|
Post by bud47 on Mar 13, 2019 14:04:08 GMT
Regardless of how little character development Black Widow has had, it's pretty telling when fans are demanding a standalone movie for a character they clearly like. Compare that to Mystique, whom most can't stand and are actually looking forward to being killed off.
|
|
Marendil
Sophomore
@marendil
Posts: 750
Likes: 301
|
Post by Marendil on Mar 13, 2019 15:42:29 GMT
I hate flashbacks and they are often considered lazy storytelling, you're supposed to be able to do it with dialogue from the character and others. Widely considered that showing is better than telling in cinema. The lazy option is having characters talk about an event.
Dont remember any of those scenes/moments. Were they even focused on Natashas reaction?
Even if they were, we dont have enough personal connection on her past life to feel much sympathy for her. All she has is verbal exposition of how she was forced to be a spy, forced to have surgery so she couldnt have children, forced outta her home, etc. Nothing visually sympathetic.
Think of when Cap is about to go on the last mission in Winter Soldier and there is a quick flashback of him and Bucky when they were younger and Bucky says he will always look out for Steve after his parents died and hell be with him till the end ofthe line. Fast forward to the climax of the movie where Cap refused to fight Bucky and utters the same dialogue of being at the end of the line. Now imagine directors hadnt included that flashback and instead had Cap just say a line or two about how he and Bucky were tight, the scene wouldn't have had anywhere near the impact it did.
Same goes for Black widows weak characterization build up. She is a placeholder for action and quips, nothing more nothing less. The fact you think she is the best developed out of all my original list is laughable
They want to learn more about her story because it so limited in her appearances. That's not what is meant by 'showing is better than telling,' which is a book term incidentally. It's more along the lines of not saying a character is pissed but describe a outraged person (yelling, stomping, nasty words etc) and let the reader figure it out as it engages them into the story more. What you described is exposition which is often inevitable but is more artfully inserted into dialogue as more natural conversation rather than just having a character belch forth a bunch of plot points or information that doesn't come across as how real people talk.
Yes they focused on her reaction right after Fury said something about not knowing who he could trust when he was in the hospital, obviously that included Maria Hill and not her and you could see that bothered her. I didn't much care for that scene in AoU either, it was clumsily done. Much better was the combination of Loki's taunting her and then the scene with Clint in Avengers which gave us pretty much the same information but showed us also that she was ashamed of her past and how her mind works in snapping out of it so quickly when she got an epiphany. Later we saw the moment she decided to be an Avenger, a turning point in her life.
That scene you described from TWS wasn't a bad example, but I'd rather that sort of thing came out as he shared it with Natasha or Sharon, not necessarily in one monologue but perhaps part of a dialogue about trust or neighbors looking out for him in a discussion that segues into why he trusted Bucky or had another guardian who would be 'with him 'till the end of the line.' That would add the actor's emotions as we saw just what that meant to him and Natasha or Sharon's reactions. Flashbacks break the immersion and take me out of the story, though obviously some are better done than others and some are necessary and brilliantly done.
I just got done watching all of her appearances outside the Iron Man one and perhaps you wouldn't be laughing so hard if you were to do the same. I've made my argument and haven't seen much of anything outside someone mostly 'telling' instead of 'showing.' No matter how many times you say she's not developed it won't make it true.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 13, 2019 15:46:14 GMT
Widely considered that showing is better than telling in cinema. The lazy option is having characters talk about an event.
Dont remember any of those scenes/moments. Were they even focused on Natashas reaction?
Even if they were, we dont have enough personal connection on her past life to feel much sympathy for her. All she has is verbal exposition of how she was forced to be a spy, forced to have surgery so she couldnt have children, forced outta her home, etc. Nothing visually sympathetic.
Think of when Cap is about to go on the last mission in Winter Soldier and there is a quick flashback of him and Bucky when they were younger and Bucky says he will always look out for Steve after his parents died and hell be with him till the end ofthe line. Fast forward to the climax of the movie where Cap refused to fight Bucky and utters the same dialogue of being at the end of the line. Now imagine directors hadnt included that flashback and instead had Cap just say a line or two about how he and Bucky were tight, the scene wouldn't have had anywhere near the impact it did.
Same goes for Black widows weak characterization build up. She is a placeholder for action and quips, nothing more nothing less. The fact you think she is the best developed out of all my original list is laughable
They want to learn more about her story because it so limited in her appearances. That's not what is meant by 'showing is better than telling,' which is a book term incidentally. It's more along the lines of not saying a character is pissed but describe a outraged person (yelling, stomping, nasty words etc) and let the reader figure it out as it engages them into the story more. What you described is exposition which is often inevitable but is more artfully inserted into dialogue as more natural conversation rather than just having a character belch forth a bunch of plot points or information that doesn't come across as how real people talk.
Yes they focused on her reaction right after Fury said something about not knowing who he could trust when he was in the hospital, obviously that included Maria Hill and not her and you could see that bothered her. I didn't much care for that scene in AoS either, it was clumsily done. Much better was the combination of Loki's taunting her and then the scene with Clint in Avengers which gave us pretty much the same information but showed us also that she was ashamed of her past and how her mind works in snapping out of it so quickly when she got an epiphany. Later we saw the moment she decided to be an Avenger, a turning point in her life.
That scene you described from TWS wasn't a bad example, but I'd rather that sort of thing came out as he shared it with Natasha or Sharon, not necessarily in one monologue but perhaps part of a dialogue about trust or neighbors looking out for him in a discussion that segues into why he trusted Bucky or had another guardian who would be 'with him 'till the end of the line.' That would add the actor's emotions as we saw just what that meant to him and Natasha or Sharon's reactions. Flashbacks break the immersion and take me out of the story, though obviously some are better done than others and some are necessary and brilliantly done.
I just got done watching all of her appearances outside the Iron Man one and perhaps you wouldn't be laughing so hard if you were to do the same. I've made my argument and haven't seen much of anything outside someone mostly 'telling' instead of 'showing.' No matter how many times you say she's not developed it won't make it true.
The bolded section disqualifies the rest of his post. He doesn't remember/focus on the moments that give her character depth, then complains she has no character depth.
|
|