Post by Admiral Lithp on Jan 16, 2010 19:12:24 GMT -5
It's the same stuff as Cloud and Sepiroth. You didn't get it then, you won't get it now.
Pardon my French, but what the fuck are you talking about? I asked for clarification as to what you meant. I said nothing about the characters themselves being deep.
What this comes across as to me is you pulling a few more characters out of your ass, saying that they have bad development, & if I believe otherwise, I'm just biased.
Now, you know for a fact that I'm very fond of these characters & often express approval of the development they go through. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you just intentionally set up a lose-lose situation for me?
I notice that you never bother to explain how THESE characters have "false depth," or even what that means. It's all smoke & mirrors, really.
TL;DR version: www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/
You're using # 11.
1. Not if you take the movie as internally consistent it isn't.
Except...it is. They don't come right out & say it, but it's shown several times that the symbiote heightens aggression. Besides, that's sort of in the definition OF the symbiote, regardless of whether or not the movie hints at it.
2. Did the symbiote radiate the emo through time, then? Because I wasn't just talking post-symbiote. Sorry.
Maybe you could clarify your points? I haven't seen the 2nd movie, so I assume we're still talking about just the 3rd. In that case, I don't recall him acting "emo" before the symbiote.
Except I was referencing the character being shite that should be left in the 90s along with the other vapid bullshit that was cranked out to appeal to the kiddies. Venom had substance and depth, Carnage did not.
I'm not a comic book fan, so I'll take your word on this. It's still completely irrelevent to what I said. In fact, it's just plain irrelevent. So the movie can't establish any character development with Carnage? It's not allowed, or something?
The "logical progression" would seem to be "continue with the Sinister Six," as Spider-Man had faced three of them, and Sandman was still the focus of the third movie. But in either case, that doesn't make Carnage less terrible.
Except that the symbiote was also a major focus of the villain & most of the Sinister 6 haven't been introduced yet, so yes, the logical progression would be to have the symbiote reproduce and introduce Carnage. Hell, it could even have reproduced off-screen in the 3rd movie.
With Venom, it made 100% sense, and wasn't even so much a progression as it was a character trait.
Again, I'll take your word for it.
This would be confusing to fans of the movies, as there were no character traits in the movies.
Most of my knowledge of Spider-Man came from the old cartoons, & it didn't really make much sense there, either. I'll leave you to decide whether or not this means anything.
As for what you said, it more-or-less fits with what I said, but I disagree that there was "no character traits." Different character traits, yes. Not as deep, maybe. But no character traits at all would require there to not be characters, or the entire cast to be made up of Pac-Man & the Light Warriors.
The only reason they would need to make any sort of progression, and the only reason it would not make sense, is that they changed what Venom was. This was a bad move, simply because the news of a Venom spin-off dropping before Spider-Man 3 was in post.
If that's what it was like in the comments, then how did they "change what Venom was"? This seems to be a contradiction.
For the rest, what are you talking about?
What you're describing is roughly the same as the comics, though. It's still internally consistent. The only part missing is that Venom is a parasite that turns you into Snidely Whiplash in the movies. Which also sucked for Parker.
Exept that the Symbiote has always heightened aggression. This movie simply takes an interpretation on that which results mostly in Peter being a douchebag when it comes to women, considering he had relationship problems in the movie.
Because comparisons between two things do not need to be completely literal. For example, if one were to compare Star Wars to the mythology of Christ, it doesn't match up literally. I mean, Jesus didn't have laser swords or spaceships. But there are parallels before you even consider the ham handed comparisons from the prequels. Similarly, the Matrix featured a Jesus who flew and kicked serious AI ass, but he was clearly Jesus, as was pounded into our skulls by the movie, the fandom, and the creators who were so caught up in their own ego trip they didn't think subtlety was worthy of their time.
See "What Do You Mean It's Not Symbolic?" on TV Tropes.
Similarly, one does not need to make a movie about true love to be like Twilight. Raimi already turned a deep character into a brooding twit dealing with contemporary issues like lack of character development and non-wooden relationships.
So, in other words, you're saying you don't need to justify the comparison, because it should just be accepted as being true?