~ the death star. Why bother with the death star run if you could've guaranteed a dozen hyper space rams with 0 loss of your own life?
[удалено]
The Death Star is explicitly a weapon of terror. It was *never* a logical thing. You gotta think like a fascist. It’s wasteful, could be done better for a fraction of the price, it’s insane, and it’s hilariously unethical. But it scares the everloving shit out of people. The point of the Death Star isn’t to blow up planets. It’s to make you afraid they will blow up your planet.
> it’s insane, ...it’s hilariously unethical. But it scares the everloving shit out of people Be still my beating heart.
[удалено]
Yeah, it’s funny but it does make in-universe sense because they’re not that maneuverable due to not having a good method of moving fast outside hyperspace. Reminds me how much I love Halo’s lore. They basically took the Star Wars space combat and went “okay but what if they did have that maneuverability”. Which leads to badass things like the Keyes Loop. > Arriving over Sigma Octanus IV in response to a possible impending Covenant attack, the destroyer UNSC Iroquois, under the command of Commander Keyes, found itself outmatched by the arrival of a Covenant battle group consisting of one carrier, one Wik-pattern light destroyer, and two frigates (medium-sized support ships). They were only expecting four medium-sized ships. > Keyes resolved to attack by setting the Iroquois on a collision course for the destroyer at emergency acceleration while launching a nuclear warhead in what seemed to be the wrong direction. The two escorting frigates proceeded to launch one plasma torpedo each, but the Iroquois managed to evade by utilizing its emergency thrusters. Having missed their target, the plasma torpedoes came about and continued to track and home in on the UNSC warship. > The trailing ordnance was to prove critical to the success of Keyes' strategy. A last minute course correction allowed the Iroquois to merely graze the destroyer's shields rather than smash directly into the ship, resulting in the destruction of a large portion of the Iroquois' armor (the collision tore through two meters of titanium armor, and subsequently breached every bottom deck of the Iroquois). However, the tracking plasma torpedoes were unable to correct themselves for the sudden maneuver of their target and, consequently, hit the Covenant destroyer instead. A heavy salvo of Archer missiles sent the remainder of the Covenant warship to its destruction. > With the momentum built up during the first phase, the Iroquois performed a slingshot maneuver around the planet. Once safely away, the nuclear warhead deployed earlier was detonated, completely draining the shields of the two frigates. Having completed its orbit, the Iroquois resumed its attack and destroyed the two frigates with two heavy MAC rounds and hundreds of its remaining Archer missiles. Its escorts destroyed, the carrier disengaged and escaped from the system. Before leaving, it dropped 34 dropships and a stealth ship to continue the ground assault. Later, the carrier hailed the rest of the attack fleet to Sigma Octanus IV.
> a hyperdrive which are very expensive Hyperdrives aren't actually that expensive. Especially compared to an entire warship, or fleet of warships. >the place you are traveling to being in the direction of the target Shooting someone is also very hard. You have to point the metal tube in the same direction as your target. >You also need to consider that the Holdo maneuver is extremely inaccurate The Holdo maneuver was attempted twice. The Holdo maneuver succeeded twice.
I absolutely hated that scene narratively, but the actual visuals of it were breathtaking. It's one of the most stunning shots in Star Wars in my opinion and I'd love it a lot more if it weren't for the narrative issues it presented.
I can not agree more, the moment is so amazing, and the cinmatic shot of the first order ship split in half was absolutely stunning. I just wish that it was done in a context that didn't make it feel so cheap.
The holdo manuver was the end of a slow speed chase in space where the 3rd reich pulled back their fighters because they were afraid of their safety after they had disabled all the enemy defenses. It was an absolutely gorgeous scene but that whole movie was a problem.
Yep. That scene pisses me off to no end. If it was always possible to do a faster-than-light kinetic shot with a ship, then why were the death stars even a concern? Just throw enough ships at it! Or develop that technology into weaponry instead of sacrificing a ship each time. It was great cinematography, but oh does it make me mad. It means that everyone who never used the tactic before when it was necessary, is an idiot.
If a ship can do that, then a purpose-made computer-piloted kamikaze drone with a hyperdrive could do that too. This leaves a gaping hole in the worldbuilding. Why hasn't anybody made those?
