"Because no one else is doing it it's brilliant."
No. Just no.
I'd like to use an example of this with one of America's favorite odd balls, Andy Warhol. You may know Andy Warhol as a painter and for his eccentric behavior but where I come from he is also known for his films. I'll stop right there and tell you that his films are beyond awful and represent an arrogance so severe they have literally been buried. I digress.
The film I'd like to call your attention to is a little film called Empire. What is Empire about? Empire is about the Empire State building.
"Oh God Why?"
This is the entire film. All four hundred and thirty five minutes of it. In slow motion. Warhol shot the film and 24 frames a second and then asked for it to be projected at 16 frames per second. The running time of Empire when projected as Warhol wished is eight hours and five minutes long.
Believe it or not not I know people who like this and they use the exact same defense that I have seen some Pro-Enders use. Because Warhol does something that no one else does he is genius!. I have read this comment by more than one pro-ender and have been.......bothered by it. One does not breed innovation by deying basic narrative structure and throwing it to the curb. One breeds innovation by staying within the confines of narrative and trying something new. John Cassavetes achieved this when he used hand-held cameras in his films and created both a new sense of realism and American independant film at the same time. John Cassavetes is still loved and respected today for his accomplishments in film.
"But hitchcock said.........."
"We show the audience too much......."
No. This is the most grievous misquote I've ever seen from a filmmaker in my lifetime. hitchcock did not mean that people should be deprived of BASIC narrative elements. He meant something far, far simpler. He wanted certain aspects of the film to be left up to the audience such as violence. In no film is this more blatent than Psycho.
"Did you know the blood in this scene was actually chocolate sauce?"
Pyscho is a violent film but very little violence is actually shown on screen. Wait what?
In the entire course of the shower scene at no point is the knife ever seen actually penetrating Janet Leigh's flesh completely.
All the violence is IMPLIED via the knife moving up and down and blood going down the shower drain.
This is the brilliance of Hit****'s films AND the true meaning of his quote. hitchcock believed that the audience should have to impy the grimmer details of something like a murder. He wanted the audience to IMAGINE what a wounded Janet Leigh would look like after being stabbed by Norman Bates. He did NOT deride the audience by not giving the audience information.
“There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it.” - Alfred hitchcock
Aesthetics differences! Aesthetic differences everywhere!
What we have been presented with at the current ending are essentially six aesthetically similar cutscenes with different variables attached. They play like alternate scenes in a film. Yes, the end result is different but what it leads up to is always the same. We are presented with a montage of scenes that do not make sense, something Sergei Eisentein spoke against NINETY years ago.
Scenes in a game about realism should make sense from beginning to end. Any narrative shift is a betrayl of narrative structure and the reaction of the audience should be expected as such.
Deus Ex Machina->Three choices with very little explanation-> Six aesthetically similar cutscenes->A scientifically implausible landing scenario-> A meta message-> Please buy more DLC.
No.
You cannot present the audience with things like this in the last minute and expect a great reaction. To believe as such is incredibly silly and looks poorly upon the creators and the audience. Do the artists have every right to do this? Yes. Does the audience have every right to not like it? Yes.
The problem isn't that Bioware asked you to speculate but that they introduced so many different variables at the last minute and expected the audience to achieve catharsis over past events AND achieve intellectual clarity via the schizoid editing in the end. You cannot expect an audience to do both at the same time and achieve success with a more hardcore fanbase.
There is nothing wrong with leaving the audience with question but their IS a problem with leaving the audience with no data to extrapolate from. You insult their intelligence.
Retour en haut
