Comments by "phothewin" (@phothewin6019) on "The Critical Drinker"
channel.
-
176
-
24
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
14
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
@CrutchCricket No, Rocky is not infallible. Sometimes life hits so hard that not even Rocky Balboa can take it. That's what makes it heartbreaking, surreal, and interesting. He isn't some Mary Sue that overcomes every single obstacle on his own. He's always had his support group, people he cared about, things to live for. Be it Mick, Adrian, Apollo, Paulie, or his son. In Rocky 6, he had Paulie, his son, and the the drive to get one last fight in. He has none of that in Creed. Paulie's dead, he's at the tail end of his life, his son disowned him to the point of not even letting him see his own grandson, he's definitely too old to be doing any boxing, and now he's been diagnosed with the same disease that killed his wife - a disease he views as terminal (since she got treatment and still died). Everyone and everything has moved on from him and he's left with nothing to live for. It's a completely organic, understandable situation; his pessimism is earned. And it's a real feeling that older adults feel all the time (watching this movie gave me flashbacks to my Gerontology class and my internships doing clinical at some nursing homes), especially people who were once king of the world and had it all. Him giving up in Creed's story isn't unfaithful to the character at all, it's a natural progression that's earned.
It's similar to Logan and Professor X. Both were inspiring heroes - shining beacons of hope that seemingly overcame every obstacle. Then life hit hard; harder than even they could handle. And they turned to the bitter, sad, old men we saw in Logan.
And what's cool is that the movies both deconstruct and reaffirm the myth of their heroes. They once again rise from their fall. This was the story of Rocky facing his mortality at an old age and overcoming it. Rocky Balboa once again embodied the will to persevere, the idea of resilience. In the end, he was still that guy. He didn't stay down; he found the will to fight again.
Drinker definitely could've used a better example than Rocky.
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@CrutchCricket No, Drinker very specifically paints it as an inconsistency in his character. And he falsely equates his Creed situation to his Rocky 6 situation. There doesn't have to be a need in order for something to still be good or decent. Yes, you ending Rocky's story with the 6th movie would've been ok, but that doesn't make what they did with his character in Creed automatically bad. Being needed isn't an inherent metric of storytelling quality. There are plenty of stories that were never needed but still turned out good. Aliens 2, Patlabor 2, Stand Alone Complex 2nd GIG, The Night is Short Walk On Girl, the list goes on. Creed may have been an unneeded sequel in the franchise, but if you're going to bring Rocky back, you have to do something interesting and meaningful with his character. And there's no one way to do that. I don't give a sh*t if they broke him, I care about whether it was executed well or not.
6
-
He's wrong; Rocky's personality wasn't retconned.
We know Rocky's philosophy: "It's not about how hard you can hit, it's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward, about how much you can take, and keep moving forward."
Except Rocky isn't infallible; he isn't some Gary Stu that can overcome every single obstacle with 0 issue. Sometimes life hits so hard that not even Rocky Balboa can take it. That's what makes it heartbreaking and surreal. Adrian's gone, Paulie's gone, his only son disowned him to the point of never even letting his kid meet him, he gets the same disease that killed his wife, he's at the tail end of his life and no one gives a sh*t about him anymore. He's in a way worse position than where he was in Rocky 6.
His bitterness is earned. His pessimistic worldview is organic.
It's similar to Logan and Professor X. Both were heroes; shining beacons of hope that seemingly overcame every obstacle. Then life hit hard; harder than even they could handle. And they turned to the bitter, sad, old men we saw in Logan.
And what's cool is that the movies both deconstruct and reaffirm the myth of their heroes. They once again rise from their fall.
Heroes like them falling isn't an inherent issue or some inconsistency in the narrative; they're not infallible, after all. What matters is if the fall is organic. Does it make sense as to why they turned out the way they did? That's the question that has to be answered.
If a Mary Sue character went through what they did, do you think they'd turn out similar? Do you think they'd turn out broken? Of course not. It's a good thing they're not Mary Sues/Gary Stus.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@thecocktailian2091 Lol, no. Godzilla 2014 is a prime example of a shoving match. Punches, kicks, elbows, bites, scratches, tail swipes, blasts, axe swings, etc. - all of those are objectively present in GvK, moreso than any "shoving." There's plenty of shoving in Godzilla 2014 where they fight more realistically, especially with Godzilla's more bear-like fighting style from that movie. There is absolutely creative use of terrain. From Kong utilizing his mobility advantage on land by swinging and jumping from building to building to evade/attack Godzilla, to Godzilla using his advantage underwater to drown Kong like actual water predators (as opposed to just biting underwater like his battle against King Ghidora in GKotM), they absolutely utilized terrain. Not to mention the times where Kong took pieces of buildings to either throw or block Godzilla's attacks. They objectively did the things you claimed they didn't, arguably even more than Pacific Rim in some instances.
Also,
> in a video game city
Lol, you know Pacific Rim also fought in a video game city, right? Like, literally the same place.
2
-
2
-
2