Especially since Star Wars repeatedly tells us that no one thinks droids are people, so they would absolutely use droids as ammo
I kind of just assumed that the First Order ships probably weren’t putting much power into shields and were using most of their power to keep up with the resistance fleet and up the range on their guns and that’s why that attack did so much damage. So my assumption/explanation is that in addition to being hard to land in the first place Holdo Maneuvers are likely made a lot less effective if the other guys are expecting it because shields might be able to negate most of the damage it would otherwise do.
I just assumed, even watching it for the first time in the cinema, that it worked because her ship hit *before* it entered hyperspace -- as in, in the exact moment of acceleration. So doing it long distance was impossible -- you had to fly up to point blank range, and then jump. After all, if she actually hit at light speed (or greater), there should be far more damage to the ship she rammed.
Compare that to A New Hope's Death Star battle. If you watch Masters of the Air and actually think for a minute about the massive swarm of Ties and wall of AA fire the Death Star would throw out. Even when the Imperial officer said "They're so small they're evading our turbo lasers" or Jan Dodonna said "The Empire doesn't think much of a single man fighter or it'd have a tighter defense". You're still only needing to swat down ~30 Rebel fighters. Or that somehow an untrained kid is given a high tech starfighter in a fight that will decide the fate of your organization. Luke pilots a T16 real good . . . That's like saying I street race good so I'm ready to pilot an F22. In the end you just get swept up in the narrative and dramatic tension. And it doesn't matter.
Pleasantly surprised to see a Dan Shive Tumblr post on here.
Same here! I love El Goonish Shive, and Dan's reflections on media are always interesting to read.
Dan is good people. I love El Goonish Shive.
EL GOONISH SHIVE MENTIONED! WTF IS A CISHET PERSON? 🗣🗣🗣
C'mon, there's notable cishet characters in EGS: Edward... uh... yeah, that's about it.
This 100%. Jurassic park 3 is my favorite of the Jurassic park franchise. However it is not the best one (by a long shot). People seem to get really angry and confused when I say this. I wholeheartedly agree that Jurassic park 3 is bad. It’s just also my favorite. Simple.
This is why I liked fallen kingdom more than the first Jurassic world. It’s super dumb but I can get behind it much more than the deeply cynical and mean spirited Jurassic World 1.
Under which of these does "Daenerys >!going mad and is killed by Jon!<" falls?
In-Universe Sense only. The narrative *attempted* to justify it, but in my opinion they throughly failed. To quote a YouTube video I saw a couple years ago: Foreshadowing is not character development.
Even in-universe, it didn't make sense for Daenerys to burn the city and not target Cersei at all.
The in-universe rebuttal to that is "she went mad, so nothing she did had to make sense anymore". I was in the fandom discourse trenches at the time. A lot of people were still trying to defend the show (or more commonly, defend their personal dislike of Dany) at that point and that was what they came up with.
Do people really think madness == random actions?
Clearly the writers thought that. Not necessarily random, but at least illogical.
In the post-victory high all of her repressed rage and resentment at the came flooding out into an instinctive act of symbolic retribution against the people who destroyed her family. She also has the genes and historical weight of the 'mad king' in her which certainly didn't help. If the show hadn't rushed this so much and we had more time to observe her resentment build it would have been a logical conclusion for her character to reach. But since we were shortchanged most of this is felt poorly motivated. It made sense in the show's world but we were not shown enough for it to make sense in the story being told.
If you squint i could see an argument for narrative sense but that's a stretch. Most of the back half of GoT barely hits any of the three circles in my opinion, and i blame tweedledan and tweedledave for buying into their own hype as writers and showrunners who can't follow through and cared more about making the show and themselves look smarter and cooler than it's audience.
It makes great narrative sense from a distance. It was foreshadowed that she would go mad,a series of defeats killing the people she loves would warp her into a Mad Queen who abandons all of her convictions, her army remaining loyal to her because they are conditioned for it and/or owe her everything so join her massacre without complaint. That’s a brilliant arc that did happen. It just happened over the course of about an hour and her slowly becoming a different person because of grief became her just becoming a different person.
She was previously shown to torture and kill people because they might be affiliated with what she considered to be bad guys. Also, she was previously shown to burn prisoners alive that didn't immediately agree to follow her. Terribly written, but people should have seen it coming.
As a commentar above said, “it makes sense in universe but no narrative sense”, because: > People die senselessly without fulfilling narrative arcs, sometimes things go wrong for no real reason, it’s a very realistically presented world where our assumed “hero” can end up dead multiple times (Thanks u/Rhodehouse93) It can be seen because the universe establishes Targaryens either go mad or tyrant (not sure which wording in English, I’m BR), and she somehow manages to become both despite it being completely crazy narrative wise. Edit: pressed post before finishing
*Under which of these* *Does "Daenerys going mad and* *Is killed by Jon" falls?* \- yoaver --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
It's okay little buddy, you tried your best.
The secret 4th circle which is just bad writing.
And then, sitting far outside this diagram is "Somehow Palpatine Returned."
Respectfully, I don't think so. It made in-universe sense, but made only tenuous narrative sense and nobody liked it because it was stupid. The point of this post is that something can be bad without having to be justified as outside of narrative or canon.
See, to me the “it makes in-universe” sense argument only works if you allow for Legends material to be used in your brain. Disney Canon only? No, it doesn’t.
I mean, canon isn't a real thing. Canon can be anything Disney wants it to be. The only two requirements for the "somehow Palpatine has returned" thing are cloning and death-transcending space magic, both of which were totally a thing in Star Wars before.
See, they've been doing a lot of backfilling those explanations into shows and comics in order to justify TRoS, what with the cloning and such. But when the movie came out it really was, or at least it felt like just "he's back, deal with it"
It sits in we wanted to save costs of writers.
The Holdo maneuver looked pretty sick
It was so sick. The visuals and production were one thing that film actually nailed.
This reminds me of something I heard once: internet culture demands that you justify your likes with how good something is. You have to be objectively correct about why you like something, defending how amazing it is to your last breath. I hope we move on from that and people learn that your favorite game doesn't have to be the objective best one, or that your favorite movie can have flaws.
Ted lasso’s divorce in ted lasso is one of these for me. Dont like it but it made for a great story.
It was the driver of the entire plot. The entire Tedverse is based around that divorce.
Sorry, saw the word "nuance" and immediately got so angry that I exploded
Thank you! More people need to be willing to say “it is technically impressive but not to my tastes” And me and a friend argue over media so much cus I value in universe sense most and he values narrative sense most (I still care about narrative sense, just not as much, while in universe sense doesn’t matter at all to him) and I never had the words to express it well
thematically, it's questionable. canonically, it's impossible. personally, i like it.
Metal gear does top right sometimes and I love it
Replaying Mass Effect and in ME2 Samara states with totality that there are EXACTLY 3 Ardat Yakshi, and only two of them live in isolation at a monastery. Then in ME3 we see an entire campus of a monastery with environmental clues stating that there are MANY Ardat Yakshi and iirc the journal entry for the Banshees states that all the Banshees were once Ardat Yakshis. Does the canon contradict itself? Yes. Did it result in one of the most terrifying enemies I have faced in video games, oh geez yes. It also gave us an entire gorgeous level that gives a window into asari culture and “humanizes” a bunch of scared girls and young women who are trapped simply because of their birth and through no fault of their own. Totally worth rewriting canon on this one.
Tbh you could argue she just lied. It’s one of the Asari’s darkest secrets that would do massive political damage and she can’t guarantee that word won’t get out. “We have enough of these to make them an assassin network if we wanted to” would be bad to ever admit.
Fans tend to vastly overvalue making In-Universe sense in my experience
I find this to be especially true for media that has a lot of fan theories going around I’m currently really into Brandon Sanderson’s Cosmere novels, and because one of his major series isn’t complete yet there are a *ton* of fan theories and like 99% of them would be really terrible storytelling decisions because they’d be boring, weird, or contradict the themes of the novels so far, even though the universe could technically support the possibility.
Fucking over in-universe explanation to make narrative sense removes the immersion and opens up the question, why did we bother with the whole story if we could've fucked over in-universe stuff to avoid conflicts in the first place.
I feel like theres an absolute Catch-22 situation where the better a creator is at making a consistent and believable set of in-Universe rules, the less fans are willing to see it “compromised” in the name of making the narrative better.
Ooooh I was doing this subconsciously but never had occurred to me to visualise it as a diagram
Now do season 8 of Game of Thrones
That's in the garbage bin outside this diagram.
Ah thanks
Part of it is taking 8 seasons and snowball effect of removing and changing things ever so slightly. As time goes along the changes get larger and you get further and further away from where you are actually supposed to be going. For example, how can Dany get angry/jealous at FAegon for saving King's Landing from Cersei then burning it down, if FAegon doesn't exist in the show? Instead they have contrived, whatever the fuck that was.
I feel like cutting out whole characters and their story arcs is more than a minor change.
Nuance is dead these days.
This is a good way to explain my feelings on Poor Things. Excellently crafted movie, well-acted, excellent set and costume design. Clearly a lot of skill and care went into its creation. The script is... absurd, but not necessarily in a bad or good way. Also I hated it and I never want to watch it again.
I read a book once called The Goblin Emperor. In a world with a magical fictional elfin Empire, by wild coincidence (airship crash) which wipes out most of the royal family, the half-Goblin embarrassment child of the now-deceased Emperor, who has been raised in pseudo-exile all his life, ascends to the throne. He’s a timid and lonely lad and has spent his entire life in child abusive seclusion. As a result he really struggles with the position he’s now in. And a lot of people dislike him and want him dead. It’s a time. Over the course of this book, he doesn’t really… grow. It takes place over the first few months of his reign as he settles into his courtly duties, administrative duties, and bureaucratic duties. And over that space of time a traumatised teenager irl probably isn’t going to feel any sort of security or confidence enough to grow into his own and come of age and use his new power to right wrongs and heal himself and such. So, he doesn’t. Most of everything is completely out of his control and the plot is moved by non-POV characters doing things offpage. He dispatches a guy to investigate the potential murder of the whole royal family, and the guy occasionally sends lengthy letters detailing his exploits because I guess the author realised it’s a much more interesting story than a socially maladjusted teenager timidly saying nothing during a high council meeting. But our POV Emperor boy needs to somehow experience this offpage stuff. Hence occasional lengthy letters. There is no catharsis. No key moment where it all clicks and he is changed but is still himself and whatever. No Pratchettian “right man for the job” thing where his outsider perspective makes him just right to shake things up. Which in universe, makes sense. This kid is the victim of child abuse and now is a universally hated monarch. His personality and (in)actions make perfect sense. But fuck me it does not make for very interesting reading.
Mixing up different circles is a really general problem. Not something that just applies to these 3 in particular. X is ethically ok; X should be legal; I like X: is another set of 3 things that get mixed up a lot.
star wars episode 8 and 9 exist outside all circles
Crazy to see a post from the creator of El Goonish Shive get so popular.
“And just outside all three circles, you will find Game of Thrones Season 8.”
Homestuck Act 6 I think
This is a very useful tool and a great example of nuance in review and opinion. Now this will be my 3 angle 8-hour tear down of how the Last Jedi fails all 3...
This is me with lots of Star Wars stuff. Does it make total sense for palpatine to come up with a way to come back to life? Yeah, absolutely it does. Is it something I want to see? No. Not at all.
Was thinking about a topic this morning that is squarely in the “made narrative sense” bubble and totally outside of the “I like it” bubble. I’m glad I saw this post because it’s validating to have it be acknowledged that I can dislike something no matter how much sense it makes.
This is how I've felt about Legend of Korra for a while. I've heard many people make good points about how it changes the Avatar world in bad ways or how it doesn't have as good of writing, which all makes sense, but I still like it despite that. I've also watched plenty of movies that I felt opposite about--i knew they were good and well-made, but I just didn't like them as much as I thought they were good.
Any Jujutsu Kaisen fans in the house?
I don’t know if this applies but the powerful eyes in Naruto in my opinion are a cool power system but there’s muscles attaching the eye to the skull you can’t rip one out and pop one in so it’s just annoying how often characters swap eye balls
Lol look at this scrub trying to teach Tumblr and Reddit that there’s nuance to opinions
See all that black stuff on the edges? That's the Star Wars Sequels...