Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: Interesting Frankie Quote | |
| Posted By: Narcogen <narcogen@rampancy.net> | Date: 6/14/11 12:51 a.m. |
In Response To: Re: Interesting Frankie Quote (Louis Wu) : So the cryotubes are single-use only, is that what you're saying? Because the : only way for you to be SO SURE that this is a screwup is if he can only : come out of the cryotube once. Let me say first off: I am not one of those who say this is a screwup. This is not an oversight. This is not a mistake. This is, in my opinion, clearly a deliberate design decision. I'd call it a continuity inconsistency rather than a continuity error, because I do not believe in any way that this was inadvertent. I do not think that any measure of conversations in advance of the trailer pointing out how it's not really been shown that the Chief's suit has integrated jets would have changed their decision to show this element in this trailer. I think it was a mistake insofar as I think it detracts from the trailer achieving its objective, but an error of judgment, not an "oops we didn't think of that" sort of thing. Now, as to the idea of cryotube reuse... From a practical standpoint, would cryotubes be single-use? Of course not. Wouldn't be cost-effective. From a dramatic standpoint? Yes, absofrickinglutely. The Chief emerges from a cryotube to start Halo 1. He returns to a different cryotube at the end of Halo 3, with dialogue that nicely mirrors the conclusion of Halo 1. To resolve the question of how that happened by saying he woke up, walked around, had a cup of coffee, found some EVA jets in a crate, put them on just for the heck of it, and then got back into the cryotube, is, in my opinion, a lousy way to resolve the issue, and is dramatically sloppy. Even if that's the answer they'd be better off, at least to my way of thinking, by waving the whole thing away with an "it's classified". Trying to solve it by suggesting the Chief always had them is bad. Trying to solve it by creating circumstances where the Chief grabbed them during the Halo 3 credits is also bad. Admitting that they're in there because they're cool and because perhaps it's a feature from Reach that will be present in Halo 4, and that they don't really make sense beyond being cool, is also not that great, because I think it's an admission of the fact that the trailer doesn't stand on its own without some "look at the silly monkey" stunts, but it's less worse than the other two alternatives. I think they should have decided what was most important in this trailer: picking up the action right after we leave it at the end of Halo 3, or showing off the jet pack sequence. If the former, they should have left the jetpack out and let what remains stand on its own, without the silly action sequence. If it was the latter, they should have moved the action forward a little to allow for a more reasonable opportunity for exchanging armor and equipment, and put that sequence in a slightly different context. I think this still could have been done with minimal reveals of what they intend in Halo 4. I think they decided that they wanted both elements, and they were willing to endure the slings and arrows of the anal-retentive in order to do both. That's where I disagree :) TLDR version: The rule of Chekhov's gun suggests that a pistol shown in the first act should go off in the third. Re-using the cryotube in order to go get the jets is like firing the pistol in the second act, reloading it, and trying to put it back on the mantle. It dampens the impact of it somewhat :)
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |