Just out of curiosity, which do y'all prefer, an Epic Poem e.g The Odyssey, short stories, poetry, skit writing, or play writing?

Isn't this entire forum an "advertise your works here" space?

Though a showcase thread for really complete works would be nice. But if we could get away with it, I'd like to just post a thread for random writings (which I already have), and have a thread where I put my finished, non-crap. That might take up a lot of room, though. I just don't think it's working for everyone to post their crap in their one long personal thread, with the good mixed in under a healthy layer of bad. And by everyone, I mean me, of course. Though I've seen the same thing in a few personal threads.

Because of the structure of the BBS, threads basically become chronological blogs. So if you want to highlight something in your thread, there isn' t really a good way to do so. A writing community showcase would probably help, though I'm afraid it would also become clogged with sub-par dribble. If we can't reorder the stories to where the good stuff will get read, I don't think we'd get much traffic.

Though an EDIT BUTTON might alleviate some of my stress here.

One final thought: weekly/monthly votes to showcase a single piece of prose/poetry in a stickied thread? Appoint a mod caretaker and have a discussion thread, a vote, or just leave it to an oligarchical panel to pick the winner.

-~RWT~-

On the topic of doing your research before you commit something to writing, it obviously helps in more than a few cases. It shows through in most cases, and it's effective if you can moderate your knowledge for the potential reader. For example, Scrubs, no matter how wacky it gets with some of its content, quite clearly has a decent amount of effort put into the medical research since the pieces of information are often used as plot devices or used to present a particular character's weaknesses (JD has a question on metabolic diseases, oh yes). At the same time, the use of what the advisors give to the show's production is limited to allow the audience to enjoy what they primarily watch the show for: entertainment. Staying on the topic of hospital-based ideas, some shows exaggerate some of their details to a rather awkward extreme. Take Holby City for instance, which was inevitably mocked by Harry Hill for this. Being shown your work too much is also a common criticism of a book I previously brought up, that being John Fowles' The French Lieutenant's Woman. Fowles is well-read, we get it. Most of his references are at least relevant (class and status are big themes in the book, so what's wrong with making a nod to 'a beavered German Jew' in one section?), but others are... well, possibly overdone or seem as though they come from nowhere.

Writing to 'what you know' doesn't work all the time (and you may not even want to do so, see below), but if you're establishing a situation in a setting with its own almost-unique characteristics, then you should be able to use them accurately in what you write. Going back to the hospital example, it would help enormously for you to take a look around a hospital if you plan on writing something set in one, and not just basing it off what you see on TV (I've never heard doctors or surgeons shout 'STAT!' for instance, something which is actually referenced in Scrubs). One tutor here at university was looking at a student's idea that was based in a hospital based, and he claimed it was obvious to him that the student hadn't observed and experienced the atmosphere you'd get in a hospital. What makes this worse is that there's a hospital between the main campus and the main student-quarter campus here.

At the same time though, you may not want to go for 'realism'. I've certainly been taught never to criticise a film on the basis of realism, especially if you're bringing genre and other conventions in. In a piece of art, everything is done for a reason that would be replicated in reality. In film, everything is constructed. Even the landscape shots in Koyaanisqatsi, a film without a plot, characters or dialogue per se (it has a very strong message regardless), have been chosen and designed specifically by the filmmakers; indeed, the sequence that is created by the order of shots is essential to understanding the film. A less art-based example would be towards the end of Alfred Hitchcock's classic thriller The Birds: why does Melanie enter the room where the birds are obviously waiting? Because Hitchcock said so - it what creates the next part of the story. In Run Lola Run, Lola's scream frequently makes glass smash. Unrealistic? Definitely. Does it help develop Lola's image as a supernatural character? Yes. Is it a reference to the classic/notorious German film The Tin Drum? Apparently. The film's point is not to be 'realistic' (and the playing with animated form in each 'run' symbolises this perfectly), but to present an arena where the concepts of chance and choice can be played with.

Can the same be said about Avatar? After all, James Cameron is using flexible and fantastical sci-fi conventions to build up identifiable messages on environmentalism, tradition, war, imperialism, and possibly many other things. This interests me now, haha. I'll admit to being weak in physics - maybe that's where my argument develops from here?

At 2/2/10 10:51 AM, Zerok wrote:
Ho hum, what do y'all think?

I say, post whatever the fuck you want; IF you've got some talent and come up with a good story.

Post it. Do it. Doooo it!!

At 2/2/10 10:36 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: The chances anyone would survive a fall like that, regardless of the amount of soft leaves at the bottom is ridiculous and its stuff like that that makes me dislike stories & movies.

I don't mind that stuff, actually. I think that stories don't have to be logical if the writer doesn't want them to be and having a character fall 300 feet only to continue running is fine with me. And besides, how grounded in reality was POTC, after all?

Ever been so tired that you read the same line over and over and over again...and still lack any idea of what it means?

At 2/2/10 12:43 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 2/2/10 12:35 PM, RWT wrote: Though an EDIT BUTTON might alleviate some of my stress here.

These two things are NOT going to happen, especially the edit button.

Any specific reason for no edit buttons? Is it just that nobody wants to take the time to do it? Are Admins fueled by the frustration of typo-prone posters? People have been asking about it for a long long time, and I've never really understood why it hasn't been added. It's confusing because this is such a community driven site.

At 2/2/10 06:16 PM, Version2 wrote:

At 2/2/10 12:43 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 2/2/10 12:35 PM, RWT wrote: Though an EDIT BUTTON might alleviate some of my stress here.

These two things are NOT going to happen, especially the edit button.

Any specific reason for no edit buttons? Is it just that nobody wants to take the time to do it? Are Admins fueled by the frustration of typo-prone posters? People have been asking about it for a long long time, and I've never really understood why it hasn't been added. It's confusing because this is such a community driven site.

People would abuse it. This site has too many chuckle heads on it to allows such a thing. Plus having only one chance makes it so people think their posts out more (in theory).

At 2/2/10 06:24 PM, TrevorW wrote: People would abuse it. This site has too many chuckle heads on it to allows such a thing. Plus having only one chance makes it so people think their posts out more (in theory).

This.

Let's say it's 2 in the morning newgrounds time and there's only like, four people on the writing forum; there's no mods on. Some attention seeking twat comes on and posts what he got from bashing his head against his keyboard and deleting some extra characters to make what looks like words. Then, when he sees a green name come buy, he edits it to put in something that isn't spam. There'd be no way for the mods to know.

Or if someone posts an argument for something. Someone else comes along and points out a horrible flaw in the argument, then the first person goes back and, in a sorry attempt to save face, removes the flaw and says "I NEVAR SED THAT."

At 2/2/10 06:24 PM, TrevorW wrote: People would abuse it. This site has too many chuckle heads on it to allows such a thing. Plus having only one chance makes it so people think their posts out more (in theory).

Oh that's BS, how much can you abuse an edit button? So a flamer/troll goes back and changes a post in the middle of a flame war, big deal. I've seen it happen on other forums and they always get called out on it by other forum members.

Now if it was security issue with the site, that would be one thing, but saying that users will "abuse it" is just garbage IMO.

At 2/2/10 06:46 PM, Version2 wrote: Oh that's BS, how much can you abuse an edit button? So a flamer/troll goes back and changes a post in the middle of a flame war, big deal. I've seen it happen on other forums and they always get called out on it by other forum members.

It's more about the fact that it would give users the ability to post very NSFW or extremely abusive/offensive material, and that the moderators wouldn't have any way of knowing that it was posted if it was changed before they saw it, and this would be a particularly big issue in a forum with few regulars and few regular mods, such as this forum. On the topic of security, phishing related stuff could probably be linked too - reporting it here would run into the same problems as above.

And this isn't meant to sound cynical, but what if a sponsor or someone important to the site's maintenance sure whatever was posted? That might even result in the site losing money, which is no good at all. Seeing as they're important in some way, they might just take their money without reporting anything, and even then it'd be hard to chase up on if the user simply changed it later. It sounds contrived, I know, but I'm pretty sure this was one motivation for the English only rule - even if I'm wrong, it's the same sort of ballpark.

Either way, there will probably never be an edit button. Like Trevor said, it's somewhat of a positive in that users should therefore be double-checking (or triple-checking, or whatever) whatever they post before doing so. Sure, professional authors have their editors, but we may as well get down basic accuracy first. I'm not calling out anyone in particular, but in my opinion, creative work written in this little box without any sort of checking in ten minutes tops isn't exactly going to make me happy to review in my own time, because it will be terrible. I guarantee that.

