View Single Post
Old 11-19-2012, 04:00 PM   #122
ThePhantasm
The Shadow Knows
 
ThePhantasm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 10,551
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do

The Guard, I think we are talking past each other at this point. Your last comment seems to basically agree with what I'm actually saying while pushing my own statements into tangents they were never meant to go. Its gotten a bit confusing for me as I'm now not exactly sure what your critique of Bane is, as it seems to me you've now stripped away the criteria for the critique and boiled it down to... Bane isn't interesting (because?).

I'll respond quickly to the latter bit of your comment before I go:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
I made two different points. Why are you pointing out a contradiction between two seperate contexts?
First of all, the point(s?) are conjoined by the word "but", hardly placing them in separate contexts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
By saying “We don’t NEED to know anything” I mean just that, we, as ourselves, don’t NEED to know anything. There are no imperatives that we must know anything in particular.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Is this some philosophical / epistemological point? Are we moving to a discussion of free agnosticism here? Have we actually stepped off into a discussion of the ultimate necessity of knowledge? I'd rather not follow that rabbit trail...

The point about "needing to know" is simple. It isn't about some "imperative." It is about the criterion for what you call an "interesting character." If exploration of a character is necessary to make the character interesting, then YES the audience needs to know (criteria) something to bring about the resulting interest (effect).

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
He is if he lacks complexity, isn’t he? Without complexity, all you have are the basics, IE, a basic concept.
But you are shifting the terms here. First you discuss the lack of complexity in his motivations, then you shift to the conclusion that this creates conceptual over-simplicity. But a character can be conceptually complex (Bane is symbolically quite complex, much like the Joker was - they both draw from a slew of old archetypes and mix them together) without having complex motivations. "Thin motivations" /= "basic concept character".

Anywho, I think I've made my point and at this stage this discussion is getting a bit repetitive. Maybe we should just agree to disagree on this.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesConceptz View Post
Im done. Im leaving this website. I promise i will not be spiderman or attempt to be. I have a ral careerr to fulfill. Please don NOT tell anyone about this. I would appreciate if you all kept this a secret.
ThePhantasm is offline