Bass
Nexus of the World
I was responding in general, not you specifically.
But... while I agree a story should be consistent and logical, it should be internally so. What's considered 'consistent' and 'logical' is up to the writer. It's a fine line to draw, but for example; in STAR TREK, there is no set up that the world of STAR TREK is a fly-by-night, unhierarchical world. It does, in fact, go to great lengths to establish the chain of command as a key plot point. However, at the end of the film, it strains the credibility of the organization that it would promote Kirk to captain of the flagship of the fleet despite the fact he was suspended for cheating at the time of his duties on the Enterprise. On the other hand, in CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER, it's set up that scientists can create bizarre, magical leap forward in terms of scientific invention, and that this technological leap cannot be replicated by anyone other than the inventor. This is how "super science" works in the world of CAPTAIN AMERICA and it is consistent and at the heart of the story's premise: Zola can invent weapons with the cosmic cube that can't be replicated by anyone other than him, and Erskine can create a super-soldier serum that can't be replicated by anyone other than him. These are key elements to the premise of the film, and so not to give the film its premise predisposes you to not liking it.
I preferred THOR a great deal more to CAPTAIN AMERICA and I think, despite Weaving's beautiful performance, Red Skull was a poorly designed villain, but I know that it isn't better than THOR, they're of the same quality. It's just I prefer He-Man to GI Joe. If I loved World War II, I'd find this film far, far more enjoyable. But that's not necessarily the film's fault.
But... while I agree a story should be consistent and logical, it should be internally so. What's considered 'consistent' and 'logical' is up to the writer. It's a fine line to draw, but for example; in STAR TREK, there is no set up that the world of STAR TREK is a fly-by-night, unhierarchical world. It does, in fact, go to great lengths to establish the chain of command as a key plot point. However, at the end of the film, it strains the credibility of the organization that it would promote Kirk to captain of the flagship of the fleet despite the fact he was suspended for cheating at the time of his duties on the Enterprise. On the other hand, in CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER, it's set up that scientists can create bizarre, magical leap forward in terms of scientific invention, and that this technological leap cannot be replicated by anyone other than the inventor. This is how "super science" works in the world of CAPTAIN AMERICA and it is consistent and at the heart of the story's premise: Zola can invent weapons with the cosmic cube that can't be replicated by anyone other than him, and Erskine can create a super-soldier serum that can't be replicated by anyone other than him. These are key elements to the premise of the film, and so not to give the film its premise predisposes you to not liking it.
I preferred THOR a great deal more to CAPTAIN AMERICA and I think, despite Weaving's beautiful performance, Red Skull was a poorly designed villain, but I know that it isn't better than THOR, they're of the same quality. It's just I prefer He-Man to GI Joe. If I loved World War II, I'd find this film far, far more enjoyable. But that's not necessarily the film's fault.
Last edited: