3 ms·

The insights about psychology and misdirection are definitely fascinating, but I don't see why it's necessary to shoot one aspect down to appreciate the other:

by xg15 3y ago

The insights about psychology and misdirection are definitely fascinating, but I don't see why it's necessary to shoot one aspect down to appreciate the other: For me, both discussions are taking place on different "layers" of the movie: One is the story it's trying to tell and the universe it's building, the other is the technical/artistic realisation of that story. Both are interesting (and flawed) in their own right. When discussing a novel, you wouldn't say "well actually, none of that is real, it's all just letters on paper, but the font is really nice", would you?

hnbad 3y ago
I think it's less "it's all just fiction so why do you care" and more that trying to analyze fiction by looking at contradictions or inaccuracies in world building is easy but fruitless. I think the most interesting part of the article is that it basically criticizes the film for featuring a prominent geographical feature that kinda looks like a trench and having the big ending scene take place in a trench but making the two completely unrelated. This is an example of misdirection, which can be a useful tool in storytelling, but it doesn't do anything with it. Others have commented about films being "flexible" with real-world urban geometry to better provide a visual narrative but I think the point is that considering these "mistakes" misses the point. It's not that, say, Paris looks like that, but in the context of the film it is certainly meant to feel like that. Patrick H Willems made a (infamous?) video about the related topic of "plot holes" a while back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9HivyjAKlc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9HivyjAKlc While I disagree with the idea that plot holes never matter (arguably they can get in the way of suspension of disbelief and be a case of bad craftsmanship even if the art itself still ends up fine) he's right that trying to dissect a film through the lens of "logic" usually misses the point.

by xg15 3y ago

hnbad 3y ago

I think it's less "it's all just fiction so why do you care" and more that trying to analyze fiction by looking at contradictions or inaccuracies in world building is easy but fruitless. I think the most interesting part of the article is that it basically criticizes the film for featuring a prominent geographical feature that kinda looks like a trench and having the big ending scene take place in a trench but making the two completely unrelated. This is an example of misdirection, which can be a useful tool in storytelling, but it doesn't do anything with it. Others have commented about films being "flexible" with real-world urban geometry to better provide a visual narrative but I think the point is that considering these "mistakes" misses the point. It's not that, say, Paris looks like that, but in the context of the film it is certainly meant to feel like that. Patrick H Willems made a (infamous?) video about the related topic of "plot holes" a while back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9HivyjAKlc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9HivyjAKlc While I disagree with the idea that plot holes never matter (arguably they can get in the way of suspension of disbelief and be a case of bad craftsmanship even if the art itself still ends up fine) he's right that trying to dissect a film through the lens of "logic" usually misses the point.