Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
About Literature / Hobbyist Dan OlesMale/United States Recent Activity
Deviant for 2 Years
Needs Core Membership
Statistics 299 Deviations 4,674 Comments 66,564 Pageviews
×

Newest Deviations

Night Fall - Margravine Thatch by Generalorder4 Night Fall - Margravine Thatch :icongeneralorder4:Generalorder4 5 0 Death Mask Assassin by Generalorder4 Death Mask Assassin :icongeneralorder4:Generalorder4 3 7 Story Concept: Night Fall by Generalorder4 Story Concept: Night Fall :icongeneralorder4:Generalorder4 3 3 Two Purple Dragons by Generalorder4 Two Purple Dragons :icongeneralorder4:Generalorder4 24 5 Black Hood by Generalorder4 Black Hood :icongeneralorder4:Generalorder4 5 3 Dreamfinder and Figment by Generalorder4 Dreamfinder and Figment :icongeneralorder4:Generalorder4 18 52 Needles Kane by Generalorder4 Needles Kane :icongeneralorder4:Generalorder4 10 10 Project Antihero Poster by Generalorder4 Project Antihero Poster :icongeneralorder4:Generalorder4 6 10 Remake of Geppetto by Generalorder4 Remake of Geppetto :icongeneralorder4:Generalorder4 5 13 (Fanmade) Blood movie poster by Generalorder4 (Fanmade) Blood movie poster :icongeneralorder4:Generalorder4 10 10 'I Serve the Emperor!' by Generalorder4 'I Serve the Emperor!' :icongeneralorder4:Generalorder4 6 6 (Fanmade) Kaiserreich Movie Poster 2 by Generalorder4 (Fanmade) Kaiserreich Movie Poster 2 :icongeneralorder4:Generalorder4 13 3 'Ready Sir, Where's The Trouble?' by Generalorder4 'Ready Sir, Where's The Trouble?' :icongeneralorder4:Generalorder4 2 0 (Fanmade) Kaiserreich Movie Poster by Generalorder4 (Fanmade) Kaiserreich Movie Poster :icongeneralorder4:Generalorder4 14 8 Kaiserreich: Qing Ceremonial Guard by Generalorder4 Kaiserreich: Qing Ceremonial Guard :icongeneralorder4:Generalorder4 8 1 'Conscript Training Finished!' by Generalorder4 'Conscript Training Finished!' :icongeneralorder4:Generalorder4 6 46

Random Favourites

Equipo sonic by KayllaTheCat Equipo sonic :iconkayllathecat:KayllaTheCat 12 0 H.P. Lovecraft Universe - Poster by BlueWolfArtista H.P. Lovecraft Universe - Poster :iconbluewolfartista:BlueWolfArtista 21 6 Attempt at comic #1 by Yakovlev-vad Attempt at comic #1 :iconyakovlev-vad:Yakovlev-vad 270 70 Lizardfolk Cleric by Ryan-Rhodes Lizardfolk Cleric :iconryan-rhodes:Ryan-Rhodes 83 5 June Foray - 100 Years by JCThornton June Foray - 100 Years :iconjcthornton:JCThornton 124 24 Queen of Hearts: Alice Liddell by Shadymissionary Queen of Hearts: Alice Liddell :iconshadymissionary:Shadymissionary 3 3 DC - Titans East by Moheart7 DC - Titans East :iconmoheart7:Moheart7 69 24 Thing in the room by Manzanedo Thing in the room :iconmanzanedo:Manzanedo 871 22 St Jimmy stand stats by Thatnerdwithglasses St Jimmy stand stats :iconthatnerdwithglasses:Thatnerdwithglasses 3 5 Brawlers by baklaher Brawlers :iconbaklaher:baklaher 209 13 Failed Experiment by MarkusVogt Failed Experiment :iconmarkusvogt:MarkusVogt 88 12 Transborder2 by Shue13 Transborder2 :iconshue13:Shue13 3,153 145 The Ancient Titans by dkaism-art The Ancient Titans :icondkaism-art:dkaism-art 5 1 Ash vs. Evil Dead by HeroforPain Ash vs. Evil Dead :iconheroforpain:HeroforPain 101 21 Flutterminer by Alasou Flutterminer :iconalasou:Alasou 229 18 Untitled by KayllaTheCat Untitled :iconkayllathecat:KayllaTheCat 9 0

Groups

Activity


'Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father's care.'
- Matthew 10:29

--

Big budget productions often march out of the gate with photos and endless bragging about the complexity of costumes, the sheer scope and artistry of a fully realized fictive universe with the use of custom designed props, fully realized fantasy languages, details on details, all relegated to the background.
I remember a documentary in which Peter Jackson was so pleased that WETA had designed utensils from scratch so that the inhabitants of Middle Earth could feel that every aspect of their surrounding was true to the invention rather than appropriated materials from the outside world. Some details were even implemented but impossible to see from the perspective of the audience. Aragorn's knife has an elfish inscription and he carries a whetstone in a pouch around his neck, just so that Viggo Mortensen could justify to himself how his character would keep his weapons sharp and ready. 

I do admire the lengths of verisimilitude that Lord of the Rings especially went to and it definitely set a precedent...but what does all this set dressing ultimately matter?

In a similar way while playing Dragon Age Origins again I kept discovering little side rooms especially in the opening chapters that served no gameplay purpose but were fully realized in terms of furnishings. In the dwarf clan-less origin there's a side room with a large stone bath. In the human noble origin there's a number of rooms you can break into which don't have things to loot or people to talk to but do have shelves of rendered objects, paintings on the walls, chairs and tables and some have unique objects you won't find in any other location like unique fireplaces and rugs.
It's a lovely incentive to explore and it does make the world feel more realized. Optional conversations likewise hint at the sheer depth of the lore from factions to landmarks.

And all of it is indicative of a labor of love...on at least one front.

A video game is not a film of course. It's considerably more restricted.
Yes, restricted.
You'd think a medium in which player choice could create more opportunities for customization and stories with more dimensions. In a film you can't go places you aren't supposed to, make branching decisions, or kill important key characters.
And yet...how much of any of that 'freedom' actually translates to meaningful changes in a game, specifically it's story? From the beginning of video games the anticipation of taking destiny into the hands of the player has always seemed a possibility, but it's never really been realized. Go down a different path and eventually your character will either stop moving or backtrack. Kill a key character and discover that character didn't really matter anyway or the game will simply grind to a halt. Alternative decisions do not mean alternative games: it's simply a detour of a short duration until the current of the vanilla game takes charge once more.
Let's face it: developers have a limited time schedule and a limited budget. They COULD in some reality make entire branching video games to coincide with player choices but there's no way to make meaningful deviations on budget and with a limited amount of development time. Your choices will not matter in a grand scheme.
The only way they can matter is when they either matter to the player directly or if they do somehow play into the general plot. In Fallout 1 and 2 there's a montage in the conclusion describing how your actions changed the lives of those you interacted with. It's a surprising rare indication that your character doing something other than shooting people had some kind of effect on the world at large and the people in it.
Even in Fallout 4 you can nuke a town from the face of the planet, and the only real effect is you can't go to it anymore. That might effect you if you feel guilty or you miss a vender or an NPC you just incinerated for no real reason, but plot-wise it's negligible.
Does Mass Effect change if you punch the reporter? Does Oblivion change if you play any of the side missions before you play the main missions? Does Watch Dogs change if you ignore the crimes occurring around you in favor of the primary plot?
Not one jot.
 
So why are films LESS restrictive?
Because all of a film is plot.
In a game there's a bunch of gameplay that needs to be incorporated into a plot and the plot facilitates. In Assassin's Creed you aren't just killing a bunch of prime targets, you're also spending a ludicrous amount of time collecting things. Imagine in the grander scheme here that your character is all that stands between freedom and slavery, lies and the truth...but first he has to find all of the random notes or hidden caches so he can satisfy a meta 100% completion rate. This is the problem with video games as compelling story-telling mediums in my opinion. Bioshock is the potential tale of ideologies gone mad and people who are both victims and victimizers...but what it boils down to is shooting a bunch of people in the face because otherwise there wouldn't be a game and eating a million candy bars. It has a good story, but it keeps being interrupted by the need for the player to do something. Anything.
Games like Max Payne which I argue have fine stories divorce their narrative from the gameplay to the point that as far as the cutscenes are concerned Max never acquires a rocket launcher or an uzi or any of the rest of his arsenal: he's only ever shown carrying either a pistol or a colt commander. He doesn't even perhaps kill more than a handful of people. In the game he kills HUNDREDS of bad guys but again as far as the cutscenes know he kills about six confirmed.  

In a film however every scene has to have some reason to exist and the excuse of 'because gameplay' doesn't function on a screen. This is why bad films feel boring or dumb action films feel dumb. In a game with a bad plot you're still engaged to a minor extent because of the simple action of player participation, but in a film without those connections literally NOTHING is occurring. When someone says 'the film was like a video game' it's not a compliment. It can allude to either the graphics looks unconvincing or the detachment and contrived nature of the action on screen.

In the Star Wars prequels multiple sequences are often accused to being 'games the audience can't play' because the characters are dodging obstacles and engaging in special effects fueled battles which none-the-less have no real impact on themselves or the world they're inhabiting. In a video game this might be forgiven. In a video game killing hundreds of people and having them just disappear after falling over is so commonplace nobody even comments on the discrepancy with reality: it's an accepted deviation because of an acknowledgement of the medium. In a game you can pull weapons out of nowhere, recover health instantly by eating food, take lethal punishment and ignore it as an inconvenience as long as arbitrary hit points are above zero...etc.
Nobody minds because of instant satisfaction which is paramount to many games. Having someone bleed out from a single bullet wound unless treated for days, having a limit on carrying capacity based on an ordinary human's ability, having wind speed effect bullet drop, characters age and die, even those faceless goons you slaughter by the millions have some kind of realistic tie to family or friends is all seen as detrimental to the enjoyment of the player which is the purpose of a game. 
This is NOT an inditement of this attitude in the slightest. Some people like a little more reality to games, but VERY few will appreciate this taken to logical places. Imagine for a moment that even a hero character could realistically not aim or fight with any degree of skill without literal years of training and practice or that even soldiers could not sprint indefinitely, jump from more than a few feet without difficulty, or carry weapons far too large for even the world's strong human to hoist by themselves without assistance. 
You'd be annoyed because without the player taken into consideration all of this seems superfluous and ultimately a bit pretentious. What impact would any of this have on the point of video games?
That point being not the plot, but the gameplay itself. 

Similarly, what is the point of set dressing if it has nothing to do with what is occurring? You can argue all day long about color and texture, but no one could possibly care if the central show is a boring slog. Dragon Age 2 is often accused of being dull compared to the first game because, ironically, there's far more combat than in the first game. Hawke is CONSTANTLY butchering hundreds of seemingly random people who want him/her and their friends dead and after the millionth horde of randoms you do start to feel that the 'awesome button' of all the abilities and spells and whatnot becomes routine. It doesn't help that these endless battles have similar effective tactics and take place in recycled locations. I like Dragon Age 2 personally but it is NOT because of the combat which becomes so ubiquitous and arbitrary that at least I felt the game was more like an entertaining fantasy novel that kept being broken up by commercial breaks. 
And if the game is only about the combat than all the pretty little details in the world fall on deaf ears. Hawke doesn't care, the player doesn't care, nobody cares about factions and racial politics and the really gorgeous art direction if all they do is kill things, or collect things in order to kill things or find things in order to kill more things.
The act of killing itself is not the problem. The problem is that when all you do is one thing it doesn't matter how pretty, how flashy, how dramatic that thing begins as, eventually it will becomes tiresome without a break in the pattern.

So it is with films when they too fall victim to placeholder propriety. 
The showcase of an action film you might argue is the action....but if that's the case why is Die Hard 1 any different from Die Hard 5? Both have 'action' in a general sense and Die Hard 5 objectively has more of it, yet one was and remains a critical darling and the other was soundly panned right out of the gate. This is not just a nostalgia issue. Warcraft 2 is a better reviewed and remembered game than Warcraft 1 and Warcraft 3 is better reviewed and remembered than either game. Some things improve and evolve with time. Lord of the Rings by Peter Jackson is generally regarded as superior to Ralph Bakshi's animated adaptation of the same story, and not just because one is live action. Despite the fact that Bakshi did adapt parts of the story more faithfully than Jackson's own adaptation, Jackson's vision was much more comprehensive, thematic, and had the polish that Bakshi's experiment lacked. Something being older doesn't make it automatically better. Yet by the same token something newer doesn't make it better either.

Going back to props and such: what is the purpose of a background detail? Why go to all the effort to pour time, talent, and money into little things that might go completely unnoticed? A chair in the corner of a room in either a video game or a film might go completely unnoticed. In a game indeed places where a character is physically incapable of going can be glossed over, low resolution, or ignored to the point that no-clipping through a window can reveal an empty void or distant citizens can be reduced to repeated animation two dimensional sprites even in three dimensional games. Simply put what isn't necessary, especially in the cutthroat world of games, often falls consciously by the wayside. It might pay to put some care into the construction of something the player will witness a lot or little details to make the general package feel substantial, but if it's behind a wall or impossible to see, what is the point of those extra minutes of work for something that will never be witnessed? 
In a film beyond the reach of the lens nothing practically exists. Sometimes filmmakers take advantage of this fact such as filming in tight closeups to hide that something is a set or cutting off anachronisms like television antennas in period pieces or the like. 
So why produce, compose, and position something no one will ever see and few will ever know about?
Sometimes the answer is 'the artists were bored'.
But sometimes, and ideally I'd argue, the answer is 'The story demanded it'.

Lord of the Rings isn't just a story about a bad guy and a ring needed to destroy him. When we're introduced to The Hobbits it's to establish a direct comparison with the idyllic existence of these sheltered creatures and the rest of the world they inhabit but barely acknowledge. The world of The Hobbits was crafted from the bottom up to make it feel lived in, homey, comfortable. Compared to the grandiose stone halls of the world of men, the grimy and armored edifices of the forces of darkness, the towering and winding designs of the elves and the stolid geometrical precision of the dwarves The Hobbits have handcrafted devices made exclusively for something the other races barely seem to think about but which The Hobbits spend an inordinate amount of time devoted.
Eating.
This is exemplified when you consider the comparison between Bilbo having a fully stocked larder, tea kettle, and cakes all ready for any visitor while even the steward of Gondor dines quickly and sloppily as if the action brings him no joy and is just another task to maintain his strength. Orcs show no interest in eating outside of the visceral delight of mangling meat, elven bread is described as fortifying but tasteless, the people of Rohan seem like lousy cooks, and dwarves drink more than they do anything else. The establishing of an environment in which Hobbits are shown to be almost ritualistically drawn to a practice so peaceable is paramount to the theme of domesticity versus the harsher realities of the world beyond the bubble of The Shire. 

However, to pick an admittedly easy target, what about the film Valerian? There is TONS of background detail unto spare throughout the production. Every costume is handcrafted to ridiculous discretion. Bit characters are resplendent in beautiful and expensive threads and baubles, jewels and accessories. CGI backgrounds are packed with little elements and moving parts.
And it's all so very very pointless.
What does any of anything have to do with the plot such as it is? The fact that there's a huge sprawling virtual market world doesn't matter in the slightest compared to Valerian having to get a box. He could have gotten this box anywhere and nothing would change. Nothing is even all that thematic about a market world or the fact that it's virtual. The entire scene is devoid of purpose beyond showing off effects, but since those effects have no purchase on lasting importance they're easily forgotten in the space of a transition. All that time to render an alien wrestling with a tentacle monster for it to be disregarded because it had nothing to do with the story, the characters, the theme, or anything anywhere. Without those ties it's just a thing that happens without impact.

No object permanence. 

Why is something like Hoth the ice world memorable? Technically the opening of Empire Strikes Back could have taken place on any other type of planet and still functioned in terms of plot, but the introduction of a frozen location is important to the theme and the  way the plot progresses. Hoth is remote, nearly lifeless, small, and cramped. It makes sense this would be a difficult place to locate and why The Empire wouldn't consider a rebel base a likelihood there. Having the rebels literally underground in tiny corridors and incapable of leaving the base for long without their lives being in danger is all indicative of their general situation. They can't leave easily and if they do they'll be killed by forces they can barely contend with. When they escape Hoth it feels like they've been chased out of a den they were crouched in and are now exposed and in danger. They already felt embattled so now on the run everything is far more desperate.
If Hoth had been a jungle world it wouldn't have felt as remote, as unlikely to have a base, and the rebels might even had felt like they were on vacation instead of driven to extremes. 

This is the only example from The Last Jedi, I promise. Why does the final fight take place of a world covered in salt? Why is an 'uninhabited' world covered in abandoned mines when there's still minerals around it? How did first a rebellion THEN a resistance base of operations remain forgotten if there were mines built on the same planet between times? As opposed to a lifeless ball of ice, why is a honeycombed mineral planet less likely as a port of call somehow? 
The answer seems to be 'Don't think about it...we didn't'.

To make a functioning anything all the pieces need to move in tandem. A blockage causes the mechanism to jam and eventually to break. Make believing that a mechanism exists does not lead to the machine as a whole functioning: all of the major pieces need to be on point.
And by the same extended metaphor extraneous gears gum up the works. All the pretty filigree in the world is a detriment to the lean and mean need for a machine to spin the primary gears. Accents are lovely and make the action of a story's machine seem more than just a heartless operation, but if they do not directly or even indirectly apply to the primary functioning parts they are ignored or seen as distractions and impediments. 

And neither of these is worthy of the time to plan and build if they are lost in the shuffle, relegated to the backdrop, lost to irrelevance. 

What is Dirty Harry's middle name? Who makes Frodo's shirts? Did Luke Skywalker ever have a stuffed animal? Did Captain Kirk ever visit Florence? 
All of these are questions that the authors of their respective tales might think about and even have answers to but none of them will ultimately matter to anyone but incredibly diehard fans. When writing Star Wars, George Lucas might have a reason in his brain why there's a rounded shape on the front of C3PO or he might not. It is not important to the plot so he could legitimately claim he'd think of a reason later if one was asked for or was necessary to make the universe of the story seem more plausible. 
This is what detail should contribute to: the world seeming more likely, the story and characters being more in depth.
Frosting for the sake of frosting is just empty calories.

Weirdly however this attitude of jettisoning niceties and focusing on details seems to have been flipped. We don't need to know who makes Frodo's shirts but we DO want to know why, after the conspiracy of the clone army is revealed to Yoda, that he decides to not only activate the entire army but use it in battle right afterwards. This isn't just a plot hole, it's a plot road block. Because this concept makes no sense it either is indicative of Yoda being an idiot or the plot making no pretense to logic. Neither looks good, neither feels satisfying, and both make Attack of the Clones feel fundamentally broken. 

As for details we've got them in spades: beautiful costumes, intricate props, time and attention and research into making everything seem more intricate and plausible...and then a vehicle will run into a wall and blow up in a ball of fire just because while sounds happen in space and someone will mishear a conversation which will make them hate someone else just like a thousand times before without any irony. We're focusing on the wrong things. We're ignoring the wrong problems. 

I've mentioned this a time or two but why are heroes so bloodthirsty? Sheer amount of action is not indicative of excitement per falling body. The story arc of a hero especially is supposed to indicate, even for antiheroes, a sense of moral justification. The evilest scumbag protagonist with the barest of exceptions is one notch less evil than the people they are confronting or they are driven to confronting their past deeds to make amends. By human nature we aren't compelled by people who do the wrong things for the wrong reasons without remorse. They seem alien and unreal to us: cackling cardboard villains or monstrous psychopaths often relegated to literal supernatural type menaces. Nobody can understand or feel for Jason Vorhees: he's an icon of horror but not really a person anymore than the shark from Jaws. He's enjoyable the same way an explosion is enjoyable: a shocking event that other more understandable people react to.  
The Emperor from Star Wars is enjoyable as a foil, but as a character he is not relatable and would not make for a compelling protagonist unless he showed the tiniest bit of guilt, comprehension of his own actions, empathy, doubt or other qualities suggesting the possibility of change or development. 
People stuck in a rut are used as tools as if they were props themselves. 

So a character should be capable of some kind of improvement or at the very least some change. What indicates this in anything a contemporary hero does? Killing people is what the bad guy does usually, so having the hero do it even if those people is bad fails to differentiate hero from villain in that regard. Likewise the villain tends to want to control everything...and a lot of contemporary heroes want exactly the same thing. 

This is where the object impermanence arrives in films in a way video games would ignore but movies cannot handle. In a game you can mow down zillions of faceless goons and afterwards they will evaporate, barely be mentioned if at all, and their existence seems erased from meaning beyond their initial engagement as an obstacle and a skill challenge to dispose of. The average game hero must kill an entire population by the conclusion of their tale, realistically leaving families by the score and friends bereft not to mention piling corpses on corpses. Death happens in war indeed, but how many 'heroes' go out of their way to reap it? 

I was just watching to series The Player because it was free on Crackle and there was a hilariously poorly thought out sequence in which the hero engages an old friend and fellow army vet who has turned rogue on an airplane. The villain escapes with a parachute leaving the hero...in a perfectly functioning plane. The pilot has been shot but the hero can probably fly the plane himself and there hasn't been any damage to the vehicle. 
But the hero decides to jump out of the plane WITHOUT a chute to pursue the villain, grab HIS chute, and then send his old friend plummeting to the ground.
The unintentional hilarity is that the villain says 'Don't blame yourself for this!' as his last words.
Um...the 'hero' totally murdered you. He had no means to live because of a situation he put himself into which could only be resolved either with his death or yours. 
Not to mention (and the show never does) now the plane will coast until it runs out of gas and crash into some unsuspecting populace. 
The hero is somehow still morally justifiable ACCORDING TO THE VILLAIN despite the fact that by his willful actions he basically killed way more people than the villain ever could. 

The heroes never improve or change in a lot of modern productions. In games the protagonist just changes so we can make-believe the exact same actions are fresh because the set dressing and the character model doing the action is different. In television people don't change so much as they degrade. They maintain their original principals, their original belief systems and make the same choices as before but they get more angry and sad. In films heroes of any persuasion tend to be so amazingly overpowered they don't need to change or improve physically and since anything they do is justified nothing they do needs to be changed. 
In fact oftentimes the message of contemporary fiction seems to be nothing can change, improve, or develop at all. Heroes can't ever remain happy in general because then their adventures would be over. They can't think much about what they're doing because that would detract from the time they spend doing important things. 
Like killing endless ranks of identical and inconsequential bad guys.
Like a video game an audience can't play.

In a heroic saga like The Iliad or Beowulf there was generally some kind of emphasis on even a no-name character dying as being important. The Iliad has an entire character arc of Achilles based on the actions of Patroclus, who compared to the magically gifted and incredibly powerful warrior he serves is practically a no count foot soldier. However this ordinary guy up and decides to do something, and his actions have ripples throughout the rest of the story. The Odyssey by itself and The Aeneid which offshoot from The Iliad are both stories about almost completely overshadowed bit characters in the original saga who have their own amazing adventures. Every character seems to have a history, a beginning, a personality, and a purpose in the grand narrative.
And neither Greek nor Trojan is 'good' or 'bad' because of their loyalty to a national cause. The manipulative Paris is firmly intrenched in the same ranks of the Trojans which also encompasses noble Hector and while The Greeks are an invading army their purpose is primarily to rescue a woman that was kidnapped. Neither side even has immediate favor of The gods in general. Patroclus is actually defeated after being smitten by Apollo, while the Trojan priest Laocoön is killed along with his sons by Athena when he suggests that the city should burn the infamous Wooden Horse.

Like a sign of things to come, the movie adaptation Troy dispensed with the gods altogether (who represented impartiality in the original epic) and portrayed The Greeks as evil aggressors and The Trojans as saintly put-upon victims. Apparently unless we have two sides clearly defined with one side exhibiting illogical malice and the other completely devoid of wrongdoing we can't accept a story. We don't only need good and evil, we need the most childlike and simplistic depictions of both.
Let's not even get too deeply into the real reason this was done: to twist Troy into yet another 'The Iraq War was evil and wrong' analogue.

Whatever your politics, whatever your outlook, whatever your background people like stories. We like these stories to make sense in general, to have some degree of complexity and logic underneath the hood, and if we can't get that at least for the experience to be entertaining without so many hiccups in composition or competency to make the mind disengage from the fun and dwell on the improbability of it all.
Every fictional story will have it's holes, it's forgotten crevices, it's broken threads, but the best stories have spackling paste in the form of fanbases after the fact. You can justify any number of inconsistencies if you craft something complete enough to garner the loyalty and trust of the people you're presenting your story to.

But the excuses should be kept to the margins. In Wrath of Khan, Khan addresses Chekov by name despite the fact that Chekov was not in the main crew of The Enterprise for the episode Space Seed. This is a misstep but not a plot hole. Khan knowing Chekov never matters. Fans STILL came up with almost plausible explanations for how Chekov was an engineer in Space Seed who kept Khan waiting a long time for the bathroom, explaining his particular annoyance at Chekov specifically. It's cute, it's almost believable, and it fills in the gap that was made by an honest mistake.

However claiming that something can just be overlooked completely if it's integral to the plot is simply lazy. The Fellowship not using the eagles to fly to Mnt. Doom is not a true plot hole because they don't bring it up so again fans came up with theories and there's some indications in the books to draw on that eagles are not pets and so forth.
In comparison, Batman in The Dark Knight Rises somehow manages to travel from The Middle East to Gotham US in less than a day and manages to get into the city which is being defended by tanks and armed patrols that even the citizens can't leave...AND he somehow finds a new suit in the process.
This is a plot hole because no real explanation works beyond meta-reasoning. It is important to the plot that he get to Gotham and in a short amount of time but NOTHING is offered by way of explanation even in passing to fill the gap. And yes, even Catwoman asks how this happened and Batman doesn't answer the question.

You're just supposed to ignore the hole which could have and SHOULD have been addressed by a re-write. It's a straight up oversight by necessity of later events, not consideration of logic or reason in the situation itself. If a character just suddenly appears somewhere they couldn't possibly know about, shows an aptitude they have no reason to understand, goes somewhere they have no reason to go when they should by rights and their own admission go somewhere or do something else this is a PLOT HOLE.
The plot itself is broken. The writer has failed their job. The story doesn't make any sense so its hard without complete self-delusionment and way too much effort to care about whats occurring. You need to push the separate elements to the side like separating mashed potatoes and peas. They have to be considered to be completely separated: the best elements and the broken plot.
This is something the writer is supposed to avoid. Fans can forgive, but that's beyond a majority of them.
You failed to make a compelling story: that's not a fan's job. 

And with those fundamental issues the pretty clothing, the nicest backdrop is so much white noise. All that work literally for nothing. If you claim effort translates directly every time into quality, consider how many talented artists worked on The Dungeons and Dragons movie and Transformers. Technical and visual geniuses poured their heart into completely forgettable and poorly regarded disasters all because the primary machine ground to a halt.
Detail on top of a great story is brilliant. On top of a boring story it's fluff.
You cannot save a boring narrative with nice window dressing. You cannot save a boring character with good camerawork. You cannot save a bad script with flashy effects.

So make the little things matter by making the bigger picture remember them. A game cannot in all likelihood give you the sense that after you leave a screen the world will remember, but a film can't help it. If you cheat in a game it's chalked up to the issues that come along with games themselves. There's going to be unforeseen glitches, unforeseen shortcuts, unforeseen issues prevalent when you tailor an experience rather than a story.
But a film has no excuse. If you blow up a city that city better stay blowed up and someone better care about it or the people who paid to see your laziness will feel cheated and won't stay quiet about it. It's not a problem with the fans, it's a problem with the writers who didn't value the people giving them money to live out their dreams enough to provide plausible deniability for their fictional tapestry. 

A utensil in The Shire will be spotted on repeated viewings because it means something.
A massive spaceship, crowd of digital characters, or fancy extras will be completely ignored in Jupiter Ascending because nobody cares enough about the story to look.

Spend your time and treasure on the things that matter in your tales. 
Crimefighter Guy
I can still make non-digital drawings! Also I kind of liked the look of him.
Didn't know what to put in his hand. Some kind of gas gun but I couldn't narrow down the design.
Loading...
Night Fall - Margravine Thatch
Based on my little story concept: www.deviantart.com/generalorde…

In Night Fall the concept is that humans are the servants and even mercenaries of evil creatures like vampires and werewolves. Margravine Thatch is one such 'Harbinger' who serves a vampire as his daylight emissary and slayer of humans and rival creatures of darkness. She's considerably older than she looks thanks to drinking the blood of her master after every successful hunt, so that she can live out her forty year tour of servitude. For many unruly humans and monsters alike this is the last sight they see. 
Loading...
Death Mask Assassin
Couldn't resist after :icontheautisticonenamedm: made these fantastic sprites

Death Mask Sprite: www.deviantart.com/theautistic…

Death Mask is an Amiga game which has little reputation apart from being sub-par, but what few know is that the plot according to the manual revolves around elite military assassin rodent mutants fending off a human invasion...and I think that's pretty special. Also the main characters names are Hiram and Seth, and there's something intriguing about the concept of brothers in arms who are also enormous rats.
In an earlier piece I showed the rats without their masks, so here's a Death Mask assassin wearing one.

Original Death Mask fan art thing: www.deviantart.com/generalorde…
Loading...
Story Concept: Night Fall
What if the darkness won? What if vampires, werewolves, and witches reigned supreme?
Here's a little story concept I came up with which clearly owes a lot to other concepts but I think the remix is interesting at least. I liked the idea of people who were ordinary (or at least under-powered) for the most part but dropped into extraordinary situations by fate where they had to adapt. I also like the concept of humans being both inferiors to a ruling class of evil creatures but also completely indispensable to their plans. These are fun characters and a strange world I might revisit at some point.

I imagine the soundtrack being something like this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0SxAB…
Loading...
'Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father's care.'
- Matthew 10:29

--

Big budget productions often march out of the gate with photos and endless bragging about the complexity of costumes, the sheer scope and artistry of a fully realized fictive universe with the use of custom designed props, fully realized fantasy languages, details on details, all relegated to the background.
I remember a documentary in which Peter Jackson was so pleased that WETA had designed utensils from scratch so that the inhabitants of Middle Earth could feel that every aspect of their surrounding was true to the invention rather than appropriated materials from the outside world. Some details were even implemented but impossible to see from the perspective of the audience. Aragorn's knife has an elfish inscription and he carries a whetstone in a pouch around his neck, just so that Viggo Mortensen could justify to himself how his character would keep his weapons sharp and ready. 

I do admire the lengths of verisimilitude that Lord of the Rings especially went to and it definitely set a precedent...but what does all this set dressing ultimately matter?

In a similar way while playing Dragon Age Origins again I kept discovering little side rooms especially in the opening chapters that served no gameplay purpose but were fully realized in terms of furnishings. In the dwarf clan-less origin there's a side room with a large stone bath. In the human noble origin there's a number of rooms you can break into which don't have things to loot or people to talk to but do have shelves of rendered objects, paintings on the walls, chairs and tables and some have unique objects you won't find in any other location like unique fireplaces and rugs.
It's a lovely incentive to explore and it does make the world feel more realized. Optional conversations likewise hint at the sheer depth of the lore from factions to landmarks.

And all of it is indicative of a labor of love...on at least one front.

A video game is not a film of course. It's considerably more restricted.
Yes, restricted.
You'd think a medium in which player choice could create more opportunities for customization and stories with more dimensions. In a film you can't go places you aren't supposed to, make branching decisions, or kill important key characters.
And yet...how much of any of that 'freedom' actually translates to meaningful changes in a game, specifically it's story? From the beginning of video games the anticipation of taking destiny into the hands of the player has always seemed a possibility, but it's never really been realized. Go down a different path and eventually your character will either stop moving or backtrack. Kill a key character and discover that character didn't really matter anyway or the game will simply grind to a halt. Alternative decisions do not mean alternative games: it's simply a detour of a short duration until the current of the vanilla game takes charge once more.
Let's face it: developers have a limited time schedule and a limited budget. They COULD in some reality make entire branching video games to coincide with player choices but there's no way to make meaningful deviations on budget and with a limited amount of development time. Your choices will not matter in a grand scheme.
The only way they can matter is when they either matter to the player directly or if they do somehow play into the general plot. In Fallout 1 and 2 there's a montage in the conclusion describing how your actions changed the lives of those you interacted with. It's a surprising rare indication that your character doing something other than shooting people had some kind of effect on the world at large and the people in it.
Even in Fallout 4 you can nuke a town from the face of the planet, and the only real effect is you can't go to it anymore. That might effect you if you feel guilty or you miss a vender or an NPC you just incinerated for no real reason, but plot-wise it's negligible.
Does Mass Effect change if you punch the reporter? Does Oblivion change if you play any of the side missions before you play the main missions? Does Watch Dogs change if you ignore the crimes occurring around you in favor of the primary plot?
Not one jot.
 
So why are films LESS restrictive?
Because all of a film is plot.
In a game there's a bunch of gameplay that needs to be incorporated into a plot and the plot facilitates. In Assassin's Creed you aren't just killing a bunch of prime targets, you're also spending a ludicrous amount of time collecting things. Imagine in the grander scheme here that your character is all that stands between freedom and slavery, lies and the truth...but first he has to find all of the random notes or hidden caches so he can satisfy a meta 100% completion rate. This is the problem with video games as compelling story-telling mediums in my opinion. Bioshock is the potential tale of ideologies gone mad and people who are both victims and victimizers...but what it boils down to is shooting a bunch of people in the face because otherwise there wouldn't be a game and eating a million candy bars. It has a good story, but it keeps being interrupted by the need for the player to do something. Anything.
Games like Max Payne which I argue have fine stories divorce their narrative from the gameplay to the point that as far as the cutscenes are concerned Max never acquires a rocket launcher or an uzi or any of the rest of his arsenal: he's only ever shown carrying either a pistol or a colt commander. He doesn't even perhaps kill more than a handful of people. In the game he kills HUNDREDS of bad guys but again as far as the cutscenes know he kills about six confirmed.  

In a film however every scene has to have some reason to exist and the excuse of 'because gameplay' doesn't function on a screen. This is why bad films feel boring or dumb action films feel dumb. In a game with a bad plot you're still engaged to a minor extent because of the simple action of player participation, but in a film without those connections literally NOTHING is occurring. When someone says 'the film was like a video game' it's not a compliment. It can allude to either the graphics looks unconvincing or the detachment and contrived nature of the action on screen.

In the Star Wars prequels multiple sequences are often accused to being 'games the audience can't play' because the characters are dodging obstacles and engaging in special effects fueled battles which none-the-less have no real impact on themselves or the world they're inhabiting. In a video game this might be forgiven. In a video game killing hundreds of people and having them just disappear after falling over is so commonplace nobody even comments on the discrepancy with reality: it's an accepted deviation because of an acknowledgement of the medium. In a game you can pull weapons out of nowhere, recover health instantly by eating food, take lethal punishment and ignore it as an inconvenience as long as arbitrary hit points are above zero...etc.
Nobody minds because of instant satisfaction which is paramount to many games. Having someone bleed out from a single bullet wound unless treated for days, having a limit on carrying capacity based on an ordinary human's ability, having wind speed effect bullet drop, characters age and die, even those faceless goons you slaughter by the millions have some kind of realistic tie to family or friends is all seen as detrimental to the enjoyment of the player which is the purpose of a game. 
This is NOT an inditement of this attitude in the slightest. Some people like a little more reality to games, but VERY few will appreciate this taken to logical places. Imagine for a moment that even a hero character could realistically not aim or fight with any degree of skill without literal years of training and practice or that even soldiers could not sprint indefinitely, jump from more than a few feet without difficulty, or carry weapons far too large for even the world's strong human to hoist by themselves without assistance. 
You'd be annoyed because without the player taken into consideration all of this seems superfluous and ultimately a bit pretentious. What impact would any of this have on the point of video games?
That point being not the plot, but the gameplay itself. 

Similarly, what is the point of set dressing if it has nothing to do with what is occurring? You can argue all day long about color and texture, but no one could possibly care if the central show is a boring slog. Dragon Age 2 is often accused of being dull compared to the first game because, ironically, there's far more combat than in the first game. Hawke is CONSTANTLY butchering hundreds of seemingly random people who want him/her and their friends dead and after the millionth horde of randoms you do start to feel that the 'awesome button' of all the abilities and spells and whatnot becomes routine. It doesn't help that these endless battles have similar effective tactics and take place in recycled locations. I like Dragon Age 2 personally but it is NOT because of the combat which becomes so ubiquitous and arbitrary that at least I felt the game was more like an entertaining fantasy novel that kept being broken up by commercial breaks. 
And if the game is only about the combat than all the pretty little details in the world fall on deaf ears. Hawke doesn't care, the player doesn't care, nobody cares about factions and racial politics and the really gorgeous art direction if all they do is kill things, or collect things in order to kill things or find things in order to kill more things.
The act of killing itself is not the problem. The problem is that when all you do is one thing it doesn't matter how pretty, how flashy, how dramatic that thing begins as, eventually it will becomes tiresome without a break in the pattern.

So it is with films when they too fall victim to placeholder propriety. 
The showcase of an action film you might argue is the action....but if that's the case why is Die Hard 1 any different from Die Hard 5? Both have 'action' in a general sense and Die Hard 5 objectively has more of it, yet one was and remains a critical darling and the other was soundly panned right out of the gate. This is not just a nostalgia issue. Warcraft 2 is a better reviewed and remembered game than Warcraft 1 and Warcraft 3 is better reviewed and remembered than either game. Some things improve and evolve with time. Lord of the Rings by Peter Jackson is generally regarded as superior to Ralph Bakshi's animated adaptation of the same story, and not just because one is live action. Despite the fact that Bakshi did adapt parts of the story more faithfully than Jackson's own adaptation, Jackson's vision was much more comprehensive, thematic, and had the polish that Bakshi's experiment lacked. Something being older doesn't make it automatically better. Yet by the same token something newer doesn't make it better either.

Going back to props and such: what is the purpose of a background detail? Why go to all the effort to pour time, talent, and money into little things that might go completely unnoticed? A chair in the corner of a room in either a video game or a film might go completely unnoticed. In a game indeed places where a character is physically incapable of going can be glossed over, low resolution, or ignored to the point that no-clipping through a window can reveal an empty void or distant citizens can be reduced to repeated animation two dimensional sprites even in three dimensional games. Simply put what isn't necessary, especially in the cutthroat world of games, often falls consciously by the wayside. It might pay to put some care into the construction of something the player will witness a lot or little details to make the general package feel substantial, but if it's behind a wall or impossible to see, what is the point of those extra minutes of work for something that will never be witnessed? 
In a film beyond the reach of the lens nothing practically exists. Sometimes filmmakers take advantage of this fact such as filming in tight closeups to hide that something is a set or cutting off anachronisms like television antennas in period pieces or the like. 
So why produce, compose, and position something no one will ever see and few will ever know about?
Sometimes the answer is 'the artists were bored'.
But sometimes, and ideally I'd argue, the answer is 'The story demanded it'.

Lord of the Rings isn't just a story about a bad guy and a ring needed to destroy him. When we're introduced to The Hobbits it's to establish a direct comparison with the idyllic existence of these sheltered creatures and the rest of the world they inhabit but barely acknowledge. The world of The Hobbits was crafted from the bottom up to make it feel lived in, homey, comfortable. Compared to the grandiose stone halls of the world of men, the grimy and armored edifices of the forces of darkness, the towering and winding designs of the elves and the stolid geometrical precision of the dwarves The Hobbits have handcrafted devices made exclusively for something the other races barely seem to think about but which The Hobbits spend an inordinate amount of time devoted.
Eating.
This is exemplified when you consider the comparison between Bilbo having a fully stocked larder, tea kettle, and cakes all ready for any visitor while even the steward of Gondor dines quickly and sloppily as if the action brings him no joy and is just another task to maintain his strength. Orcs show no interest in eating outside of the visceral delight of mangling meat, elven bread is described as fortifying but tasteless, the people of Rohan seem like lousy cooks, and dwarves drink more than they do anything else. The establishing of an environment in which Hobbits are shown to be almost ritualistically drawn to a practice so peaceable is paramount to the theme of domesticity versus the harsher realities of the world beyond the bubble of The Shire. 

However, to pick an admittedly easy target, what about the film Valerian? There is TONS of background detail unto spare throughout the production. Every costume is handcrafted to ridiculous discretion. Bit characters are resplendent in beautiful and expensive threads and baubles, jewels and accessories. CGI backgrounds are packed with little elements and moving parts.
And it's all so very very pointless.
What does any of anything have to do with the plot such as it is? The fact that there's a huge sprawling virtual market world doesn't matter in the slightest compared to Valerian having to get a box. He could have gotten this box anywhere and nothing would change. Nothing is even all that thematic about a market world or the fact that it's virtual. The entire scene is devoid of purpose beyond showing off effects, but since those effects have no purchase on lasting importance they're easily forgotten in the space of a transition. All that time to render an alien wrestling with a tentacle monster for it to be disregarded because it had nothing to do with the story, the characters, the theme, or anything anywhere. Without those ties it's just a thing that happens without impact.

No object permanence. 

Why is something like Hoth the ice world memorable? Technically the opening of Empire Strikes Back could have taken place on any other type of planet and still functioned in terms of plot, but the introduction of a frozen location is important to the theme and the  way the plot progresses. Hoth is remote, nearly lifeless, small, and cramped. It makes sense this would be a difficult place to locate and why The Empire wouldn't consider a rebel base a likelihood there. Having the rebels literally underground in tiny corridors and incapable of leaving the base for long without their lives being in danger is all indicative of their general situation. They can't leave easily and if they do they'll be killed by forces they can barely contend with. When they escape Hoth it feels like they've been chased out of a den they were crouched in and are now exposed and in danger. They already felt embattled so now on the run everything is far more desperate.
If Hoth had been a jungle world it wouldn't have felt as remote, as unlikely to have a base, and the rebels might even had felt like they were on vacation instead of driven to extremes. 

