Plot isn't the end-all-and-be-all. It should be a vehicle to telling a story that has meaning and that meaning should be embedded as subtext in the direction of the plot.
If plot is a vehicle, then the vehicle it is analogous to is a rocket ship and the destination is outer-space. Plot is as important as a character. They're two sides of the same coin. Even small, introspective dramas like UP IN THE AIR, have tight, effective plots just as loud, kinetic action stories like STAR WARS have wonderful, engaging characters. Plot is not something to be just seen as a vehicle to do the more 'important' things like meaning and subtext. The plot
is the meaning. The plot is life changing. The meaning of the story is how and why life changes.
Seven and Watchmen were commercial/critical successes to a point. Seven made around a 10 fold return, and Watchmen from what I've found was about a 4 fold return on it's initial run (granted WB/DC has made a LOT more milking the trade later). Compare that to movies like Avatar, Star Wars, Twilight and Titanic that were simple movies that held the hand of the viewer, and we know how much they've made, that's just the point I'm making. Intelligent stuff like; Any Coen Bros movie, most Aronofsky, etc, does well enough globally, but when you look at American returns, they generally don't do well versus the mindless ****.
It's not longer about whether you'll make money back or not. The cost of film has gotten so high that only those films guaranteed to make the most money humanly possibly are greenlit, and those are usually bad films that appeal to the lowest common denominator.
But STAR WARS is tremendous. It's not mindless. The reason STAR WARS does so much better than say SE7EN is not because it's mindless entertainment that doesn't tax people. The reason it's such a huge success is because
that's how most people see life. Most people do not see life as futile (WATCHMEN) or losing a battle to evil (SE7EN). Most people see themselves as having the potential for greatness (STAR WARS). People also understand down-endings; THE GODFATHER PART II is an enormous success, and a down-ending story, because people watch that movie and go, "Life is like that". They know the self-destruction of ambition. Shakespeare's many tragedies have endured through time because they're true and they resonate.
I've got a lot of research on this subject to get to, and I think I'm going to discover that despite all outward appearances, **** doesn't sell.
I hate that too, but unfortunately, it's the irrational and hysterical theists that seem to get the spotlight.
I know. It's a shame people like William Lane Craig and John Lennox aren't put on television.
I'm from Texas and most folk I know believe in evolution, but then again I live in Denton, a town that is as liberal as a town can get. The ones who don't believe, don't understand what evolution actually is. They are confused about scientific terms like "theory" and "law". They've never been properly taught the process of evolution. I wasn't, I had to figure it all out on my own, after I graduated high school. The discussion of it rarely gets past "monkeys still exist, so do humans, therefore evolution is claptrap" They see it as an attack on God and religion and specifically Christians. I feel like if the unbelievers had it explained to them in a concise, engrossing, and interesting manner then their would be no discussion about whether it's real or not.
Well, evolution is often used to describe three separate biological processes; The process of change and diversity of biological organisms over time, The reconstruction of the tree of life to one or more common ancestors, and finally the mechanism of natural selection and random mutation to explain the adaptability of organisms to their environment without a designing intelligence. The first two predate Darwin. Darwin's contribution is the mechanism, and it is here where the debate lies because while it is evident natural selection and random mutation do something, they aren't adequate to explain everything and already there are other natural processes being added to the mix in order to explain how biology could form as it has by accident (recently, something to do with the mechanical shifts of the Earth below the sea).
The problem is that the evolution argument isn't really about evolution, but more about Darwinism, and it's not about Atheism/Science vs Religion, but Science vs Science. Intelligent design is about working when it is reasonable to infer a design hypothesis, not just say, "God did it" and call it a day.
Instead we have this polarized nonsense which amounts to, "Evolution is a lie and God did it" vs "Evolution disproves God and thus becomes our new God". Seriously. The people who go around campaigning evolution as an argument against God (like Dawkins) sound as religiously dogmatic as their opponents. They say religion makes you stop asking questions and go, "God did it", completely unaware that in the presence of any sort of questioning of evolution they stop asking questions and yell, "Evolution did it".
Evolution is fascinating, and the stupidity on both sides is hurting everyone.
Many people will say that science itself presupposes naturalism, but I disagree; science should be unbiased, but scientists are far from it.
It's the opposite: science doesn't presuppose naturalism, it presupposes theism.
Science cannot explain a number of things, chief among them, science cannot explain why we can do science at all. Science cannot explain why there is an intelligible rationality to the universe. According to historians, one of the reasons science progressed so quickly in the West, as opposed to the East where they had a lot of technology, is because the West had the concept of a divine lawgiver who had created the universe. Western scientists, like Newton and Galileo, because they believed in a designer of the universe,
expected it to be designed and obeying to patterns and laws. It wasn't long ago that each new scientific discovery was seen as proof of the marvelous of God's design, rather than the bizarre "it works just cause" rationale we have today.
Okay, going to not be baited into an argument over the "Theory of Evolution's flawed" comments. As nothing is perfect, even the Theories founded by Newton, Einstein, Galileo, etc.
If you're feeling baited, then I suggest it may be because you're assuming that if one holds the point of view that "Evolution is flawed" that means they think, "It has no validity". It's simply not the case. Saying it's flawed only means it's not the only and completely final answer. Just as Newton's laws of gravity led to special relativity, which leads to quantum mechanics. Each explanation leads to another that fills in holes and possibilities from the former. Evolution is no different, nor is it the end of biological discovery.
Rereading the thread, I'm seeing that I agree with Bass, but we seem to be reaching the same destination, just from different angles. Writers forcing their political beliefs into the characters' mouths, overriding the plot, ends in bad storytelling, which IMHO is what's killing the industry. People either want mindless fun (Bleach, Michael Bay movies, pop music) or something truly thought provoking (Se7en, Watchmen, indie music/art), what we're getting instead is high school philosophy and politics.
I would agree that the problems are not only that the politicizing is inappropriate, but also
bad. If it was appropriate and good (as in DR STRANGELOVE or WATCHMEN), then it's not a problem.
So, dude has a new
article about what a "conservative comic" would look like. His understanding of conservatism baffles me.
I only skimmed it, didn't fully process it, but he seems again to be somewhat on the ball, just saying, "This is how you can have positive conservative views that aren't horrifically right-wing and bigoted" and that fair-minded promotion of conservatism is better than bad promotion of it. I think I would agree.
