Frequently Asked Forum Questions
Search the HBO News Archives Any All Exact		Search the Halo Updates DBs Halo Halo2		Bungie Webcam HBO XBL Gamertags *Ar's Simple HTML Guide Shishka's Guide for Newcomers The Lowdown on Download Accelerators Red Loser's Anti-Spamming Guide Egg FAQ | More Egg Stuff c0ld's Movie Starter Guide Shishka's HaloPC Pre-Release FAQ 3.1 AutoMagic 117 StripzMaker
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts

A nice hypothesis...
Posted By: NsU Soldier <skywatcherjames@gmail.com>	Date: 12/28/12 11:05 a.m.
In Response To: Stop with your logic (Cody Miller) ...but it doesn't really hold up. Sorry, brah. : I'm actually kind of surprised by ennui or in some cases outright dislike of : the Halo 4 story here and among Halo fans. If this is not the general : consensus then by all means correct me, but it seems most people are not : on board. Seems pretty split to me, but it's hard to say for sure as only a few people are vocal about it on both sides. I get the feeling that most don't care, or are just sitting back with some popcorn and enjoying the show. : While I admit what 343 is doing with the expanded universe is probably going : to ruin the Halo universe forever, if you simply ignore all that and : concentrate only on what Halo 4 has to offer, I found it to be compelling : in terms of emotional storytelling. I somewhat agree on that last point, and somewhat disagree, but hey, YMMV when it comes to emotional engagement with stories. : When you look at the first two Star Wars prequels, two of the most well known : and prevalent criticisms approach their critique from opposite ends. You : have the Plinkett reviews, which for the most part critique the films by : picking apart the logic of them, and then you have the Phantom Editor who : picks apart and seeks to correct the deficiencies of emotional engagement : with his recuts. : As fun as the Plinkett reviews are, I guarantee you that none of the things : he nitpicks are what made you leave the theatre feeling disappointed. No, quite a bit of what the Plinkett reviews brought to light did bother me when I first watched the film, even if I didn't quite realize what about certain scenes was bothering me at the time. (I was, like, 10 after all.) In other words, I felt something was off about certain scenes, but never really thought about why I didn't find them enjoyable. Then when I heard him talk about certain things it was like a great awakening. Also, your guarantee sucks. :) : What left you sour was the lack of emotional engagement. Most films don't make : a lick of sense when you break them down logically, but as long as they : hit the right emotional beats, then the film works. As far as the prequels go, it was this also, but not exclusively. I say that the more something is emotionally engaging, the less I care about minor inconsistencies, but large ones still bug me and take me out of the experience. (Especially if the inconsistency affects other established works set in the same universe or even worse, the same story.) : A New Hope. The Death Star approaches Yavin, and begins orbiting the moon. : What follows is one of the best action sequences in film history. But that : makes no sense logically. Why did the rebels not lead the Death Star to a : remote system to mount their assault instead of to their actual base? Why : did the Death Star orbit the planet instead of blowing up Yavin, then with : a clear shot blow up the moon with the rebel base on the other side? Why : do the fighters enter the trench so far away from the exhaust port? Why : not drop in 200 feet away and bypass all those guns? : None of that matters, because the sequence is so engaging. It's gripping : emotionally, and it is effective. Meh, none of those reasons are obvious at the time of viewing or even overtly broken. I bet you could even provide an explanation around each of those points with minimal thought. A lack of information =/= a blatant contradiction. (Well, sometimes it can, but not always. Certainly not in those examples provided.) I mean, it's not like Luke suddenly and inexplicably had raven black hair in the last scene or anything. Again, I do agree that when a scene is gripping, I notice smaller plot holes less often because I instinctively credit the story some leniency so that I don't take myself out of the moment. : This is the key. So while Plinkett picks apart logically what was wrong with : the first two prequels... The Plinkett reviews actually do talk quite a bit about the relatability of the characters as well. : the Phantom Editor's changes actually make the : movies better. If all Plinkett's nit picks were fixed, you would STILL not : be engaged by the film, whereas all those logical holes are still there in : the two recuts but the films work better (The Phantom Edit Marginally : improves the phantom menace, while Attack of the Phantom substantially : improves Attack of the Clones). Well, is it too much to ask for something that's both emotionally engaging AND (by in large) logically sound? Again, a few small logical fallacies are okay, even to be expected, but a few large holes or even a lot of smaller ones distract the audience member from the story. : Plinkett's main criticism of Attack of the Clones is that Anakin is a whiny : bitch, and realistically Padme would not fall in love with him. Probably : true. But does that matter at all? Yes. : Unlikely couples exist everywhere in : film. Who gets with whom is governed by the script; the real issue is : having the audience care about the romance. The real problem was that the : emotional aspects didn't work. Again, there was more than that at play here. More than one problem. : If you haven't seen Attack of the Phantom, : do it, and you'll see how editing can make the romance work much better on : an emotional level. (It's shocking really how much better it is). Haven't seen that, but I'm sure it makes it better. : The point of all this, is that I see a lot of Plinkett Style logical : criticism of the Halo 4 story, but to be totally honest I think it hit all : the emotional beats to where none of that mattered at all while playing : through. So you enjoyed Reach, right? I feel like that game hit all the right emotional beats, even if some of the logic was flawed. Some people might even go as far as to say it's not canon, because of said logical failings. : I felt it worked on that level. It could have been better sure, : but honestly it's second only to Halo in terms of emotional satisfaction : (in terms of purely the narrative). How matter of fact. You know what is a fact? Different strokes for different folks. Halo 1, 3, ODST and Reach all tugged at my heartstrings more than 4 did. (Not saying that 4 didn't, btw.) But you know what? If someone felt like 4's story resonated with them on a deeper level than either of those games I mentioned, I might think they're a little crazy, but they would be absolutely right. : I cut a TV pilot recently. Getting the story to logically make sense was a : huge challenge. The producers were concerned about this, and urged me to : make it make sense. I was able to do this, but while it logically made : sense, it was not engaging. On the second try I ignored logic, and aimed : only for the emotional beats to the story. The resulting story did not : make perfect logical sense, but was very engaging. In fact, they told me : when screened for test audiences absolutely zero people complained about : the story not making sense, despite it being a bit messy. A bit messy, or really messy? Did they have a history with said characters and setting? Considering it was a pilot, I would assume not. Considering it was a pilot for TV most of those people were probably there for a cheap thrill and they no doubt got just that. Unfortunately a lot of stories suffer from this. The cheap thrill approach that is. : Logic and coherence does not make a story good. Not alone, no. However, it does cause less pauses of "Oh wait, that didn't make sense." Such pauses take you out of the story. Therefore a good, emotionally engaging story with logic and coherence is better than the same story without said logic and coherence every time. Again, I reiterate, is it too much to ask for something that's both emotionally engaging AND (by in large) logically sound? ... Apparently so. : On some level Halo 4 must not have engaged people emotionally otherwise they : wouldn't hate it, but I can't help think that the reason why is that : people went into it with certain expectations, just looking to pick it : apart the moment something was off in order to find fault with 343's : decisions and use shortcomings as evidence that they aren't fit to carry : the franchise forward. Narcogen, you totally did this. Actually, I had my concerns before the game ever came out and tried my best to just let things go and enjoy the story. It was very hard for me and I initially succeeded to a degree. Although, as you said, the story in no way engaged me enough for me to ignore all the inconsistencies I noticed like, Grunts sounding like robots, or Jackalzillas, or Chief's new armor that he's always totally had, or the sexy Warthog engine sound being replaced by a lawnmower engine, and so on and so forth. And with every subsequent playthrough, the inconsistencies just become that much more apparent... : The Loftus approach is not how you get better stories... Not by itself, no. (It always makes things better though.) : and it's not how you enjoy yourself. Does that apply to Loftus as well?

Message Index

Stop with your logic	Cody Miller	12/28/12 1:49 a.m.
Re: Stop with your logic *SP*	Jaydee	12/28/12 2:44 a.m.
I.. Uhhh.... Agree...? With.... You....	Lurono	12/28/12 3:22 a.m.
Also meant Adywan instead of Adi-Wan *NM*	Lurono	12/28/12 3:26 a.m.
Re: I.. Uhhh.... Agree...? With.... You....	Cody Miller	12/28/12 11:38 a.m.
Email sent *NM*	Lurono	12/28/12 8:56 p.m.
Re: Stop with your logic	uberfoop	12/28/12 3:22 a.m.
Re: Stop with your logic *SP*	rhubarb	12/28/12 5:39 a.m.
Re: Stop with your logic	DEEP NNN	12/28/12 7:43 a.m.
Re: Stop with your logic	Metalingus627	12/28/12 9:43 a.m.
I like this post. *NM*	SonofMacPhisto	12/28/12 10:58 a.m.
A nice hypothesis...	NsU Soldier	12/28/12 11:05 a.m.
Re: A nice hypothesis...	Cody Miller	12/28/12 11:31 a.m.
Re: A nice hypothesis...	Leisandir	12/28/12 11:53 a.m.
Re: A nice hypothesis...	SonofMacPhisto	12/28/12 11:55 a.m.
Re: A nice hypothesis...	Cody Miller	12/28/12 12:11 p.m.
Re: A nice hypothesis...	SonofMacPhisto	12/28/12 5:01 p.m.
Re: A nice hypothesis...	NsU Soldier	12/28/12 12:19 p.m.
This!	Chewbaccawakka	12/28/12 12:59 p.m.
The Loftus Approach	Leviathan	12/28/12 11:16 a.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	12/28/12 11:24 a.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	mc_leprechaun	12/28/12 11:27 a.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	The Lionheart	12/28/12 5:28 p.m.
Qouth the Falcon, "YES!" *NM*	NsU Soldier	12/28/12 11:33 a.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	Cody Miller	12/28/12 11:35 a.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	SonGoharotto	12/28/12 11:38 a.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	12/28/12 3:09 p.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	Cody Miller	12/28/12 3:22 p.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	12/28/12 5:56 p.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	Cody Miller	12/29/12 12:47 a.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	Cody Miller	12/29/12 1:26 a.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	Simpsons Rule	12/29/12 1:56 a.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	uberfoop	12/29/12 5:15 a.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	Simpsons Rule	12/29/12 2:49 p.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	uberfoop	12/29/12 9:46 p.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	12/29/12 9:52 p.m.
Talking about this? *IMG*	The Lionheart	12/30/12 4:54 p.m.
Re: Talking about this? *IMG*	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	12/30/12 5:52 p.m.
Ah, okay.	The Lionheart	12/30/12 6:03 p.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	Gravemind	12/30/12 5:07 p.m.
Thank you for this post. *NM*	The Lionheart	12/30/12 4:15 p.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	Ragashingo	12/29/12 2:42 a.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	12/29/12 11:21 a.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	Cody Miller	12/29/12 11:56 a.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	Leisandir	12/29/12 1:20 p.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	Cody Miller	12/29/12 3:36 p.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	Leisandir	12/29/12 3:38 p.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	12/29/12 9:38 p.m.
Same here. *NM*	The Lionheart	12/30/12 5:01 p.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	12/29/12 9:42 p.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	Cody Miller	12/30/12 11:55 a.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	12/30/12 1:27 p.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	The Lionheart	12/30/12 5:25 p.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	Archilen	12/30/12 11:36 p.m.
Seconded. *NM*	The Lionheart	12/30/12 4:59 p.m.
Re: The Loftus Approach	SonofMacPhisto	12/28/12 5:19 p.m.
Wow, that sounds like my kinda guy!	The Lionheart	12/28/12 5:35 p.m.
Agree with this also. *NM*	The Lionheart	12/28/12 5:30 p.m.
*applauds* You're so awesome, Levi.	Gravemind	12/28/12 1:26 p.m.
TOOK THE WORDS OUT OF MY MOUTH *NM*	The Lionheart	12/28/12 5:28 p.m.
*Salute* *NM*	Quirel	12/28/12 5:40 p.m.
I don't disagree, but...	SonGoharotto	12/28/12 11:29 a.m.
My bad	SonGoharotto	12/28/12 11:36 a.m.
Re: Stop with your logic	scarab	12/28/12 12:09 p.m.
Re: Stop with your logic	Cody Miller	12/28/12 12:14 p.m.
It wasn't emotionally compelling for me at all...	Phoenix_9286	12/28/12 1:21 p.m.
No.	Quirel	12/28/12 6:15 p.m.
Very well said, sir. *NM*	Leisandir	12/28/12 8:11 p.m.
As always, I agree with Quirel	Ibeechu	12/28/12 10:38 p.m.
Re: As always, I agree with Quirel	Cody Miller	12/29/12 1:18 a.m.
Re: As always, I agree with Quirel	scarab	12/29/12 5:02 a.m.
Not quite.	Quirel	12/30/12 3:15 a.m.
I know this is slightly OT, but . . . .	Leisandir	12/30/12 8:49 a.m.
Re: I know this is slightly OT, but . . . .	Quirel	12/30/12 1:50 p.m.
Re: No.	TDSpiral	12/29/12 12:09 a.m.
Re: No.	Quirel	12/30/12 3:33 p.m.
Re: No.	scarab	12/31/12 8:51 a.m.
This is the limbo that I find myself in now. *NM*	The Lionheart	12/30/12 4:04 p.m.
Re: No.	Cody Miller	12/29/12 1:04 a.m.
Re: No.	Flynn J Taggart	12/29/12 2:12 a.m.
Re: No.	Quirel	12/31/12 1:57 a.m.
Re: No.	uberfoop	12/31/12 4:18 a.m.
Re: No.	RC Master	12/31/12 8:59 a.m.
Your brain doesn't work the same way as mine. O_o *NM*	The Lionheart	1/1/13 5:08 p.m.
Re: Stop with your logic	Kermit	12/28/12 10:59 p.m.
Re: Stop with your logic	Ibeechu	12/28/12 11:57 p.m.
Consistency and the Rules of Two Worlds	NsU Soldier	12/29/12 7:06 a.m.
Re: Stop with your logic	Leisandir	12/29/12 9:12 a.m.
Re: Stop with your logic	scarab	12/29/12 9:30 a.m.
Re: Stop with your logic	Leisandir	12/29/12 11:08 a.m.
Tru dat	scarab	12/29/12 12:11 p.m.
Re: Tru dat	Leisandir	12/29/12 1:22 p.m.
Re: Tru dat	Cody Miller	12/29/12 3:37 p.m.
Re: Tru dat	Leisandir	12/29/12 3:39 p.m.
Re: Stop with your logic	Kermit	12/29/12 3:33 p.m.
Re: Stop with your logic	Ibeechu	12/29/12 7:32 p.m.
Totally disagree	Avateur	12/29/12 1:04 a.m.
Re: Totally disagree	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	12/29/12 11:30 a.m.
Re: Totally disagree	Avateur	12/29/12 1:47 p.m.
Re: Totally disagree	Kalamari	12/29/12 6:44 p.m.
It's dog food?	scarab	12/29/12 6:55 p.m.
Re: Stop with your logic	General Vagueness	1/5/13 7:40 p.m.
Re: Stop with your logic *LONG*	Dundre	1/7/13 7:42 a.m.