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

Re: A nice hypothesis...
Posted By: Cody Miller <cody@halo4.isnotcanon.net>	Date: 12/28/12 11:31 a.m.
In Response To: A nice hypothesis... (NsU Soldier) : 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. I'm willing to bet it wasn't the logic itself, but the lack of emotional engagement. These are easy things to latch on to and say why it didn't work. But most of that is not fixed in the Phantom Edit, yet it works much better as a film because what was fixed was the audience engagement. : 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.) This is basically my point summed up. Halo 4 didn't have big inconstancies. : 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. I suppose it's possible to have such bad logic it takes you out of the story, but Halo 4 does not have such large errors. : 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. Reach was not engaging emotionally at all and missed nearly ALL the beats. : 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.) Isn't my statement OBVIOUSLY ONE OF OPINION? Do I really have to put IN MY OPINION before an obvious statement of personal preference? Seriously. : 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. Not that kind of show. : 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. Sure, but the difference is not as pronounced as you think, and making your story airtight logically is essentially impossible since the narrative construction is always in opposition to reality. : 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. Those are all absolutely tiny things that have no bearing on the emotional aspect of the storytelling, and for those to take you out pretty much validate the paragraph you were resounding to. : And with every subsequent playthrough, the inconsistencies just become that : much more apparent... I've seen Back to the Future 200 times, and that movie makes no sense logically but I still love it.

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.