Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Logic in Fantasy Action Movies (Spoilers!)
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 121 of 126 (111416)
05-29-2004 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by crashfrog
05-29-2004 8:18 AM


crashfrog writes:
quote:
Since I'm a part of that community, I get to have an opinion on how genres are broken down.
No, you don't.
Some opinions are simply wrong. I'm reminded of the Saturday Night Live sketch where Ted Koppel is hosting a town meeting and one of the guests asks Hillary Clinton for a recipe for chocolate-chip cookies. She runs through the ingredients: So many cups of flour, so many cups of sugar, so much butter, creamed; how to mix them, and how to bake them.
Ted asks if that answered the question and she responded, "No. She didn't say how much butter to use." Yes, she did. "No, she didn't." Yes, she did. She said a stick-and-a-half of butter. "No, she didn't." Yes, she did and I can show you the tape. "Look, I'm not going to argue. She didn't answer my question."
Some opinions, crash, are simply wrong. It doesn't matter how sincerely you hold them. "Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself,' and the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto," to quote from A Fish Called Wanda (comedy/crime).
You are free to have your opinion, but that doesn't mean your opinion is worth anything.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2004 8:18 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 122 of 126 (111418)
05-29-2004 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by crashfrog
05-29-2004 8:57 AM


crashfrog responds to me:
quote:
quote:
The moral roles are absolutely defined:
Oh yeah? Who are the good guys?
The Allies. On a higher level, the fight against the Nazis.
quote:
Who are the evil guys?
The Nazis. On a higher level, the shirking of duty.
Hanks goes into it as a good guy thinking he's going to have to save a bad guy. Instead, he finds he's going to join a good guy.
quote:
The movie does it's level best to suggest that the Germans aren't faceless evil orcs, they're real men with real lives, doing their jobs, just like the Allies.
You're too mired in the surface. While the movie does point out that the war is fought by human beings who have no real say in determining why they are at war, it is still quite clear that you're rooting for Hanks and his crew.
quote:
That's what I mean about well-defined moral roles - the good guys are beyond reproach, and the evil guys are beyond repentance.
Surface. You're all about surface, crash. Look deeper.
quote:
quote:
Then why does every single resource I can find declare it to be one?
Because they all have a different opinion than I do.
And doing my damnedest not to invoke argument ad populum, have you contemplated why you seem to be isolated in your opinion? Why do so many independent systems come up with the same breakdown?
quote:
You may choose to, but why should I follow suit when my way suits me better?
Because some ways are simply wrong.
2 + 2 does not equal 5 no matter how sincere the believer.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2004 8:57 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 126 (111419)
05-29-2004 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by crashfrog
05-29-2004 8:57 AM


Do you remember any prisoner discussions in Lord of the Rings? I sure don't.
When Frodo and Sam are taken prisoner by Faramir in Ithilien in Return of the King. Faramir struggles whether to take the ring to Minas Tirith and 'save' his city, or put his faith in two creatures he has never seen before.
This message has been edited by custard, 05-29-2004 08:21 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2004 8:57 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by custard, posted 05-29-2004 9:20 AM custard has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 126 (111420)
05-29-2004 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by custard
05-29-2004 9:18 AM


And when Gollum is captured by Frodo and Sam. They both try to determine what to do with him. Sam sees him only for the 'evil creature' but Frodo sees that he is conflicted.
Did you even watch The Two Towers?
This message has been edited by custard, 05-29-2004 08:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by custard, posted 05-29-2004 9:18 AM custard has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 126 (111421)
05-29-2004 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by crashfrog
05-29-2004 8:57 AM


That's what I mean about well-defined moral roles - the good guys are beyond reproach, and the evil guys are beyond repentance
So Boromir had a well defined moral role? What nonsense!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2004 8:57 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
MonkeyBoy
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 126 (111456)
05-29-2004 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by crashfrog
05-29-2004 7:16 AM


quote:
Consider the movie Dungeons and Dragons.
No. I refuse to consider it. Since I am still a player of the game, instead of watching this movie, I would rather:
1 - Receive a protological exam by Edward Scissorhands
2 - Slide down a mile long razorblad on my scrotum
3 - Eat rancid meat out of a colostomy bag
Carry on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2004 7:16 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024