>"You must write in this one way! And only this one way! Because I say so!"
>"Nerds care too much about pointless minutiae!"
>"Everything must ALWAYS move the plot forward and be in service of the story!"
How do people take this hack seriously?
>"You must write in this one way!
>Kids don't ask "but why?" at every little thing
I don't think Grant Morrison has ever met a small child.
Let's hope xhe doesn't.
have a nice day
I'm not trans so I won't.
You first, troony
No, no, the statement shows he clearly has. Kids ask why over and over, autistic grownups ask how. Two different interrogatives.
>Expecting autists to understand the nuance in what you just said
Lol
There's no nuance you troony
That's bullshit. Kids love asking how, and when they don't get an answer or are left to their own devices, they start making up the how themselves. You sit around with one that's got a favorite character and they'll come up with the most in-depth bullshit for how anything is anything.
The problem with the quote is that what it is--or should be--complaining about is people who want to know "how" as in "how would this work in our world/according to our rules," but kids? No they fricking LOVE making up the fantastical "how" for goddamn everything. You ask a kid how Superman can fly, and they'd probably tell you that he keeps punching and kicking the air faster than anyone can see to push himself around, like how a bird flaps its wings.
Plus, as a kid, I did really like the "The Mechanic" ep of BTAS specifically because you saw who took care of Batman's car when it needed work, so don't tell me that "who pumps Batman's tires" is a question only for autistic grownups. It's for autistic kids too.
It's bullshit but you know what's also bullshit? Ignoring the good writing advice Morrison is giving which is don't get bog down by the minutia.
You're just trying to defend a poorly expressed quote, anon. Like sure, if I told you "don't trust them new homies over there," then the good advice of being properly but politely cautious of strangers is in there, but that's not really the entire context of the quote now, is it.
It can't be that poorly expressed because I understood what Morrison was trying to say.
And again, you can take that from the quote, but you'd have to cut out part of the quote's overall intent and content in order to say that's the only thing being said. Same with taking "be politely cautious of strangers" from "don't trust them new homies over there"
>but you'd have to cut out part of the quote's overall intent and content in order to say that's the only thing being said
Well anon I think I can say I know the inent and content well enough to know that's exactly what Morrison is saying.
If you tell a kid how Pikachu generates electricity, he'll be happy with knowing what is stated on the pokedex. Pikachu's cheeks have photovoltaic cells that generate electricity. That's it. That's what he wanted to know.
If PokeGrognard666 sees that, he goes on to make a 40 minute video explaining how Pikachu works and why it can't be possible, because Pikachu are pretty small and shouldn't be capable of generating energy that exceeds that of electric eels and catfish thousands of times.
That's what Morrison is probably wanting to say.
No one needs to know the specifics of how a rat produces enough electricity to knock out dragons, giant rock snakes or truck-sized dinosaurs made out of steel; because they really don't impact the plot or are needed. It's the kind of shit GRR Martin says about how we don't know Aragorn's tax policies or why everyone hated the trade federation bits in Episode I. People wanted to see Jedi knights fighting and the beginnings of Anakin Skywalker, not a plot over a trading blockade over Naboo.
Given Pokemon is one of the most successful and famous franchises in the entire world and Pikachu is its mascot I'm sure you can find us an example of someone making an analysis to 'debunk' Pikachu's electricity. Right?
Congratulations.
You're nowhere near the worst comics-related spammer anymore.
Nah Grant is right, and that's not his point
Then what is his point?
Autists frequently confuse unimportant trivia for plot relevant information and become irrate when it's not spelled out in excruciating detail. Never once does Grant imply you can't or shouldn't write about that stuff but rather a story should focus on what it deems important.
Literally proving the OP's point
>"Everything must ALWAYS move the plot forward and be in service of the story!"
Up your reading comprehension anon, it'll fix A LOT of problems.
>but rather a story should focus on what it deems important.
Right, can you...comprehend that?
So you're proving the OP poster correct and admit that it was an accurate assessment when it said
>"Everything must ALWAYS move the plot forward and be in service of the story!"
Right?
okay, So you didn't comprehend it. Should've just said that.
>No argument.
Good to know.
My argument is pretty apparent if you had any reading comprehension anon.
You didn't have one.
>You didn't have one that I could comprehend
ftfy
>Grant it right
>Kids don't understand that crabs don't sing
b***h kids will believe that a fat dude comes down their chimney to deliver presents to them one day per year, because of a factory in subzero arctic temperatures with mystical little elves at his employment. Shut the frick up.
Shut up, Millar.
>who pumps the tires
no one ever asked such a stupid question because most people pump there own tires so presumably batman pumps them himself, or alfred anyway what stupid fricking strawman argument frick you grant I'm gonna biff you on the nose
>casualgay doesn't know about Harold Allnut, the character Morrison is obviously referencing
>no one ever asked such a stupid question
Every Frodo question is this question.
Its funny because BTAS answsered all these questions pretty easily by having batman Contract someone a guy to be his super mechanic, and the Nolanverse did something similar by having Lucius handle all that shit.
Justice league made this an entire PLOTLINE by showing that they have to hire an entire crew to run the watchtower, they can't do it all themselves, and this makes them vulnerable.
I mean, shit, Big O, which is basically "What if batman had a mech?" even deals with this shit by having his butler handle get some fairly people on Roger's payroll to repair Big O when it gets majorly fricked up.
how does superman fly?
everytime this thread is made by a manchild, he can't never answer the ridiculous questions with proper answer.
Because he has the ability to given to him by the light from a yellow sun.
but how though
You're not a writer, and you never will be.
>"How does Goku fly?"
>"He has ki that he can use to fly and do all sorts of things"
>"How does Superman fly?"
>"DON'T ASK ME THAT! I'M GOING INSANE! AGAHAHGAGAH"
>implying this isn't the same with five nights at freddy's shit with matpat or whoever the frick spends his life overanalyzing every single detail of some stupid chuck e cheese ripoff
Feeling attacked by that statement? lol and also a bit sad.
>"aarrggh stop over-explaining things who cares"
>most famous work is over-explaining how superheroes would work realistically
the most famous work is the bible and it hinges entirely on faith
The Bible still more or less explains it or "gives the power to God," so to speak. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God. And the word WAS God. etc. It sets up the characters and which ones are dominant as well as the rules they and the humans must follow. It also gives a lot of the why of things. So, faith based that it is, it still takes on some critical issues. Enough for believers to give it an honest try. Most for profit media is much more lazily written. Nobody questions how Superman flies. It is said the yellow sun gives him God like abilities. What is poorly explained in Superman is how he can interact with mortals without harming them. In the Bible, God is able to make and unmake anything he wants. Jesus comes in a mortal body, thus is able to die on the cross and descend into Hell. Superman is not portrayed as such. Superman is invulnerable one minute and soft to the touch the next. Super Girl can shave and cut her nails and hair, but bullets can't pierce her. It just looks wonky after you grow up a little.
But HOW was God the Word?
You are learning. Very good. The Bible gets fuzzy and contradictory the more one examines the small stuff. But that line of argument has been done to death so much I'll refer you to the professional Atheists. It is not too much of a stretch in a media product to show characters doing some very normal activities once in a while. That helps pace the story as long as it isn't over done. Leaving out such details completely rushes the story, making it very forgettable.
So you have no answer on how God was the word, and I just have to have some faith that he was. Good to know.
I don't believe in God. I'm using a well known story to illustrate a point. Not clear? You are a liar who doesn't like when people expose your terrible media products and you are as dogmatic as any believer who says not to pay attention to the man behind the curtain. I was raised on cheap media and started to critique it when discussion boards became the hot thing on the internet. Don't you just hate free speech or is that freedom of the press? Aren't you going to claim freedom of the press only applies to opinions you like? You won't stop making bad products for sale and I'll get around to critiquing them as I run across them. (Hey, there could be a business model there, if one was dogged enough to keep writing cheap material.)
How is speech free?
Most for profit media is more consistent than the bible simply by virtue of actually being ONE book, rather than seven hundred books in a trenchcoat.
bird is the word
>What is poorly explained in Superman is how he can interact with mortals without harming them
simple. he can control his strength, moron.
>Superman is invulnerable one minute and soft to the touch the next.
literally when.
>
He's right.
How?
The pointless minutiae lend realism to the most outrageous circumstance.
Sometimes but then sometimes you over explain yourself into revealing it's harder bullshit when someone with some actual knowledge can point out it doesn't really work that way. Live by the Autistic Nitpick, Die by the Autistic Nitpick.
>"Nerds care too much about pointless minutiae!"
Nerds DO care too much about pointless minutiae.
Take that scene in Terminator where the cops are asking how the time machine works, and Kyle Reese just says "I didn't BUILD the fricking thing!" That scene is brilliant, because it's in-character for Kyle and sidesteps the technobabble about how "The T-YX time machine manipulates tachyon particles of living things to blah blah blah...." It's a great bit of concise storytelling.
>"Everything must ALWAYS move the plot forward and be in service of the story!"
Not quite, but it pays to be concise. The opposite is shit like IDW Sonic, where they need a dozen issues for the introductory arc of two villain characters, or R.A. Salvatore, who spends so much time on exposition that the book'll be half-over by the time the plot gets started.
I don't care about bloat as long as the bloat is good. If it takes 6 chapters for something that could have been explained in 3, I don't care as long as those extra 3 chapters were good. I don't give a shit about "streamlining". And I don't understand the need for it.
>I don't care about bloat as long as the bloat is good. If it takes 6 chapters for something that could have been explained in 3
It's bad pacing, which is bad storytelling. There's no reason to gum up the plot with pointless flavortext about the mechanics of a fictional time machine that's half-relevant to the story. Usually said flavortext is cribbed from some older sci-fi/fantasy author.
>I don't give a shit about "streamlining". And I don't understand the need for it.
You might be desperately interested in what Superman had for lunch on Thursday, or how exactly the time machine works, but nobody else is.
"Because you say so?" is just a substance-free whine and would be answered by reading the rest of that post, which explains my reasoning.
>It's bad pacing
Because you say so?
>Which is bad storytelling
Because you say so?
>There's no reason to gum up the plot with pointless flavortext about the mechanics of a fictional time machine that's half-relevant to the story. Usually said flavortext is cribbed from some older sci-fi/fantasy author.
My point is that you're not actually saying anything substantial, you're merely posturing at me and assuming what you're saying is the correct universal truth on storytelling. What is your actual argument? Explain what the hell you're talking about in detail rather than assuming I automatically know what you are talking about.
>You might be desperately interested in what Superman had for lunch on Thursday, or how exactly the time machine works, but nobody else is.
>Story is le bad because people don't want to read it!
I guess all forms of obscure and unpopular media are all automatically bad now. Anything that's not Avatar, Marvel or Transformers is pretty low quality art.
>Because you say so?" is just a substance-free whine and would be answered by reading the rest of that post, which explains my reasoning
You didn't actually explain anything. How is it bad pacing? What makes good pacing? What is a good exposition? What's a bad one? What metrics are you using? Do you just expect me to take everything that you're saying at face value?
brevity is the soul of wit you dumb sheep
That's not the reason Shakespeare said that.
>Nerds DO care too much about pointless minutiae.
Because you say so, or what?
Or what.
Translation: Quit exposing my boring, shallow dreck. It's hurting my extra spoonful of caviar fund.
God forbid that Batman has a laugh with some other vigilantes about the absurd world they live in. Or the merpeople complain about shark attacks once in a while. Or that mature audiences start to wonder why so little of what they are watching makes any sense at all.
None of that seem applicable to what he's saying though
>God forbid that Batman has a laugh with some other vigilantes about the absurd world they live in
Is that in between times when Clark uses his "bio electric field" or is it during the time that Batman/Alfred/Harold goes and pumps the batmobile's tires?
You don't have to do an encyclopedia of info every time you drop a media product. Doing some basic everyday tasks with the characters from time to time really does make the world building a lot better. Say they drew some of Batman's handymen working on the car while he and the Punisher share a laugh over combat stories. That's very world and character consistent. Say the Riddler is cooking up an evil scheme and hasn't quite worked it out yet until he hears exactly where Batman will be that evening. Then he cracks an evil smile, realizing he can set a trap for him. That's the kind of fine detail often missing from modern rush to market products.
>You don't have to do an encyclopedia of info every time you drop a media product.
Except that Morrison quote points out they had to to quell the autists of the time, hence the invention of Harold Allnut. And yes, I do mean autists of the time, because look at DC comics now. It's been how many years now since new 52? That "fresh reboot of the universe" and all that jazz? In all those years since everything got reset not once have I seen any moron going and asking who fills the batmobile's tires with air and gas.
It would have been a simple matter to give Batman a legion of workers who knew what he was all about and were die hard supporters of his cause. I'm surprised the original writers didn't jump on that just to have an excuse to throw more characters into the mix. Animation deadlines must be a b***h if they walked out on that sub plot.
>I'm surprised the original writers didn't jump on that just to have an excuse to throw more characters into the mix
They did, you autistic spaz. They made Harold Allnut in the comics, and then to cater to the autists further they made a whole episode of BTAS dedicated to how Batman is keeping a Black person family hidden from the world to work as his personal mechanics. Fastforward to the 2000s and no one gave a shit about who the frick does that nonsense because it's all unnecessary fluff, that only autistic boomers were dumb enough to need that shit and well adjusted boomers and zoomers seemed fine with the answer to "who pumps the batmobiles tires" being "who the frick cares it's fricking comic books".
>they made a whole episode of BTAS dedicated to how Batman is keeping a Black person family hidden from the world to work as his personal mechanics
But that wasn't ABOUT how Batman has someone to pump his tires; it was about how a villian uses this guy to try to kill Batman, and how he ultimately escapes from the trap.
>it was about how a villian uses this guy to try to kill Batman, and how he ultimately escapes from the trap.
That has been done numerous times throughout the animated series. The only difference is the flavor of the episode. Instead of "Batman survives Wonderland death trap and rescues girl Mad Hatter was in love with" it's now "Batman survives rehash of 'Batman Returns Penguin hijacking the batmobile controls' scene and rescues is totally not slave mechanics".
Coming up with different-enough ways for Batman to face danger was a big part of the series. It coming via an ally being coerced to help a villian wasn't a bad idea.
Again, it's not the first time that rescuing a person has been used as the ultimate goal. It's not even the first person Batman has a personal connection to, nor is it even the first time that it's fricking Penguin doing this shit. Veronica Vreeland, one of Bruce's friends, got kidnapped by him and Bats went off to save her too. It just happened that this time, the personal connection was "guy and daughter who Batman personally keeps in the basement of a busted garage specifically to fix up his car".
>give Batman a legion of workers who knew what he was all about and were die hard supporters of his cause.
Until some writer made on of them betray batman to help the joker to destroy all his cars?
Morrison is right and if you don't understand that you're part of the problem plaguing current fantasy writing. This need to over explain every little detail to an exact science. That's what gets you garbage like that scene in the Ghostbusters reboot where they invent and explain their technology. None of that shit is important which is why the original film didn't explain shit outside of jokes that highlight how boring the information is.
A good genre ideally should filter people that aren't fans of it.
What an insane thing to say
Did such a simple statement really mindbreak you two that badly?
>Wanting your story to adhere to the basic tenants of what makes a good story is autistic
You have exactly zero idea of what makes a good story.
More empty posturing in lieu of an actual argument.
I'm not arguing. I'm insulting you.
Oh, so your argument got completely destroyed then and now you're left with nothing?
You're not really worth an argument.
I'm still left with your autism diagnosis. That's enough for me
That's circular.
>"NOOO YOU CANT JUST HAVE EXPLANATIONS FOR YOUR FANTASY SO IT HAS INTERNAL CONSISTENCY! NO! YOU MUST ONLY WRITE HOW I WANT YOU TO!"
You are deranged.
And you're autistic. It's okay
Explanations don't make shit internally consistent. If you want a species that flies, you just let them fly. You don't have to explain the science or magic behind it. It's just magic.
Avatar is a GREAT example. During TLA they never explain the origins of bending. There are legends that animals taught people but otherwise it's just a magic skill some people have and others don't. Korra later explained it and it fricking sucked, bringing more questions then necessary to how it all works. It never needed an explanation. It just was part of the fantasy world. An explanation doesn't make things better or more interesting. Magic works because it's fricking magic, powers work because they're powers. There's no need for more information. Quality storytelling isn't bogged down in details.
If the Last Airbender is what you consider to be quality storytelling, then I immediately disregard you as an authority on literary quality. You're dismissed.
Why should anyone regard you as an authority, Mooregay? You love worthless trash like Shadow the Hedgehog.
You consider the Last Airbender, a show that has one of the biggest asspull endings and just general plot issues of all time, and expect me to take you seriously as an authority. You're dismissed from talking about literary quality. It's as simple as that.
You've git to be the biggest homosexual I've seen on Cinemaphile all week
I'm speaking off-the-cuff, so we might be talking at cross-purposes here.
Good exposition is when the characters explain things needed to understand the story. In The Hobbit, the Dwarves explain how their kingdom was ravaged by Smaug for its great treasures, which he stole for his hoard. It sets up the plot, the villain, the Dwarves' predicament, and the theme of greed for treasure.
Done badly, we'd have Thorin Oakenshield explaining the exact names of every dwarf that got killed, and their battle formations, and about the history of Smaug back to when his egg was laid. A fat load of pointless detail that, left out of the story, really changes nothing. We didn't even know Smaug could speak until he opens his yapper, and The Hobbit still works fine as a fantasy adventure.
Why does disliking excessive exposition mean you hate the genre?
Speaking of Tolkien, why don't other fantasy writers put all their worldbuilding shit into an appendix like he did? They can have their cake and eat it too
Frank Herbert did some of that.
Because sometime around the time J.K. Rowling started writing, every book had to be 800 pages.
Because you still have autists coming after you even with that shit. Aka GRR "what's Aragorn's tax policy" Martin.
Tolkien was a nerd who put all his energy into worldbuilding and viewed the plot as secondary. not everyone can be like him.
I don't think he viewed it as secondary otherwise he would have shoved all the lore into the actual books. I think he viewed them as separate things.
There is a shitton of worldbuilding in the book. Have your even read it?
I read it again last year. It's nothing compared to modern fantasy books. There is worldbuilding, but all the stuff that makes it a fully built out world (e.g. histories of peoples and their lineages) are put into the appendixes. Besides the beginning of Fellowship, I guess where he goes over hobbit lore.
What do you think backmatter means?
I genuinly believe you are so dumb that you don't realise that the whole book is filled with details and lore but it's written well and therefor does seem like a loredump. Genuinly everything is explained in detail.
Of course there is details and lore in the book. But it's not excessive, and the plot is given more importance.
Several books by Greg Egan meet your criteria.
Most notably the Orthogonal trilogy:
>Orthogonal is a science fiction trilogy by Australian author Greg Egan taking place in a universe where, rather than three dimensions of space and one of time, there are four fundamentally identical dimensions.[1] While the characters in the novels always perceive three of the dimensions as space and one as time, this classification depends entirely on their state of motion, and the dimension that one observer considers to be time can be seen as a purely spatial dimension by another observer.
And Dichronauts:
>The four-dimensional universe we inhabit has three dimensions of space and one of time. But what would it be like to live in a universe where the roles were divided up more evenly, so that there were two of each: two dimensions of space, and two of time?
>It might be tempting to think that with two dimensions of time, the history of any particle, or person, would cease to be linear and would take on some kind of planar aspect. But in fact, there is no reason why objects shouldn’t trace out essentially one-dimensional world lines through space-time, much as they do in our own universe. The difference that arises from having a second dimension of time is that of all the straight lines that pass through a given point, more of them would count as possible world lines.
>Once we choose a particular world line as our personal history, the three-dimensional space perpendicular to it will obey a strange kind of geometry, in which the roles played by circles and spheres in our universe are taken by hyperbolas and hyperboloids, light can only travel in certain directions, and some rivers will flow uphill. These are just some of the strange phenomena to be found in the world of Dichronauts.
Your view would work great over at Marvel studios though.
Those short descriptions are of the entire premise of these sci-fi worlds, though. The information in your greentexts would thus be relevant to the actual plot.
Do we get a bunch of exposition about what the characters ate for breakfast and who changes their tires, or are the books entirely about the challenges of living in those strange worlds?
But in actual literary fiction and in genre fiction in general, the minutia and worldbuilding are the backbone of any good story. Tolkien made some pseusldo-Aristotelean physics for Middle Earth. Most of its in The Nature of Middle Earth. One of the most popular book series' of all time. It's not even just "one niche genre" it's most of fiction in general.
This is how most of sci fi and fantasy has been written about all of history. Fetishism of approachable hacks (like Hemingway) by paradoxically pretentious frickwits. The kinds of people who don’t actually enjoy literature but like to think they do, they want ideas conveyed as simplistically or straightforwardly as possible because they lack the aesthetic sense/taste to appreciate beauty in metaphor, abstraction, and the feeling conveyed by detail; they are people without rich inner lives and thus struggle with appreciation for mundane actions despite the beauty that can be present. The passage you demonstrated isn't electrifying but it effectively conveys that feeling of a comfortable home routine.
This kind of “stripped-back” writing advice is given by mediocre writers who want to comfort themselves in using a formulae of writing to attempt to improve. These are probably people who are far more caring for plot than theme.
>why not remove hamlet’s monologue with yorrick’s skull, it doesn’t move the story along, what’s the point
It reminds me of “filmbuffs” who spend all their time talking about “structure”, people who treat the creation of art like designing mass-produced furniture.
>the minutia and worldbuilding are the backbone of any good story
Wrong.
I accept your concession
I didn't concede though, I can see what the other mean by your bad resding comprehension.
Most books are set in the real world and don't need worldbuilding to an autistic extent.
We're now down to
>I just hate fantasy.
I like Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. And the John Carter books. And Tarzan.
>The Lord of Rings does not have excessive detail
It really doesn't. That shit is just backmatter.
lol. Tolkien literally made a whole book about the details because he could not fit it into his other books
And not one of them explained scientifically how magic worked or told me who pumped Batman's tires
>the minutia and worldbuilding are the backbone of any good story
Explain how Superman having an expanding bioelectric field as a reason for his super strength, flight, and how he can stop a plane from crashing without crushing it is "the backbone of a good story" when other super heroes can do the same thing without having said expanding bioelectric field.
>Explain how Superman having an expanding bioelectric field as a reason for his super strength, flight, and how he can stop a plane from crashing without crushing it is "the backbone of a good story" when other super heroes can do the same thing without having said expanding bioelectric field.
Okay. Let's say a villain figures out how to beat superman by messing with said bioelectric field and he has to figure out a way around that? What if he finds out that said electric field has a weakness and figures out a way to get around exploits of it? What if it causes trouble for him in his day to day life and that causes him to be extra careful to not expose himself?
Iteration and re-evaluation of past concepts is essential to producing anything of value when you use old stories as your basis. It's how we come up with new permutations of ideas instead of trotting out the same old ones on repeat. You point to Superman when our very idea of what Superman has been shifted by people doing EXACTLY the kinds of stories you decry as betraying the material. He was not a compassionate figure UNTIL people like Binder put him in situations his powers couldn't solve and created further restrictions in order to explore Clark's morality and character. Shit, Kryptonite as a weakness wasn't even a Siegel and Schuster invention! It was added to the radio show for drama! They inherently changed the entire conceit of Superman because the norms established in the comics weren't engaging. Challenging convention is not inherently good or bad.
>Okay. Let's say a villain figures out how to beat superman by messing with said bioelectric field and he has to figure out a way around that? What if he finds out that said electric field has a weakness and figures out a way to get around exploits of it? What if it causes trouble for him in his day to day life and that causes him to be extra careful to not expose himself?
Then he goes and calls on an entire justice league full of heroes that can do the things he can do without that bioelectric field until Zatanna and her hitsquad can mindwipe the villain.
Damn such a good backbone of a story.
>Best he's got is willful misinterpretation and ignoring everything else in the post.
Absolutely pathetic. One last (You) for a shitposter who can't even be assed to try.
>willfully missing the point
It's not a good backbone of anything good at all because, again, dozens of other heroes pull off the shit he does without that unnecessary explanation. That he has to expand a bioelectric field around a plane as an explanation for how he doesn't just crumple it everytime he saves one from crashing is nonsense when Wonder Woman can do the same thing while expanding frick all. Bullets bounce off of J'onn without having to shield his body with said bioelectric field.
You're saying this as if superheroes aren't braindead fiction for morons.
You're saying this as if autists aren't screeching for "real world explanations" for fictional stories.
The superhero genre is objectively poor quality fiction. It is defined by a bundle of exceptions from the constraints which make for good fiction in other genres. It's like if you took professional wrestling and removed the athleticism, improvisation, and the pressure of a live audience.
You don't have to be psychologically insightful like general fiction, technically coherant like SF, you don't have to make skillful and consistent in your employment of myth and symbol like fantasy. In superhero fic, you just assert one thing after another for reasons.
Did we really need to know about Aragorn's tax policy, or what the force is made of? Because that's two pieces of fiction that isn't capeshit that also had autists screeching for pointless minutia to explain everything.
The made up no-no rules you apply to entertainment like its holy teaching are the reasons your entertainment industry only produces stale, safe, tasteless garbage.
>he says, as non capeshit fiction like Star Wars shit is ridiculously panned
The EU was received universally well across the board.
You mean Boba Fett falling into the same Sarlacc pit three fricking times, and ewok and robot jedi?
Sure anon. Sure.
>KOTOR - universally beloved
>Thrawn and the Thrawn trilogy - universally beloved
>Mara Jade - universally beloved
>Battlefront 2 - considered by many to be the best Star Wars game ever
>Clone Wars MMP - universally beloved
>2003 Clone Wars - won TV awards
>Kyle Katarn/Dark Forces/Jedi Knight series - universally beloved
>Starkiller/The Force Unleashed - positively viewed until recently
>Shadows Of The Empire MMP - universally loved
>X-Wing series of games, comics, and books - universally loved
>New Jedi Order/Yuuzhan Vong war - considered by many to be some of the best and most unique Star Wars story telling ever
>Republic Commando - divisive, but generally liked
>Crimson Empire - universally loved
>Darth Bane Trilogy - universally loved
>Tales Of The Jedi - universally loved
>Darth Plagueis - considered by many to be the best Star Wars novel of all time
>Jedi Apprentice/Jedi Quest series - universally loved
>Darth Vader And The Cry Of Shadows - generally liked
>Dark Lord Trilogy - universally loved
>Legacy era comics - universally loved until recently
>Jaina Solo/Jacen Solo/Anakin Solo/Allana Solo/Ben Skywalker - generally liked characters
>Han and Leia's relationship and marriage in the EU - universally beloved
>Death Troopers/Red Harvest - divisive but generally liked
>Darth Maul comics/Saboteur/Lockdown/Shadow Hunter - generally liked
>Bounty Hunter game - generally liked
>Kenobi novel - universally loved
>The Last Of The Jedi/Coruscant Nights/The Last Jedi - generally liked
>Winter and Tycho Celchu - beloved characters
But yeah, most of the EU is garbage nobody liked.
>Starkiller/The Force Unleashed - positively viewed until recently
I feel like it was shit on then liked then shit on
It was, for the story reasons. It was just dumb because OG Vader was loyal to the emperor up until the discovery of his son. But with Force Unleashed and other shit like current Vader comics he's now just a menacing Starscream : constantly plotting the demise of his boss and constantly being put in his place.
"Stale" and "tasteless" are great words to apply to boring laundry lists of exposition about irrelevant shit. Life's too short to spend reading about Rohirric farming methods.
I'd apply them much more to boring comics with little explanation as to how the world they're living works or how their moves work so contrivance can just come around any corner because the writer says so.
Any battle shonen already figured out the recipe for this year's ago. Japan will keep dominating creatively and the works they produce will keep getting popular as more people realize fresh and appealing beats safe and approachable.
Japan's industry isn't perfect, but they culturally respect art and artists more than your shithole that believes making entertainment has some solvable formula.
Most capeshit is garbage because it focuses on crappy Creator's Pet OCs and boring gay romances, not because we don't know exactly how Tamaranean laser guns work.
As for Shonen anime, you might be entertained by the umpty-billionth showdown between a gluttonous idiot and his arrogant rival, but nobody else is.
>Japan will keep dominating creatively and the works they produce will keep getting popular as more people realize fresh and appealing beats safe and approachable.
No, they'll dominate because they have breasts and flashy fight scenes. Not because they love endless infodumps about how the big friendship laser works.
>As for Shonen anime, you might be entertained by the umpty-billionth showdown between a gluttonous idiot and his arrogant rival, but nobody else is.
You mean except for the millions of people that tune in for it, correct? Gear 5 practically broke the internet upon its release. Cinemaphile was down for an entire 7 hours. Oh but it's popularity doesn't count now because it's something that you dislike. I see
>Not because they love endless infodumps about how the big friendship laser works.
One of the most popular shonen is Hunter X Hunter and it has panels that look like this. Stay mad I guess?
>Gear 5 practically broke the internet upon its release.
You just bought into the marketing. The episode was mediocre, and the downtime was unrelated
>Literally having to lie to yourself
>You mean except for the millions of people that tune in for it, correct? Gear 5 practically broke the internet upon its release. Cinemaphile was down for an entire 7 hours. Oh but it's popularity doesn't count now because it's something that you dislike. I see
Oh, bite me. Anime is stale, boring, cliched garbage that's still ripping off character dynamics from Dragon Ball Z and Fist of the North Star. The only reason anyone (Black folk and spics) likes it is because it appeals to coomers and people entertained by big laserfights.
>One of the most popular shonen is Hunter X Hunter and it has panels that look like this. Stay mad I guess?
Wow, that is awful, comparable to the worst of Bendis. Does that author even realize that comics are a visual medium?
>Oh, bite me. Anime is stale, boring, cliched garbage that's still ripping off character dynamics from Dragon Ball Z and Fist of the North Star. The only reason anyone (Black folk and spics) likes it is because it appeals to coomers and people entertained by big laserfights.
Thats because you only watch mainstream anime that Twitter users talk about. Try expanding your horizons, moron.
>Wow, that is awful, comparable to the worst of Bendis. Does that author even realize that comics are a visual medium?
Nothing about any of the techniques being contemplated here are "overly complex" you're just a brainlet contrarian who hasn't actually read hxh. Establishing the intel and motives known by a person/group in a large mafia/crime thriller scenario is extremely important so nobody can cry "muh asspull" when characters jump to conclusions based on evidence they shouldn't have.
None of this is complicated. It's verbose, it's alot, it's sometimes repetitive, but if you actually cared to follow the story and characters nothing here is too hard to understand.
Here's your last (You)
>Thats because you only watch mainstream anime that Twitter users talk about. Try expanding your horizons, moron.
We're talking Shonen anime, that is mainstream garbage.
>Nothing about any of the techniques being contemplated here are "overly complex" you're just a brainlet contrarian who hasn't actually read hxh. Establishing the intel and motives known by a person/group in a large mafia/crime thriller scenario is extremely important so nobody can cry "muh asspull" when characters jump to conclusions based on evidence they shouldn't have.
None of this is complicated. It's verbose, it's alot, it's sometimes repetitive, but if you actually cared to follow the story and characters nothing here is too hard to understand.
It's redundant. Remember that pointless scene in A Few Good Men where Tom Cruise outlines exactly what he's gonna do in court to get Jack Nicholson to confess, and then does exactly that in a way that anyone could follow? It's frick-obvious what he's doing, so the prior exposition was pointless, and so the scene where he sits there and plans it out serves no purpose but to ruin the suspense of the courtroom scene.
Or take Psycho, where the windbag psychiatrist shows up and gives a long, summary of Norman Bates' psychosis which could've been half the length. There's no point to a scene of a character explaining shit we can guess or surmise based on their actions.
While we're on Norman Bates, there's another movie about him that really blows, called Psycho IV. It's a flashback to his backstory, which was well-explained in the previous films. It's astoundingly boring, because it's just a dull recitation of things we already know or can guess.
Even mainstream shonen anime has better than whatever mainstream cartoons have to offer. There's simply no comparison here. Comics are absolutely godawful and don't compare to even the worst of shonen.
>Buhbuhbubhubhubhubhbuhbubhubh Jack Nicholson courtroom scene! Psycho has bad exposition!
So is your entire argument that there should be no exposition whatsoever? Everything should just be shown on screen and nothing should ever be exposed to the audience for any reason at all?
I don't care about bloat or exposition as long as either of them are good. Streamlining everything is not a virtue, nor should it applied to every single story. I don't care if something that takes 3 chapters to explain takes 6 as long as those extra 3 are good. You're not actually arguing. You just reiterate and restate over and over while just bringing up entirely different points when I break down your initial ones. You are not listening, you are not understanding, you just keep trying to get this "gotcha" moment. Don't bother responding. I'm done.
>Even mainstream shonen anime has better than whatever mainstream cartoons have to offer. There's simply no comparison here. Comics are absolutely godawful and don't compare to even the worst of shonen.
Should I say "Because you say so?" here or...?
>I don't care about bloat or exposition as long as either of them are good. Streamlining everything is not a virtue, nor should it applied to every single story. I don't care if something that takes 3 chapters to explain takes 6 as long as those extra 3 are good.
If you could've explained it in 3, than those extra 3 chapters are almost certainly not good. They're usually just laundry lists of exposition about familiar concepts or minor characters that the author loves too much.
>You're not actually arguing. You just reiterate and restate over and over while just bringing up entirely different points when I break down your initial ones. You are not listening, you are not understanding, you just keep trying to get this "gotcha" moment. Don't bother responding. I'm done.
I'm not arguing there should be no exposition whatsoever, dumbass. I'm arguing that it should serve the story and characters. There's no point to explaining things that are obvious, or that don't figure into the plot eventually. I don't care if Smaug's brother has ice breath, because Smaug's fricking brother doesn't appear in the story. I don't care about Aragorn's tax policy, because taxes aren't the point of LOTR.
>Should I say "Because you say so?" here or...?
No, because they objectively and literally are. That's entirely self evident if you've bothered to look at literally a single one of them. Your claims simply do not hold up.
>If you could've explained it in 3, than those extra 3 chapters are almost certainly not good.
Because you say so? Or is this just more empty posturing?
>They're usually just laundry lists of exposition about familiar concepts or minor characters that the author loves too much.
Conjecture, assumption, and complete moronation.
>I'm arguing that it should serve the story and characters.
Which this does.
>There's no point to explaining things that are obvious, or that don't figure into the plot eventually.
Have you read HxH? Because this wasn't "obvious" nobody knew what the frick was going to happen next.
>I don't care if Smaug's brother has ice breath, because Smaug's fricking brother doesn't appear in the story.
Well good for you, because everything in that manga panel is about the character's abilities, their dynamics with other characters and what's relevant in the plot going forward from there.
>No, because they objectively and literally are. That's entirely self evident if you've bothered to look at literally a single one of them. Your claims simply do not hold up.
Lol, "objectively better." You sound like a fedora-tipping Reddit atheist.
>Because you say so? Or is this just more empty posturing?
>Conjecture, assumption, and complete moronation.
Call it "experience."
>complete moronation
Please, plenty of stories have ridiculously bloated casts of worthless side-characters. Anime in particular, actually.
>Which this does.
>Have you read HxH? Because this wasn't "obvious" nobody knew what the frick was going to happen next.
>Well good for you, because everything in that manga panel is about the character's abilities, their dynamics with other characters and what's relevant in the plot going forward from there.
Then why are you using it to argue in favor of stupid pointless shit like find out who changes the tires on the Batmobile, how exactly Superman's heat vision works, or Aragorn's tax policy?
>Then why are you using it to argue in favor of stupid pointless shit like find out who changes the tires on the Batmobile, how exactly Superman's heat vision works, or Aragorn's tax policy?
1. You argued against it saying that it was overly verbose and not relevant to the plot, which showed me that you didn't read it.
2. The entire thread was about over explaining. Which this is an example of it being done well.
>Lol, "objectively better." You sound like a fedora-tipping Reddit atheist.
No argument? I thought so.
>Call it "experience."
So strawmanning, based on conjecture, based on limited experience. Amazing.
>Please
No, I'm not gonna "please". I'm going to take your moronation at face value, no matter how much that pisses you off.
>Batmobile, how exactly Superman's heat vision works, or Aragorn's tax policy?
>You argued against it saying that it was overly verbose and not relevant to the plot, which showed me that you didn't read it.
I explained why that doesn't make it better when I mentioned "A Few Good Men" and "Psycho." There are better ways to explain complicated character interactions that don't involve lengthy infodumps and characters dribbling on in advance about their strategies.
Besides, that's what, a page? You keep using it to go to bat for shit like THREE CHAPTERS of extraneous bullshit.
>No argument? I thought so.
"I-IT'S JUST BETTER, OKAY?!" isn't an argument.
>So strawmanning, based on conjecture, based on limited experience. Amazing.
Stereotyping saves time, as does skipping past chapters of exposition on Rohirric farming methods. Life's too short to read every book in existence. I recognize literary techniques I dislike and skip over works that use them too much. What a concept.
>No, I'm not gonna "please". I'm going to take your moronation at face value, no matter how much that pisses you off.
That just makes you look like a moron who can't understand normal human interaction, but I suppose that wouldn't occur to the type of autist who wants to learn the ancient elven history of Frodo's belt-buckle.
From you, it's just a whine that means you have no argument. When someone tells you "This scene was unnecessary, everything he says is obvious from the rest of the story," they just explained why, imbecile. And you accuse me of not listening.
>Nice to know that bothered you that much.
You're the one still responding after you twice swore that YOU. WERE. DONE. with this conversation.
>I explained why that doesn't make it better when I mentioned "A Few Good Men" and "Psycho." There are better ways to explain complicated character interactions that don't involve lengthy infodumps and characters dribbling on in advance about their strategies.
You just said "Character actions" without explaining how that could have been done. You didn't actually show HOW it would have been better if they didn't do this exposition. You just said "leave it without it" when in my view each of these movies would have been hurt by the removal of these expository moments.
>Besides, that's what, a page? You keep using it to go to bat for shit like THREE CHAPTERS of extraneous bullshit.
You don't know what hyperbole and just throwing out a random number as an example is? And you're calling me the autist?
>"I-IT'S JUST BETTER, OKAY?!" isn't an argument.
The difference is that I'm correct in my assertion. Animation wise, writing quality wise, storyline wise, it's all better. There's not really much more to say, and with that I can easily dismiss you as a literary authority.
>Stereotyping saves time, as does skipping past chapters of exposition on Rohirric farming methods.
You do realize why stereotypes and generalizations are bad, correct? This is why I accuse you of empty posturing and conjecture. There are loads of examples that prove your completely idiotic nonsense wrong and yet you simply won't acknowledge them because they destroy the narrative that you're building.
>That just makes you look like a moron who can't understand normal human interaction, but I suppose that wouldn't occur to the type of autist who wants to learn the ancient elven history of Frodo's belt-buckle.
I'm so very sorry that I didn't take your empty words at face value and now you're upset.
>You just said "Character actions" without explaining how that could have been done. You didn't actually show HOW it would have been better if they didn't do this exposition. You just said "leave it without it" when in my view each of these movies would have been hurt by the removal of these expository moments.
You could have just had Cruise say "I think he WANTS to confess" to the female lead, before or even during the courtroom scene, and it would've worked just as well. It's completely obvious that he's trying to goad Nicholson into confessing during that scene. There was no need for him to explain at length what he was about to do, except maybe beyond that one line.
With Psycho, I said "half the length," not none. The shrink could have easily stopped once he explained that Norman based his split-personality on his jealous mother. He didn't need to recount in detail the crimes we had seen onscreen, or explain where Norman got the wig and dress. We can assume Norman didn't just conjure them up out of thin air.
>You don't know what hyperbole and just throwing out a random number as an example is? And you're calling me the autist?
You seem to think that everyone's calling for NO EXPOSITION AT ALL when they've repeatedly qualified it with "unnecessary" or something, so no, I don't think you understand hyperbole.
>There's not really much more to say, and with that I can easily dismiss you as a literary authority.
When did I say I was a "literary authority?"
>There are loads of examples that prove your completely idiotic nonsense wrong and yet you simply won't acknowledge them because they destroy the narrative that you're building.
And you've never acknowledged that there are plenty of stories that lack all that excess garbage and are just fine for it, thus proving that your examples are mostly good DESPITE the bloat.
>now you're upset.
Are you DONE now?
>You could have just had Cruise say "I think he WANTS to confess" to the female lead, before or even during the courtroom scene, and it would've worked just as well. It's completely obvious that he's trying to goad Nicholson into confessing during that scene. There was no need for him to explain at length what he was about to do, except maybe beyond that one line.
In my view, the story would have been fundamentally hurt by the lack of exposition. Him going on that dialog is in character and without it, he comes across as more bland. Also, I thought you were talking about actions that a character takes, not dialog?
>With Psycho, I said "half the length," not none. The shrink could have easily stopped once he explained that Norman based his split-personality on his jealous mother. He didn't need to recount in detail the crimes we had seen onscreen, or explain where Norman got the wig and dress.
Again, because you say so? Or do you have an actual thought out argument as to why that's the case? My view, again is that the story would have been hurt by it. It allows for more context, symbolism and genuine artistry with more creative shots by Hitchwiener to shine through.
>You seem to think that everyone's calling for NO EXPOSITION AT ALL when they've repeatedly qualified it with "unnecessary" or something, so no, I don't think you understand hyperbole.
>What if I take what my opposition said about me and then SWITCH IT AROUND SO IT'S ABOUT THEM INSTEAD, regardless of if it makes sense or not!?!?
Lol, yeah, what if, bro?
>When did I say I was a "literary authority?"
When you started trying to be one.
>And you've never acknowledged that there are plenty of stories that lack all that excess garbage and are just fine for it, thus proving that your examples are mostly good DESPITE the bloat.
Because that's not what the argument is about. Bloat isn't bad by itself, moron. I don't care about bloat. Is the bloat good or bad? That's what matters.
>From you, it's just a whine that means you have no argument. When someone tells you "This scene was unnecessary, everything he says is obvious from the rest of the story," they just explained why, imbecile. And you accuse me of not listening.
Saying "Everything was obvious from the scene" is still not explanation, you have to go into why it was obvious, why you think it's so much easier to convey it just through actions.
>You're the one still responding after you twice swore that YOU. WERE. DONE. with this conversation.
I'm not the who continued coping, crying and pissing themselves to try and drown out my completely irrefutable counter points to your arguments in an echo chamber by responding to another anon.
>Saying "Everything was obvious from the scene" is still not explanation, you have to go into why it was obvious, why you think it's so much easier to convey it just through actions.
In pretty much every example everyone has brought up, it WAS obvious. It was completely obvious that Cruise was trying to goad Nicholson into a confession, or that Norman Bates had mommy issues. You don't need that much exposition to fill in the blanks, unless you're a complete moron, which to be fair might be your problem.
>I'm not the who continued coping, crying and pissing themselves to try and drown out my completely irrefutable counter points to your arguments in an echo chamber by responding to another anon.
You've spammed this thread 20 times in response to an off-the-cuff comment by Grant Morrison. You've screamed and cried and pissed yourself more than I ever could.
>It was completely obvious that Cruise was trying to goad Nicholson into a confession, or that Norman Bates had mommy issues. You don't need that much exposition to fill in the blanks, unless you're a complete moron, which to be fair might be your problem.
Your problem is that you've formed an incredibly limited and stereotyped view of media based on an equally limited supply of media to watch. Your arguments are nothing but baseless authoritative speaking. Every post you make drips with unneeded and unearned authority. Your instinctive take is rather gay. The only person you're arguing with here is yourself because you're too illiterate, smug and full of yourself. In other words, have a nice day.
>Every post you make drips with unneeded and unearned authority.
What, because I don't include "In my view" before every sentence in a Cinemaphile post?
>Your instinctive take is rather gay.
Yours is that 300 pages of blather about Aragorn's tax policy is fascinating, so I'll take "gay."
>What, because I don't include "In my view" before every sentence in a Cinemaphile post?
Looking back over your previous posts?
>I will take the absolute worst interpretation of any writer without nuance because my interpretation is what they're actually doing with their work
>You must absolutely never write a work like this.
>You must never do (Insert trope here)
>Yours is that 300 pages of blather about Aragorn's tax policy is fascinating, so I'll take "gay."
>NURR HURR NOO UUUU!!!!
So yes, it's because I don't include "IMO," or "In my view," or "YMMV, but..." in all my posts. Thanks for explaining.
>There are better ways to explain complicated character interactions that don't involve lengthy infodumps and characters dribbling on in advance about their strategies.
This. I really didn't need an autist telling me he's going to take a potato chip and eat it before proceeding to take a potato chip and eating it.
Not super interested in the slapfight but that page is 100% fricking ridiculous. Couldnt he have at least illustrated more to go along with the giant wall of text?
Wow, you want ART in your visual medium? What, is that better or something? Because you say so? Because you say so?
I don't care if you tell me something in six words or six-million chapters, so long as the chapters are as good as pic related.
It's funny how insane you've become simply because I pointed out that you're merely posturing at me and not saying anything substantial or logically thought through. Hence the question
>"Because you say so?"
Nice to know that bothered you that much.
Oh I see. Your only experience is with Amerishart comics. I'm sorry for the internalized biases you've built up consuming trash.
Well, yours is with Shadow the Hedgehog, shonen anime, and 800-page fantasy doorstops, so I guess we both like garbage.
This is shit
>the minutia and worldbuilding are the backbone of any good story
Then are you willing to explain why they're speaking modern english in every fantasy world?
This is the most fricking moronic take I have ever seen. Maybe it because YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE SAYING
>the minutia and worldbuilding are the backbone of any good story.
Not really.
In one of the Conan the Barbarian short stories (The israeliteels of Gwahlur), there's about ten paragraphs of infodump in the first chapter, and then the entire rest of the book is about dudes in a jungle trying to kill each other.
Or in The King of Elfland's Daughter, we don't learn what Elfland's tax policy is. We don't even learn the witch Ziroonderel's backstory. She's just a crazy witch who rides a broomstick and lives in a hut when she's introduced.
Or Lud-in-the-Mist, we get a chapter of infodump at the beginning about the setting Dorimare, and then the story starts. Then the rest of the story is about Nathaniel Chanticleer as he tries to solve the mystery of the fairy fruit. There's some detailed descriptions of the scenery, but we never really learn anything outside of Dorimare.
Plenty of genre fic has worked just fine without Appendices and Official Companion books.
Show don't tell, homosexuals
This quote can be proven wrong just by looking at some of the most famous works in literature, comics or movies.
Literature
The lord of the rings (a whole extra book just about the world and it's history)
Moby Dick (A whole chapter about whale anatomy)
crime and punishment (details about the law and conviction process)
In comics
Watchmen (detailed breakdown of superheros)
In manga
One Piece (worldbuiling GOAT)
In Movies
The Godfather (detailed depiction of the mob as an organization and it's politics)
Star Wars (Worldbuiling that never fricking ends)
Every single one goes deep into worldbuiling, details and "unnecessary" details. There are a million more but these are enough to prove the point.
Whale anatomy is real though. That's not really worldbuilding.
Morrison is complaining about "unnecessary" details, not worldbuiling specifically.
That's all to give context to shit that actually matters in the story so the audience has a better understanding. Basically if it has any meaning, then its good. If it doesn't have a point, then its useless. It's like explaining a magic trick, it doesn't add anything, it just ruins the illusion.
Unnecessary details is just bad worldbuilding
>Star Wars (Worldbuiling that never fricking ends)
I don't see how this proves him wrong considering that literally everyone hates the world building shit thrown into Star Wars like how the force is actually microscopic organisms rather than just space magic or how the Sith operates on the rule of two aka master and disciple except they don't.
>how the force is actually microscopic organisms rather than just space magic
That's literally never even been implied.
>(a whole extra book just about the world and it's history)
The Silmarillion isn't really worth reading.
>Star Wars
Has been shit since the 80s, and the worldbuilding wasn't that excessive in the OG trilogy (I.E. the only films worth a damn).
>Star War
>The films that people hated when they explained the force
>The films that people hated the 2 times they explained why Anakin was a chosen one
>The franchise that was mocked because they used fornite to explain shit from the last film
You showed us
>One Piece (worldbuiling GOAT)
>The manga got worse when after the time skip the author decide to skip in small shit , geopolitics and allies than 10 guys in adventure
You actually prove Morrison right, because people cheer when Mugis left wano without Carrot and others characters so we can finally had Chooper had some focus kek
Watchmen is actually an excellent example of Morrison being right. It doesn't bog itself down in minutiae and literally everything is in service to the plot, characters, or overall "themes"
Grant Morrison is a dumb troony but he's not wrong about this much. These characters were made to just be mindless entertainment for 9 year olds and turning them into these serious scientifically-accurate things is dumb.
Always ask yourself these questions when coming up with a piece of world building:
1. Does it get used in the plot?
2. Would it affect the plot?
3. Does it inform a part of the character and open up new avenues to explore with them?
4. Does it give the world life?
And most importantly
5. Can you bring up this detail in an organic way?
If you answer no to all of these questions, especially number 5, what you are writing is probably for an auxiliary compendium piece at most. The reason I find why details usually don't get said within a given work is because the characters live in the world as people who have lived in the world, thus would know these answers and don't need to explain it. If you bring up the audience needing it explained for them to be invested in the story, then as a writer you need to construct a way for it to organically to be SHOWN. If the audience is fine understanding the story without that piece of information but wants to know more, that's where external media comes into it.
tl;dr: If the world building you are showing is just world building and has no effect on the core parts of the narrative and needs to be hamfistedly explained, then it probably doesn't belong in the core piece.
I love reading 2 morons argue to bump limit in a dead thread. It's one of the comfiest activities on the internet.
>In my view, the story would have been fundamentally hurt by the lack of exposition. Him going on that dialog is in character and without it, he comes across as more bland.
I my view, the courtroom scene (the MAJOR scene in the film) is hurt by that exposition. It ruins the suspense of the scene to no benefit other than to give Cruise -- the main character -- a few extra lines. Cruise doesn't need more development, we've followed him the whole film. He's had a love story, an arc overcoming his cynicism, the works.
>Again, because you say so? Or do you have an actual thought out argument as to why that's the case? My view, again is that the story would have been hurt by it.
We've already seen that crap onscreen, why do we need this guy to tell us what we already know? What creative shots and symbolism are used when this guy is in the middle of the screen talking at the audience?
>What if I take what my opposition said about me and then SWITCH IT AROUND SO IT'S ABOUT THEM INSTEAD, regardless of if it makes sense or not!?!?
When I first brought up Psycho and A Few Good Men, you said "OH, SO ALL EXPOSITION EVER IS BAD????" If the shoe fits, wear it.
>When you started trying to be one.
Funny, I thought I was just some dude on Cinemaphile giving my opinion. Or do I need to include "In my view," before every sentence before you realize that my opinion is, in fact, just my opinion?
>Bloat is bad by itself, moron. I don't care about bloat. Is the bloat good or bad? That's what matters.
Agreed, bloat IS bad by itself. You don't need to waste your audience's time with pointless nonsense.
>I my view, the courtroom scene (the MAJOR scene in the film) is hurt by that exposition. It ruins the suspense of the scene to no benefit other than to give Cruise -- the main character -- a few extra lines. Cruise doesn't need more development, we've followed him the whole film. He's had a love story, an arc overcoming his cynicism, the works.
Because you say so?
>We've already seen that crap onscreen, why do we need this guy to tell us what we already know?
So that the characters know?
>When I first brought up Psycho and A Few Good Men, you said "OH, SO ALL EXPOSITION EVER IS BAD????" If the shoe fits, wear it.
You literally couldn't comprehend that my example of an extra 3 chapters of dialog or exposition was merely a hyperbolic example. Don't try to twist things around now.
>Funny, I thought I was just some dude on Cinemaphile giving my opinion. Or do I need to include "In my view," before every sentence before you realize that my opinion is, in fact, just my opinion?
>It's the writer doing this
>You must absolutely NOT do this
>You can't write a story like this
>YOU MUST ONLY WRITE IN THIS ONE WAY!
>Well you see, I know the writer is actually doing this, because I've written things before you see
>Agreed, bloat IS bad by itself.
Bloat isn't bad by itself. That was an obvious typo. I just stated that I don't care about bloat as long as it's good or bad. Stop being a dishonest weasel.
>Because you say so?
Yes, genius. It's not worth spoiling the ending of your own film just to give your main character a few extra lines.
>So that the characters know?
They already established that when the cops told them that they'd dredged the swamp and found Marion and the PI. You're arguing in favor of exposition for something that was already exposited, now.
>You literally couldn't comprehend that my example of an extra 3 chapters of dialog or exposition was merely a hyperbolic example. Don't try to twist things around now.
No need to "twist" anything:
>So is your entire argument that there should be no exposition whatsoever? Everything should just be shown on screen and nothing should ever be exposed to the audience for any reason at all?
When I said "I don't wanna hear about Frodo's belt-buckle," you heard ALL EXPOSITION IS BAD.
>It's the writer doing this
>You must absolutely NOT do this
>You can't write a story like this
>YOU MUST ONLY WRITE IN THIS ONE WAY!
>Well you see, I know the writer is actually doing this, because I've written things before you see
I've never written shit, but I can say what I like and dislike and think is a bad idea, the same as anyone else. Like bloat, or spoiling the ending of your own film.
>I just stated that I don't care about bloat as long as it's good or bad.
What's good about pointless detail about non-existent shit? It teaches you nothing about people or real life; it just wastes time. What's to learn from knowing Aragorn's tax policy?
>It's not worth spoiling the ending of your own film just to give your main character a few extra lines.
I thought you said it was obvious from the get-go? So how is it spoiling it?
>They already established that when the cops told them that they'd dredged the swamp and found Marion and the PI. You're arguing in favor of exposition for something that was already exposited, now.
Yes because you have no argument against doing so.
>No need to "twist" anything
Showing how I used hyperbole has nothing to do with you not understanding it.
>I've never written shit,
That's pretty obvious
>but I can say what I like and dislike and think is a bad idea, the same as anyone else. Like bloat, or spoiling the ending of your own film.
You already said it was obvious.
>What's good about pointless detail about non-existent shit? It teaches you nothing about people or real life; it just wastes time.
Adding details brings life into a fictional world. Even giving some shit like the brand name of a drink helps add to the illusion. It's a concept called verisimilitude. This attitude really separates the art from the artists.
>Even giving some shit like the brand name of a drink helps add to the illusion.
>marketing makes media better
Please, at any moment that seems convenient, have a nice day
>The best he has left is willful misrepresentation
Last (You)
>I thought you said it was obvious from the get-go? So how is it spoiling it?
Obvious because it happens right in front of us, genius. It spoils the ending if Alice says "I'm gonna shoot Bob!" right before she shoots him.
>Yes because you have no argument against doing so.
Because restating something they just said seconds ago is a pointless waste of time. That's why. If you need me to explain why this is, then you really are a hopeless moron.
>That's pretty obvious
I advise you not to write either, anything you wrote would be absolute autistic garbage. Probably an edgy 500 chapter Sonic the Hedgehog fanfic or something.
>Adding details brings life into a fictional world. Even giving some shit like the brand name of a drink helps add to the illusion. It's a concept called verisimilitude. This attitude really separates the art from the artists.
What you're suggesting is that we need to know the entire company history of a fictional brand of soda, or the backstory of a bartender who appears in one scene.
>Obvious because it happens right in front of us, genius. It spoils the ending if Alice says "I'm gonna shoot Bob!" right before she shoots him.
So. How is it spoiling anything?
>Because restating something they just said seconds ago is a pointless waste of time. That's why. If you need me to explain why this is, then you really are a hopeless moron.
It's not really, although I can understand why someone who hasn't written anything before would feel the need to decry it. And that wasn't even what you were arguing to begin with.
>I advise you not to write either, anything you wrote would be absolute autistic garbage. Probably an edgy 500 chapter Sonic the Hedgehog fanfic or something.
You have no idea what I write or how I write.
>What you're suggesting is that we need to know the entire company history of a fictional brand of soda, or the backstory of a bartender who appears in one scene.
Willful misrepresentation again.
Autistic triviagays who spam "FUN FACT!" everywhere because they can't interact with someone without regurgitating some random bit of useless information about whatever piece of media have done so much harm to the hobby.
Good fiction is about characters making choices. Worldbuilding and characterization exists to give context to their choices - what they can or can't do, what they can expect as an outcome, what outcome actually is, what it would cost them and the others.
Grant Morrison is being disingenious. Nobody would actually ask "Who pumps Batman's tires" because it doesn't affect his choices.
But if you show Batman's tires deflated causing him to end the chase, for example, despite having another instance where he chooses to activate self-pumping mechanism instead, you got a problem.
>Nobody would actually ask "Who pumps Batman's tires" because it doesn't affect his choices
Someone obviously did considering Harold Allnut and Earl Cooper exist.
You offer kids drugs, and they'll say no, because He-Man told them it's for their good.
But you offer them to an adult, he'll take them, start dressing like a woman and writing shitty comic books and get high on his own farts.
This is directed at moronic "fans" not at writers you moron
Hey guys, go read Morrison’s annotations on Multiversity and you’ll see that he’s packing every page with references and allusions that you’d barely pick up on if you went through them with a fine toothed comb. It may enhance the story on a subconscious level, but 99% of the audience isn’t going to recognize or appreciate it. And yet this doesn’t affect their enjoyment of the story, because the story functions well on a fundamental level. That’s it. Stop spamming this shit AI will never understand it.
They are stupid. Simple as that. I regard being a fan of Grant Morrison as a sign that someone isn't worth speaking to.