- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
You really have no idea how metaphors work do you?
Post one example of anyone arguing against sound and color from previous eras. Mel Brooks outright made a silent film - in color!
That's literally the problem. You're stuck on this "hard fails" mode when we're trying to explain to you that it doesn't always have to be a "hard fail" to still be a fail.
For example, is adding peanut butter to a recipe a hard fail? Oh wait, someone you were trying to feed is allergic to peanuts, so it went and killed someone. Hard fail.
That's what we're trying to get you to understand - even "hard fails" in cooking can be "subjective" depending on the person eating the result. Stop getting hung up on that and grasp the larger point that there are other failures possible.
No, that is NOT the argument, that's what you're not understanding. The argument is "pick a lane."
To try and explain this again using cooking, it would be like if someone tried to make chocolate chip cookies using tabasco sauce instead of chocolate chips. It isn't going to work. RLM merely pointed out that if you wanted a spicy, mexican like dish, they needed to use X ingredients. If they wanted to make a sweet desert, they needed to use Y ingredients. And if the filmmakers were aiming for a sweet and spicy dish, then Z ingredients needed to be used.
You can't just take a recipe and swap ingredients out at random and expect the resulting dish to be as delicious as your original goal.
Bingo.
Like one example I know they brought up before (in that film made by a film school instructor from Kentucky IIRC), is the 180 degree camera "rule." Now not explain it to you, @Well, but to others reading, obviously this rule is not some law of physics. If you break this rule, people won't die, you won't be smited by God or anything. It's called a "rule" because when you break it, you disorient the audience and snap them out of the movie. It's a "rule" someone follows if you want your audience to focus on the story, dialog, characters, etc etc. Heck I've seen comics (on paper and web), especially amateur comics, break this rule at times and it's jarring. (But more bearable with that medium because you can stare at the page until you reorient yourself, not possible in a medium in motion like movies.)
Now if your aim is to disorient and confuse, it's a rule you might break to convey that sensation to the audience. But you have to know that rule exists and why it exists before you're ready to do that. Amateurs and idiots go "oh there's a rule I shouldn't break the 180 line? I'm gonna do it anyway!" then watch as they get mocked and laughed at by people like RLM.
Or let's go with another, super obvious example: Say you wanted to have an intense, emotional scene in which a character receives devastating news that just nearly breaks them.
Now is there anything preventing you from having a clown juggling in the background of that scene and making "honk honk" noises? No. But it's going to constantly undercut and undermine the emotion you're aiming to convey.
It's everybody's annoyance with bathos in the MCU, it was what Mike was pointing out with Jar Jar in the prequels: What emotion are you - the storyteller - going for? Because these elements are undercutting or conflicting with that effort.
After everything they have to deal with Trek and Wars autists, you think they want to bother touching animation autists? (I say as I prepare my place for tonight's anime viewings...)