This is the only example from The Last Jedi, I promise. Why does the final fight take place of a world covered in salt? Why is an 'uninhabited' world covered in abandoned mines when there's still minerals around it? How did first a rebellion THEN a resistance base of operations remain forgotten if there were mines built on the same planet between times? As opposed to a lifeless ball of ice, why is a honeycombed mineral planet less likely as a port of call somehow? 
The answer seems to be 'Don't think about it...we didn't'.

To make a functioning anything all the pieces need to move in tandem. A blockage causes the mechanism to jam and eventually to break. Make believing that a mechanism exists does not lead to the machine as a whole functioning: all of the major pieces need to be on point.
And by the same extended metaphor extraneous gears gum up the works. All the pretty filigree in the world is a detriment to the lean and mean need for a machine to spin the primary gears. Accents are lovely and make the action of a story's machine seem more than just a heartless operation, but if they do not directly or even indirectly apply to the primary functioning parts they are ignored or seen as distractions and impediments. 

And neither of these is worthy of the time to plan and build if they are lost in the shuffle, relegated to the backdrop, lost to irrelevance. 

What is Dirty Harry's middle name? Who makes Frodo's shirts? Did Luke Skywalker ever have a stuffed animal? Did Captain Kirk ever visit Florence? 
All of these are questions that the authors of their respective tales might think about and even have answers to but none of them will ultimately matter to anyone but incredibly diehard fans. When writing Star Wars, George Lucas might have a reason in his brain why there's a rounded shape on the front of C3PO or he might not. It is not important to the plot so he could legitimately claim he'd think of a reason later if one was asked for or was necessary to make the universe of the story seem more plausible. 
This is what detail should contribute to: the world seeming more likely, the story and characters being more in depth.
Frosting for the sake of frosting is just empty calories.

Weirdly however this attitude of jettisoning niceties and focusing on details seems to have been flipped. We don't need to know who makes Frodo's shirts but we DO want to know why, after the conspiracy of the clone army is revealed to Yoda, that he decides to not only activate the entire army but use it in battle right afterwards. This isn't just a plot hole, it's a plot road block. Because this concept makes no sense it either is indicative of Yoda being an idiot or the plot making no pretense to logic. Neither looks good, neither feels satisfying, and both make Attack of the Clones feel fundamentally broken. 

As for details we've got them in spades: beautiful costumes, intricate props, time and attention and research into making everything seem more intricate and plausible...and then a vehicle will run into a wall and blow up in a ball of fire just because while sounds happen in space and someone will mishear a conversation which will make them hate someone else just like a thousand times before without any irony. We're focusing on the wrong things. We're ignoring the wrong problems. 

I've mentioned this a time or two but why are heroes so bloodthirsty? Sheer amount of action is not indicative of excitement per falling body. The story arc of a hero especially is supposed to indicate, even for antiheroes, a sense of moral justification. The evilest scumbag protagonist with the barest of exceptions is one notch less evil than the people they are confronting or they are driven to confronting their past deeds to make amends. By human nature we aren't compelled by people who do the wrong things for the wrong reasons without remorse. They seem alien and unreal to us: cackling cardboard villains or monstrous psychopaths often relegated to literal supernatural type menaces. Nobody can understand or feel for Jason Vorhees: he's an icon of horror but not really a person anymore than the shark from Jaws. He's enjoyable the same way an explosion is enjoyable: a shocking event that other more understandable people react to.  
The Emperor from Star Wars is enjoyable as a foil, but as a character he is not relatable and would not make for a compelling protagonist unless he showed the tiniest bit of guilt, comprehension of his own actions, empathy, doubt or other qualities suggesting the possibility of change or development. 
People stuck in a rut are used as tools as if they were props themselves. 

So a character should be capable of some kind of improvement or at the very least some change. What indicates this in anything a contemporary hero does? Killing people is what the bad guy does usually, so having the hero do it even if those people is bad fails to differentiate hero from villain in that regard. Likewise the villain tends to want to control everything...and a lot of contemporary heroes want exactly the same thing. 

This is where the object impermanence arrives in films in a way video games would ignore but movies cannot handle. In a game you can mow down zillions of faceless goons and afterwards they will evaporate, barely be mentioned if at all, and their existence seems erased from meaning beyond their initial engagement as an obstacle and a skill challenge to dispose of. The average game hero must kill an entire population by the conclusion of their tale, realistically leaving families by the score and friends bereft not to mention piling corpses on corpses. Death happens in war indeed, but how many 'heroes' go out of their way to reap it? 

I was just watching to series The Player because it was free on Crackle and there was a hilariously poorly thought out sequence in which the hero engages an old friend and fellow army vet who has turned rogue on an airplane. The villain escapes with a parachute leaving the hero...in a perfectly functioning plane. The pilot has been shot but the hero can probably fly the plane himself and there hasn't been any damage to the vehicle. 
But the hero decides to jump out of the plane WITHOUT a chute to pursue the villain, grab HIS chute, and then send his old friend plummeting to the ground.
The unintentional hilarity is that the villain says 'Don't blame yourself for this!' as his last words.
Um...the 'hero' totally murdered you. He had no means to live because of a situation he put himself into which could only be resolved either with his death or yours. 
Not to mention (and the show never does) now the plane will coast until it runs out of gas and crash into some unsuspecting populace. 
The hero is somehow still morally justifiable ACCORDING TO THE VILLAIN despite the fact that by his willful actions he basically killed way more people than the villain ever could. 

The heroes never improve or change in a lot of modern productions. In games the protagonist just changes so we can make-believe the exact same actions are fresh because the set dressing and the character model doing the action is different. In television people don't change so much as they degrade. They maintain their original principals, their original belief systems and make the same choices as before but they get more angry and sad. In films heroes of any persuasion tend to be so amazingly overpowered they don't need to change or improve physically and since anything they do is justified nothing they do needs to be changed. 
In fact oftentimes the message of contemporary fiction seems to be nothing can change, improve, or develop at all. Heroes can't ever remain happy in general because then their adventures would be over. They can't think much about what they're doing because that would detract from the time they spend doing important things. 
Like killing endless ranks of identical and inconsequential bad guys.
Like a video game an audience can't play.

In a heroic saga like The Iliad or Beowulf there was generally some kind of emphasis on even a no-name character dying as being important. The Iliad has an entire character arc of Achilles based on the actions of Patroclus, who compared to the magically gifted and incredibly powerful warrior he serves is practically a no count foot soldier. However this ordinary guy up and decides to do something, and his actions have ripples throughout the rest of the story. The Odyssey by itself and The Aeneid which offshoot from The Iliad are both stories about almost completely overshadowed bit characters in the original saga who have their own amazing adventures. Every character seems to have a history, a beginning, a personality, and a purpose in the grand narrative.
And neither Greek nor Trojan is 'good' or 'bad' because of their loyalty to a national cause. The manipulative Paris is firmly intrenched in the same ranks of the Trojans which also encompasses noble Hector and while The Greeks are an invading army their purpose is primarily to rescue a woman that was kidnapped. Neither side even has immediate favor of The gods in general. Patroclus is actually defeated after being smitten by Apollo, while the Trojan priest Laocoön is killed along with his sons by Athena when he suggests that the city should burn the infamous Wooden Horse.

Like a sign of things to come, the movie adaptation Troy dispensed with the gods altogether (who represented impartiality in the original epic) and portrayed The Greeks as evil aggressors and The Trojans as saintly put-upon victims. Apparently unless we have two sides clearly defined with one side exhibiting illogical malice and the other completely devoid of wrongdoing we can't accept a story. We don't only need good and evil, we need the most childlike and simplistic depictions of both.
Let's not even get too deeply into the real reason this was done: to twist Troy into yet another 'The Iraq War was evil and wrong' analogue.

Whatever your politics, whatever your outlook, whatever your background people like stories. We like these stories to make sense in general, to have some degree of complexity and logic underneath the hood, and if we can't get that at least for the experience to be entertaining without so many hiccups in composition or competency to make the mind disengage from the fun and dwell on the improbability of it all.
Every fictional story will have it's holes, it's forgotten crevices, it's broken threads, but the best stories have spackling paste in the form of fanbases after the fact. You can justify any number of inconsistencies if you craft something complete enough to garner the loyalty and trust of the people you're presenting your story to.

But the excuses should be kept to the margins. In Wrath of Khan, Khan addresses Chekov by name despite the fact that Chekov was not in the main crew of The Enterprise for the episode Space Seed. This is a misstep but not a plot hole. Khan knowing Chekov never matters. Fans STILL came up with almost plausible explanations for how Chekov was an engineer in Space Seed who kept Khan waiting a long time for the bathroom, explaining his particular annoyance at Chekov specifically. It's cute, it's almost believable, and it fills in the gap that was made by an honest mistake.

However claiming that something can just be overlooked completely if it's integral to the plot is simply lazy. The Fellowship not using the eagles to fly to Mnt. Doom is not a true plot hole because they don't bring it up so again fans came up with theories and there's some indications in the books to draw on that eagles are not pets and so forth.
In comparison, Batman in The Dark Knight Rises somehow manages to travel from The Middle East to Gotham US in less than a day and manages to get into the city which is being defended by tanks and armed patrols that even the citizens can't leave...AND he somehow finds a new suit in the process.
This is a plot hole because no real explanation works beyond meta-reasoning. It is important to the plot that he get to Gotham and in a short amount of time but NOTHING is offered by way of explanation even in passing to fill the gap. And yes, even Catwoman asks how this happened and Batman doesn't answer the question.

You're just supposed to ignore the hole which could have and SHOULD have been addressed by a re-write. It's a straight up oversight by necessity of later events, not consideration of logic or reason in the situation itself. If a character just suddenly appears somewhere they couldn't possibly know about, shows an aptitude they have no reason to understand, goes somewhere they have no reason to go when they should by rights and their own admission go somewhere or do something else this is a PLOT HOLE.
The plot itself is broken. The writer has failed their job. The story doesn't make any sense so its hard without complete self-delusionment and way too much effort to care about whats occurring. You need to push the separate elements to the side like separating mashed potatoes and peas. They have to be considered to be completely separated: the best elements and the broken plot.
This is something the writer is supposed to avoid. Fans can forgive, but that's beyond a majority of them.
You failed to make a compelling story: that's not a fan's job. 

And with those fundamental issues the pretty clothing, the nicest backdrop is so much white noise. All that work literally for nothing. If you claim effort translates directly every time into quality, consider how many talented artists worked on The Dungeons and Dragons movie and Transformers. Technical and visual geniuses poured their heart into completely forgettable and poorly regarded disasters all because the primary machine ground to a halt.
Detail on top of a great story is brilliant. On top of a boring story it's fluff.
You cannot save a boring narrative with nice window dressing. You cannot save a boring character with good camerawork. You cannot save a bad script with flashy effects.

So make the little things matter by making the bigger picture remember them. A game cannot in all likelihood give you the sense that after you leave a screen the world will remember, but a film can't help it. If you cheat in a game it's chalked up to the issues that come along with games themselves. There's going to be unforeseen glitches, unforeseen shortcuts, unforeseen issues prevalent when you tailor an experience rather than a story.
But a film has no excuse. If you blow up a city that city better stay blowed up and someone better care about it or the people who paid to see your laziness will feel cheated and won't stay quiet about it. It's not a problem with the fans, it's a problem with the writers who didn't value the people giving them money to live out their dreams enough to provide plausible deniability for their fictional tapestry. 

A utensil in The Shire will be spotted on repeated viewings because it means something.
A massive spaceship, crowd of digital characters, or fancy extras will be completely ignored in Jupiter Ascending because nobody cares enough about the story to look.

Spend your time and treasure on the things that matter in your tales. 

deviantID

Generalorder4's Profile Picture
Generalorder4
Dan Oles
Artist | Hobbyist | Literature
United States
Movie trailer editor, Re-imaginer, enthusiast of the obscure
Interests

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:iconevilgidgit:
Evilgidgit Featured By Owner 3 hours ago  Hobbyist Writer
Can I make a trailer request for the "Dorothy Must Die" novel series?
Reply
:icongpsbassist:
gPsBassist Featured By Owner 18 hours ago  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thank you for adding  Eidolon (860) by gPsBassist  to your favourites. Much appreciated.
Reply
:iconthatnerdwithglasses:
Thatnerdwithglasses Featured By Owner 4 days ago  Student
Can i make a request?
Reply
:iconjohnthemagnificent:
JohntheMagnificent Featured By Owner 5 days ago  Hobbyist Writer
Got another book recommendation if you're interested
Reply
:iconsonicrocks57:
sonicrocks57 Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2018
Idea for poster:

What if Mad Max was a Saturday Morning Cartoon?
Reply
:iconthatnerdwithglasses:
Thatnerdwithglasses Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2018  Student
appellantly this is at all music in Seattle



where exactly is that?
Reply
:iconthatnerdwithglasses:
Thatnerdwithglasses Featured By Owner Sep 10, 2018  Student
Mind checking messenger?
Reply
:iconthatnerdwithglasses:
Thatnerdwithglasses Featured By Owner Sep 8, 2018  Student
May i make a trailer request?
Reply
:icongeneralorder4:
Generalorder4 Featured By Owner Sep 8, 2018  Hobbyist Writer
Sure if I can!
Reply
:iconthatnerdwithglasses:
Thatnerdwithglasses Featured By Owner Sep 8, 2018  Student
Another kaiserreich request
To hype up the North American rework i was thinking of a trailer
I included some songs that could be used though the final choice comes to your preference and artistic vision
www.youtube.com/playlist?list=…

Alos some clips and movies recommendations that cam be used to show the leaders
John Jack Reed: youtu.be/_CXHqM_BCOc youtu.be/CYv1oXE15Nk both of these clips are from the movie reds. Though for the latter clip you need to cut out the russian bits since its supposed to be a American Revolution

Huey Long youtu.be/gcmeV83K02E the 2006 film “all the kings men” also you can use the abundance of huey long clips
youtu.be/KLyfrb15v-Q youtu.be/hphgHi6FD8k

Douglus mcauthor: this should be easy as due to his status of being a hero of WW2 in our world, it can’t be that hard to find movies with him in it.

For clips
Any film set in ww2
Matewan
o brother where art thou ( pertucally this scene youtu.be/lPHZXqd4qpQ )
Reply
Add a Comment: