Zero Dark Thirty

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: Zero Dark Thirty

    Please reread ATB's post.

    And then try to understand that this movie is really nothing more than a police procedural.

    Were you looking for the scene where the villain threatens to take over the world? Maybe a maniacal laugh every once in awhile?

    Hey, you didn't like it, good for you. I know it's no Star Trek movie, but, hey, we all can't strive for half-assed excellence and vague plot points and wonky science like Abrams.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Zero Dark Thirty

      Originally posted by Biohazard View Post
      50 years from now when nobody knows one thing about Osama Bin Laden, people are going to watch this movie, and you know what they'll learn about Bin Laden? That he died in a house.
      I think in fifty years folks will still be familiar with bin Laden. He sort of had an impact on world history.
      "Forget it, Jake. It's Hollywood."

      My YouTube channel.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Zero Dark Thirty

        Originally posted by Biohazard View Post
        How do we know it was him? The film doesn't show that. It literally shows nothing.

        That's my point. The script is not doing the work...we are.

        Not one single frame of this movie shows the villain threatening anybody.

        No other movie could get away with not developing the villain in any way whatsoever, or not establishing why he's a threat in the first place, let alone the most important threat in the world. No other movie could do that because other films must rely on that which comes from within the story. This one does not. It's just cheap, lazy writing. The movie cannot stand on its own storytelling merit. It's simply using emotions from real-life situations as a crutch instead of a foundation.

        50 years from now when nobody knows one thing about Osama Bin Laden, people are going to watch this movie, and you know what they'll learn about Bin Laden? That he died in a house.
        If you don't understand the significance of the "over black" opening, no one can explain it to you.

        What did you want? A scene establishing the villain's grand plot to destroy America? To launch a satellite into orbit to more-effectively launch a nuke?

        Of course the film capitalized on our pre-existing emotions. Of course it capitalized on our pre-existing knowledge of OBL and 9/11.

        That's the entire fvcking reason it was made.

        Also, you don't need to see the villain or hear the villain to feel the villain's presence. We see Al Queda's threats and actions throughout the film. Al Queda is an extension of OBL. Therefore, OBL is a very real threat throughout the story.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Zero Dark Thirty

          Originally posted by ATB View Post
          If you don't understand the significance of the "over black" opening, no one can explain it to you.

          What did you want? A scene establishing the villain's grand plot to destroy America? To launch a satellite into orbit to more-effectively launch a nuke?

          Of course the film capitalized on our pre-existing emotions. Of course it capitalized on our pre-existing knowledge of OBL and 9/11.

          That's the entire fvcking reason it was made.

          Also, you don't need to see the villain or hear the villain to feel the villain's presence. We see Al Queda's threats and actions throughout the film. Al Queda is an extension of OBL. Therefore, OBL is a very real threat throughout the story.
          I agree, ATB, the over black is compelling and was one of the best parts of the film. It was heartbreaking. Brings back a flood of memories of that day still. It gives voice and significance to the victims-- pays tribute to them and not a terrorist. An important distinction.

          This isn't a film that needs to show us Osama, why, because the entire global community already knows it was him. It isn't about him. Why would you want to waste film time showing something we already know.

          It isn't necessary.

          The film isn't about 911, it's about hunting down the man responsible for the worst terrorist attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.

          It's about the unrelenting drive of one person's desire to make someone-- the right someone-- pay.

          At first I wasn't sure I'd like it because of my beliefs about torture, but it's a really good story.

          And I love the way the film makers, unapologetically, allowed the climax to not include the main character going into battle herself. Her actions over the course of the film set everything in motion so the right people could execute the plan.

          It was really good.

          FA4
          "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy b/c you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowden

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Zero Dark Thirty

            Originally posted by Biohazard View Post
            Perhaps I'm remembering it wrong.

            Please point out the scenes that show why the villain is such a terrible threat that needs to be stopped immediately.

            Because I saw none, just like in the title. Zero.
            I kinda get what you're saying, but that's a lot like arguing we didn't get enough Hitler backstory in Inglorious Bastards.

            Real life, well-known villains don't need any exposition. It would drag the movie down.
            I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Zero Dark Thirty

              Before this sh|t is shutdown for veering into political territory, I'll just say that I agree with you, Terrance. War crimes and whatnot.

              Also that the film hit the mark in nearly every way. Subtle as those marks may be.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Zero Dark Thirty

                The the villain is not developed in any way whatsoever in the screenplay, then the screenplay has a problem. It's that simple. I don't give a toss what movie you're making. Do the work.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Zero Dark Thirty

                  Did we learn nothing from the article about statistical analysis of screenplays? If you don't follow the rules, your screenplay will be terrible. Statistics have proven that. If the numbers say this movie is terrible, then it must be terrible.
                  Chicks Who Script podcast

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Zero Dark Thirty

                    Originally posted by Biohazard View Post
                    The the villain is not developed in any way whatsoever in the screenplay, then the screenplay has a problem.
                    Bio, I wish you could have given this note personally to the filmmakers so I could see you getting laughed out of the room. The writer didn't omit developing "the villian." They specifically didn't show him because it is was not needed in this story. It would have diminished the movie if they attempted to "explain" Bin Laden or show anything through his POV. They were using the audiences collective knowledge. As ATB said, it was covered through the first minute of the film through the OVER BLACK moment.

                    I bet you wished Inglorius Basterds had developed Hitler some more, so the audience wasn't so confused as to who this Adolf guy that they were chasing was. That was so lazy!

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Zero Dark Thirty

                      I thought the screenplay was a good read, for what it's worth.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Zero Dark Thirty

                        Originally posted by Biohazard View Post
                        The the villain is not developed in any way whatsoever in the screenplay, then the screenplay has a problem. It's that simple. I don't give a toss what movie you're making. Do the work.
                        The villain is not one who exists only in the screenplay.

                        It's a true story. One we all have pre-existing knowledge of. To develop OBL as a movie villain would be ridiculous, ignorant and unnecessary.

                        He's a ghost in the machine. A puppet master. He's neither seen nor heard. That's what makes him terrifying. In real life. Not in a screenplay.

                        Maybe you weren't around for the decade long search for OBL in real life. Or for the terror he caused on a global scale in real life. But for the rest of us who were present for those real life travesties, this film successfully capitalized on the fear and anger OBL caused. And it portrayed him in a real life manner.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Zero Dark Thirty

                          Originally posted by omovie View Post
                          I bet you wished Inglorius Basterds had developed Hitler some more, so the audience wasn't so confused as to who this Adolf guy that they were chasing was. That was so lazy!
                          Who?


                          IOW, exactly.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Zero Dark Thirty

                            Originally posted by ATB View Post
                            The villain is not one who exists only in the screenplay.
                            The villain does not exist in the screenplay. That's the problem.

                            It's just cheap, lazy writing.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Zero Dark Thirty

                              Originally posted by Biohazard View Post
                              The villain does not exist in the screenplay. That's the problem.

                              It's just cheap, lazy writing.
                              Ya know, it was the same thing with Jaws. I mean, what do we really know about that shark? Not sharks. But that shark. And with Groundhog Day, too. Lazy, lazy, lazy. Ugh!!!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Zero Dark Thirty

                                Originally posted by Biohazard View Post
                                The villain does not exist in the screenplay. That's the problem.

                                It's just cheap, lazy writing.

                                Who blew up the hotel? Who blew up the meeting at the camp? If the villain wasn't in the screenplay....maybe I imagined those scenes in the movie?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X