***

Just watched Brian De Palma's The Untouchables - if you're into your cop/gangster films, I'd certainly recommend it. It's got the usual, often spectacular De Palma feel in what we see on the screen (one shootout is particularly notable, including a Battleship Potemkin homage for all!), but not all of the performances are brilliant. Sean Connery is great, but it's probably my second least favourite performance from Robert De Niro (after Quentin Tarantino's Jackie Brown).

Alright, I'll consider editing and posting the blogs. I guess anyone with more than 10 minutes of spare time (i.e. 99.999% of the internet) could search and find the original source, but through the filter of the Writing Forum and those who care to put the effort forth I guess the risk is fairly minimal.

We shall see, we shall see.

At 2/2/10 06:24 PM, TrevorW wrote: This site has too many chuckle heads on it

Hahah, you put it so kindly.

At 2/2/10 07:44 PM, Zerok wrote:

At 2/2/10 06:24 PM, TrevorW wrote: This site has too many chuckle heads on it

Hahah, you put it so kindly.

Yes, I know :P

At 2/2/10 06:46 PM, Version2 wrote:

At 2/2/10 06:24 PM, TrevorW wrote: People would abuse it. This site has too many chuckle heads on it to allows such a thing. Plus having only one chance makes it so people think their posts out more (in theory).

Oh that's BS, how much can you abuse an edit button? So a flamer/troll goes back and changes a post in the middle of a flame war, big deal. I've seen it happen on other forums and they always get called out on it by other forum members.

Now if it was security issue with the site, that would be one thing, but saying that users will "abuse it" is just garbage IMO.

I agree with Trevor on this one- While it would be certain that we can call people out on it, it's incredibly easy to doubt these claims, and certainly the door swings both ways- how would you feel if I went into your thread and then said, "Hey asshole, you've been editing shit out of your posts to avoid bans" and you had your thread soft locked for investigation? It'd certainly be annoying.

This also brings up the inevitable idea for a solvent to the problem: "edit mods" or allowing the current mods to have power over the editing of stories. While yes it is possible to do this, it puts much more work in the laps of mods/admins to do. I really doubt mods want to have to scan over all the pages of certain threads to find a bunch of bullshit to ban people for- let alone having to go through edits of certain posts and pages for spammers and trolls.

Another thought, brought up by Gum, is that we're most likely getting a Literature Portal eventually anyway, and it will most likely have editing features. Since it's not conversation oriented, obviously I can't see it being abused in the same way a writing forum one would. The other point he raised was that since this is quite obviously underway is, why complain about an edit button when all it will do is detract from making a portal which will most likely have that feature anyway?

Point is, an edit button would be too honor-based for it to work here, and even if mods were allowed to view edits it would place too much work on them, especially considering this is a writing forum, where posts can get incredibly wordy and looking over several edits could get annoying.

That being said, remember that you should be revising before you post and not after anyways. While it's true that yeah you'll probably see alot of mistakes after you post it that you didn't before, the fault is still yours for not reading and editing as carefully as you could have. All in all, editing and formatting is totally up to you and NG shouldn't have to cover your mistakes- if you need proofreading, put it up on your NG blog, or just post it- it's what the forum is for anyway.

The thing about those movies is that they're fiction. In Pirates they had a kracken come up and eat Jack Sparrow. I don't see why he couldn't fall a few hundred feet and live. Would you critisize Transformers for being about space alien robots?

or think starwars unrealistic because Jar Jar has a jamaican (jamacan? jamacian?) accent.

So really, the reason isn't because people would abuse it, but because it would be more work for the mods. That's perfectly reasonable now that I see it.

Got a new story up in my writing thread, check it out guys :)

At 2/2/10 09:31 PM, Nateofwar wrote: The thing about those movies is that they're fiction. In Pirates they had a kracken come up and eat Jack Sparrow. I don't see why he couldn't fall a few hundred feet and live. Would you critisize Transformers for being about space alien robots?

or think starwars unrealistic because Jar Jar has a jamaican (jamacan? jamacian?) accent.

No, I criticise Transformers for its appalling acting and amateur scripting. Oh wait, yeah, the scripting sort of involves something about space alien robots, so in a way I do criticise it for that. There was heaps of action and shit, and at times it felt like they spent too much time on all that action and not enough time on a good plot. It comes back to how well they implement their suspension of disbelief. Can we really believe that some ancient egyptian artifact can save the world (is that what happened in the end? I don't exactly remember)? Can we believe that Optimus is dead for real? Can we believe that those grade A boloney actors, Shia LaBouf (or whatever) and Megan Fox are in love? I think that's where Pirates differentiates from Transformers slightly. It appears there's more to the plot in the pirate movies, and indeed, this is aided with the embedding of their fictional world in a world of pirate folklore/mythology that is quite identifiable. But at the end of the day, it's still hollywood, and there's still always going to be that moment when they so obviously want you to believe Optimus is dead/Jack Sparrow is dead/Luke's father is dead, just so they can pull out the surprising/unsurprising plot twist that surprises us all.

So, I've put plenty of stories up on my thread, or at least overviews, and would like some feedback, I'm sure a lot of you are still less than happy with me about the poetry thing but what I've posted is fairly good in my opinion and at least deserves a look..

At 2/3/10 02:17 AM, WritersBlock wrote: No, I criticise Transformers for its appalling acting and amateur scripting. Oh wait, yeah, the scripting sort of involves something about space alien robots, so in a way I do criticise it for that.

If you're going to criticise anything about Transformers, criticise the directing - Michael Bay has one move and that is to make things explode. Since he cut down o the amount of explosions in Transformers 2, he's not directing hard enough >:(

There was heaps of action and shit, and at times it felt like they spent too much time on all that action and not enough time on a good plot. It comes back to how well they implement their suspension of disbelief. Can we really believe that some ancient egyptian artifact can save the world (is that what happened in the end? I don't exactly remember)?

No, some Ancient Alien artefact was buried inside the great pyramid - it was to be used to harvest the sun. Come on, take it with a pinch of salt, because it's not real and anyone that thinks it is real should be committed to the nearest asylum, do not pass go, do not collect 200 [insert local currency here]

Can we believe that Optimus is dead for real? Can we believe that those grade A boloney actors, Shia LaBouf (or whatever) and Megan Fox are in love? I think that's where Pirates differentiates from Transformers slightly. It appears there's more to the plot in the pirate movies, and indeed, this is aided with the embedding of their fictional world in a world of pirate folklore/mythology that is quite identifiable.

Yes, there is more believability in Pirates. This is because there really are myths and legends about Davy Jones' Locker and goddesses of the seas. I've never heard of a legend about alien robots from outer space that didn't come out of a comic book.

Pirates starts at quite an advantage.

But at the end of the day, it's still hollywood, and there's still always going to be that moment when they so obviously want you to believe Optimus is dead/Jack Sparrow is dead/Luke's father is dead, just so they can pull out the surprising/unsurprising plot twist that surprises us all.

Again, a pinch of salt is required - just immerse yourself in the film and enjoy it. Seriously, why do people go and watch these films if they come out thoroughly dissatisfied? It's a very rare occasion that I come out of a film saying to my girlfriend "Well, that was a load of wank."

It's the same with Avatar. Everyone knows that it's a remake of Dances with Wolves, with the Native Americans replaced by blue aliens, or Smurfs (delete as applicable). I went and watched it, granted, I wasn't as enthused about this as my girlfriend and our friends were, but I still enjoyed the experience, particularly as it was at an IMAX, which I'd never been to before.

If you want an award winning story and a heart warming tale, go and watch Invictus. Morgan Freeman is supposed to be excellent and, surprisingly so, Matt Damon is also.

At 2/3/10 04:12 AM, Coop83 wrote: Transformers stuff.

Yeah, I enjoyed Transformers for its explosions and shit, and I know it's not the most elegant of storylines, even going in to the cinema, I just think that if the effort required to suspend your disbelief, to connect with the storyline, is too large, it affects the overall enjoyment of the film and you find yourself relying on cheap hollywood thrills to get your ticket's worth. I liked Transformers as an action blockbuster, don't get me wrong, but it certainly lacks the finesse and captivation of better films.

You pointed out that Pirates has that advantage that it has a historical grounding, as opposed to the comic books and made up alien robots that Transformers had, but suspension of disbelief isn't just about the likeness between the film's world and our own, but rather, it has to work in its own universe for it to be believed in our own. The problem with a fantasy, or 'possible non-actual' world is that it lacks the instant familiarity of the actual world, and therefore it requires more delicate explanation to fill us in on the fictional world. Building on from this, for any fictional film in general to be believed, it requires everything, the scripting, the acting, the directing to come together and captivate. To be honest, one of the main things that pulled me out of my suspended disbelief was the scene right near the start where Megan breaks up with Shia over the phone then gets back together with him in the same conversation. True, it set up for character development later on in the film, but at that moment, the character development, the acting, everything just felt so two dimensional. "oh no I can not go out with you anymore Shia" "but Megan, I love you, don't leave me" "well ok then" *vomit*.

But yes, the robots fighting was awesome.

At 2/3/10 02:17 AM, WritersBlock wrote:

I think that's where Pirates differentiates from Transformers slightly. It appears there's more to the plot in the pirate movie, and indeed, this is aided with the embedding of their fictional world in a world of pirate folklore/mythology that is quite identifiable.

Pirate's of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl was a great film. For being based entirely on our cultural mythos surrounding pirates and, lol, a theme park attraction, it was well done. The plot held together, Keira, Orlando, and of course Depp were excellent, and the gags made sense. Aztec:Curse::Pirate:Gold is clichéd enough to make good movie fodder, and who doesn't like undead pirates? The very richly done setting (Port Royal, mid-18th century) was one of the best parts.

Then they made the frigging sequels, in which the same characters do the same gags over and over again, with people moving seemingly at random all over the Caribbean. I mean, really, can anyone tell me what the two pirates (Fat one & one with a glass eye; you know to whom I'm referring) were doing by the end of the third film?

Just examine the plot in terms of say, a book. Could the first Pirates' film be a novel? I think so. Could the sequels? Not a good novel, anyway. Could Transformers? I could summarize the plot of both Transformers films within 20 page children's books. "Long time ago in space, mecha battle! Optimus Prime want shiny thing. He crash into earth. Crazy man go blind. Bad actors somehow uncover all of this. Hoover Dam, Lol! Optimus Prime punches someone. Fin."

Rant aside, can you honestly tell me someone who writes a script where Petra, the great Pyramids, and Elephantine Isle are within sight of eachother has done his research? And where the hell is the Egyptian army during that final scene? When disbelief has to be suspended, that's one thing. I'm not one to watch Star Wars and complain that it's impossible to repel against gravity. George Lucas knows that. But when lazy writers create plot holes, then ignore them in favor of just telling the audience to 'accept it as fiction', that's a TV Trope.

At 2/3/10 09:15 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:
Also, Transformers was a HORRIBLE movie, but not because it had robots.

Absolutely right. It was a horrible movie because it had robot ghosts from robot heaven.

I've not seen the third Pirates film, and I haven't seen the other two in a long time, but from what I can recall from memory about Jack Sparrow and how he seems to change rather drastically was warranted by his reception in the first film, that is to say that the writers almost had to make him bigger, if I'm making sense. If others are to 'blame' for what this resulted in, then Johnny Depp should be included too, but I've never wanted to blame faults on good, entertaining performances.

I don't think if I'm just making this up, but I remember reading about it somewhere in this way. Whether this still justifies giving Jack Sparrow the ability to bend realities that apply to other characters... well, perhaps we could think about how that could be avoided?

At 2/3/10 09:15 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: And you've also brought up perhaps one of the worst characters ever invented in the Star Wars franchise. :/

I know some fans defend Jar Jar with the whole, 'everyone hated the droids/the Ewoks at first' bit, but the fact is that this is true about Jar Jar because he doesn't really offer anything exciting or entertaining, or even anything that children can pick up as a positive, yet Episode I gave him with a great amount of screen time - that's what did it for most I think. I mean, the Ewoks had the whole giantkiller thing going on, though it would've helped the writers here to not make the stormtroopers look like morons after two solid films where the Imperial forces are obviously threats to a great deal of people. Yeah, Wookiees tearing off stormtrooper arms would've been awesome for a great deal of fans (I'll admit that I would've enjoyed it), but it would've required a lot more padding to make it more rewarding. Wookiees, for example, aren't just going to be mild annoyances to the Imperials while they set the forcefields up.

C-3PO too; he's a butt monkey, but also intelligent and resourceful enough to make himself useful, and most of the accidents he gets himself into are not routine - the audience will feel for C-3PO in Cloud City for instance. Jar Jar had clumsiness as a defining trait, as a plot point for crying out loud. On a positive note (though fan opinion on this is clearly divided), this is played with rather sneakily in Episode II, especially if you're familar with the original trilogy as most fans will be.

Of course, the cynical approach is... well, mostly relevant article.

I can say that alien-frog toys with long sticky tongues sold like hot cakes at my primary school. You know, to the extent that were frowned upon more than Pokemon trading cards.

Once you establish a world, you stick to its laws or it unravels. And if you can't set up those laws to begin with, you've already failed as a writer.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean regarding Jar Jar, could you explain please? Star Wars seems to have sagas unknown to me that go further than Jar Jar and the Gungans. Of course, if I've misunderstood anyway, call me out, haha.

At 2/3/10 11:49 AM, Fyndir wrote:

At 2/3/10 11:45 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: I wasn't talking about Jar Jar. I only mentioned Jar Jar in one sentance. Jar Jar was a sidenote. I was talking aobut Pirates & Transformers, but more generally any fiction under the sun.

You know my favourite thing about the Transformers movie?

It ended.

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW

Jesus Christ, this is the guy who's going to be judging my post-modern commentary on the hypocrises of contemporary urban life?!

I'll never get my free T-Shirt at this rate. -_-

-~RWT~-

At 2/3/10 11:45 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: I wasn't talking about Jar Jar. I only mentioned Jar Jar in one sentance. Jar Jar was a sidenote. I was talking aobut Pirates & Transformers, but more generally any fiction under the sun.

Oh, sorry about that. Screwed up there.

I agree that's a general rule absolutely if you're going to expand your original thoughts further like that. I made a post (pg.14) about how I think writers can use any factual research gathered versus using a thought that is not attempting to replicate reality and instead is drawing attention to itself by making it clear that it is constructed. Like you say though, it's dangerous to go back on something you've supposed to have established as fact if you're taking the latter route.

I've not seen either of the Transformers films, and my thoughts on Pirates go about as far as what I posted above on Jack Sparrow and how is was, in a way, 'force-developed', but I'm not incredibly familiar with the films anyway.

Er, yeah, I'll sit in the corner now :$

I think I judge movies a little differently than you guys do. I don't mind a mindless, plotless movie, just so long it's entertaining. My most favorite movie of all time is Fight Club, there's a really good strong story with actually surprising twists.

But my number 2 movie is Shoot 'em Up. Absolutely mindless, the only reason there's a story there at all is because if they put anymore random gun battles in the movie, it would become too awesome for human consumption.

The thing about movies is, there's a visual element as well as a story element, and if one is strong enough it can compensate for the other.

The worst thing about the plot of transformers and the movie as a whole was how they progressed the plot and used the human characters.

Instead of using the robots themselves to push the plot- the robots which supposedly are the focus of the entire transformers franchise- they use human characters. Not only that, they use human characters in a sad, awkward, unrealistic teen-love scenario, specifically the "dopey guy gets the outrageously hot girl who is obviously out of his league" angle.

They manage to turn the robots, the thing everyone came to see, into a sidelined plot element instead of the main focus. The only time you see the magnitude of the robots is at the final fight scene, and by then, you only know a few of the robot's fucking NAMES, unless you recognize them from when you were a kid outside of the movie.

That movie should not have been called "Transformers". It should have been called "Shia Lebeouf Acting Awkward Around A Hot Girl For A Couple of Hours".

At 2/3/10 12:11 PM, Version2 wrote: I think I judge movies a little differently than you guys do. I don't mind a mindless, plotless movie, just so long it's entertaining.

I'm exactly the same way. I don't watch movies expecting them to be totally accurate and perfect in every way. I watch them to be entertained. If you're too concerned with the minute of a movie, you're missing the point of just enjoying a good film and should probably just stick to watching documentaries on the History Channel.

Who cares of, in reality a jump from a 20ft ledge would probably kill you... just sit back, suspend disbelief, and enjoy.

At 2/3/10 01:36 PM, tigerkitty wrote:

At 2/3/10 12:11 PM, Version2 wrote: I think I judge movies a little differently than you guys do. I don't mind a mindless, plotless movie, just so long it's entertaining.

I'm exactly the same way. I don't watch movies expecting them to be totally accurate and perfect in every way. I watch them to be entertained. If you're too concerned with the minute of a movie, you're missing the point of just enjoying a good film and should probably just stick to watching documentaries on the History Channel.

Who cares of, in reality a jump from a 20ft ledge would probably kill you... just sit back, suspend disbelief, and enjoy.

It's not that it has to be terribly realistic and scientifically accurate, it's that it should be consistent, well thought out, reasonable within the context of the movie, and not a fucking cop-out.

If I'm watching something that relies on cliches, recycled story, predictable twists, stupid stunts for the sake of stunts, and gratuitous explosions that function to help you forget about how bad the story is, I will not be entertained, I will be unhappy. Poor writing is not entertaining to me unless it is intentionally poor in order to create a certain intended atmosphere.