Comments by "phothewin" (@phothewin6019) on "Scene City"
channel.
-
652
-
@catastrophucked "so naturally there's not going to be any build-up to his decision, nor is there a giant need for it to be built up with the same amount of effort. They're two completely different scenarios functioning under a completely different set of rules."
Right, this is what I'm getting at. Fundamental decisions that made one team-up more effective than the other. Peter and Harry's relationship and conflict is something that was built up and developed throughout the course of 3 movies. It's a dynamic that has more emotional weight than 2 guys who essentially just met each other in one film and hated each other for completely different reasons. A team-up feels less special, less-earned when there's little to no emotional weight to it. It's less satisfying when there's substantially less depth to it. The characters went from strangers who hated each other to superhero pals at the flip of a switch. Their dynamic and conflict were established and resolved in a single movie (a movie that was the first appearance of one of those guys, and just the 2nd film in that universe overall). It was never given a chance to actually cook. Part of what made their conflict great in TDKR is that they've already been friends, comrades for decades at that point. They have an established relationship/dynamic, emotional stakes are at play. Their conflict is based on a direct philosophical disagreement about the same issue, not because of 2 different things that have no direct relation to the other. Another part of what makes BvS' team-up less earned is that the conflict resolution doesn't make much sense. While Harry's butler knowing the truth for years and never telling him is silly, the underlying idea - that Harry would be more inclined to help Peter if he knew he was innocent - still makes sense. Harry learning to let go of the past and reconciling with Peter also ties into the 3rd's theme of forgiveness, since their conflict was also more than just about Norman. I'm sure you're ready to defend "Martha", and I'm all here for it.
"but everybody just ignores the SHIT out of that as if it isn't the trilogy's defining pothole"
It's literally one of the film's most famous criticisms. It literally isn't ignored by "everybody" lol. And it's not really a plot hole, but more of a plot contrivance. But I digress.
"so no it wasn't "earned", no matter how much emotion you try to shove into that vague ass comparison."
Yes, it was earned, as I've gone over above.
"but it is at least internally consistent, and wraps up the conflict without leaving gaping holes in the story."
Completely disagree. I think the film's a giant mess in a multitude of ways.
"Batman v Superman earned it's conflict resolution"
Not at all. Like I described above, it lacks depth, emotional stakes, development, and is resolved in an illogical manner.
"which is why it CONSISTENTLY gets praised, unlike this dogshit film,"
BvS gets consistently panned lol. Far more than even Spider-Man 3. You're free to enjoy the film and defend it, but don't do some revisionist history nonsense lol. It doesn't help your argument.
"with its gaping plothole that is regularly mocked and memed by fans in other videos."
So first you claim that it's ignored by everybody ("but everybody just ignores the SH*T out of that"), but now you're saying it's regularly mocked? Which is it lol?
4