Heck sometimes I find it surreal to despise something that lots of people like. I'll never understand how Into Darkness got the rating it has on Rottentomatoes.com. It boggles my mind.
The Cumberbatch carried it on His shoulders. Do not question the Cumberbatch's ability. He even outdid Ricardo Montalban IMO as a threatening character.
Too bad there was no logic around the reasoning for keeping him alive. If Spock killed him, there were several supermen in cryo that they could've used to save Kirk.The Cumberbatch carried it on His shoulders. Do not question the Cumberbatch's ability. He even outdid Ricardo Montalban IMO as a threatening character.
The Cumberbatch carried it on His shoulders. Do not question the Cumberbatch's ability. He even outdid Ricardo Montalban IMO as a threatening character.
Ricardo Montalban I remember from Fantasy Island
"My dear guests. I am Mr. Roarke, your host. Welcome to fantasy Island"
As for being threatening, the problem is that much of this relies on expository dialogue from old Spock. At least the original Khan had a backstory to work with. This guy comes out of nowhere.
My question was always, why was it so necessary for Abrams and company to keep the Khan reveal a secret? Such a revelation has little meaning to the characters, who have no prior history with Khan ("My name is . . . KHAN!!!" "Uh, who's that?"). Cumberbatch does well with what he has to work with, but what he has to work with isn't much IMO. He's supposed to be a Nolan-ized, Joker-esque villain, but unlike the Joker, he doesn't embody a clear ideology that you can meaningfully oppose to Federation ideals. Plus, too much stuff has to happen off screen before he can be introduced; first he has to be discovered hibernating in deep space, then he is recruited by Starfleet, then he betrays Starfleet, etc. It makes for a cumbersome (see what I did there?) characterization.
Anyways, tangent over; I'll get back on topic, I promise!
I feel like I'm on Imgur and seeing a repost.
The Catalyst wants Shepard to enact one of its new "solutions", since it's old solution "won't work anymore". Yet at the same time it's destroying that which allows these solutions to take place.
We are not talking about Shepard taking a stand, or shooting the hologram. Just standing there, perhaps pondering the ramifications of these galaxy-wide changes. In the meantime, the Reapers are continuing to take potshots at the Crucible.
WTF?
Except the Catalyst outright states "I control the Reapers" not "I controled the Reapers, until the Crucible came along"
I never said the theory was perfect. Just that it works well enough for me.
Heck I'm still trying to understand how the writers thought that these endings would fly at all.
On some level, I can understand how some people might like a "bittersweet" ending with some sort of sweeping change to the galaxy. But I can't fathom how Bioware thought that should be the only possible outcome.
And many of those who do like the results of the ending seem to admit that the endings themselves were poorly executed, both before and after EC.
Definitely poorly executed. I see what the outcomes are meant to be and like those scenarios for the most part, but the story does an atrocious job of bringing them home to me. The big is one is using the antagonist as the mouthpiece for explaining our options, combined with the fact that we must choose one of these options or let everyone die. By story conventions that means, as one article put it, that the antagonist's values are ascendant, and that means we lose, no matter how objectively positive the outcome is. It's not rational, but it's how stories work, and it takes immense mental effort to get around it. The same options for the final choice, presented by someone else and enacted with no help from the antagonist, would still be extremely uncomfortable to some, but they wouldn't make you feel that you lost.
I'm something of a consequentialist, more concerned with outcomes than methods, so I'm set up to be less susceptible to this kind of reaction than most. Maybe that's why I could wrap my mind around them more easily, but I still felt its emotional impact. I can fully understand anyone who feels unable to make their peace with it, though I think some emotional distance is appropriate after two years. Being obsessive about it for so long is unhealthy.
Aren't preferences and opinions strange, in that people may not enjoy what you do?
Definitely poorly executed. I see what the outcomes are meant to be and like those scenarios for the most part, but the story does an atrocious job of bringing them home to me. The big is one is using the antagonist as the mouthpiece for explaining our options, combined with the fact that we must choose one of these options or let everyone die. By story conventions that means, as one article put it, that the antagonist's values are ascendant, and that means we lose, no matter how objectively positive the outcome is. It's not rational, but it's how stories work, and it takes immense mental effort to get around it. The same options for the final choice, presented by someone else and enacted with no help from the antagonist, would still be extremely uncomfortable to some, but they wouldn't make you feel that you lost.
I'm something of a consequentialist, more concerned with outcomes than methods, so I'm set up to be less susceptible to this kind of reaction than most. Maybe that's why I could wrap my mind around them more easily, but I still felt its emotional impact. I can fully understand anyone who feels unable to make their peace with it, though I think some emotional distance is appropriate after two years. Being obsessive about it for so long is unhealthy.
And I believe that the means used to accomplish a goal are as important as the goal itself. A stance which was completely valid in Mass Effect right up until the end.
And I believe that the means used to accomplish a goal are as important as the goal itself. A stance which was completely valid in Mass Effect right up until the end.
And I think that's a flawed philosophy that really shouldn't have been supported in every case in Mass Effect.
Why does the method matter? Why is the goal not more important than obtaining it?
Hell this is actually a contradiction in thought here for you. You complain that when the writers say 'it's about the journey, not the destination', yet here you are saying the same thing.
Hell this is actually a contradiction in thought here for you. You complain that when the writers say 'it's about the journey, not the destination', yet here you are saying the same thing.
No, I'm saying the destination is part of the journey, and you can't separate the two. Both the path and the destination are important. Bioware forgot that. Or simply didn't care that people might believe that.
For a moment, I thought this would be about the one Diana Allers fan.
No, I'm saying the destination is part of the journey, and you can't separate the two. Both the path and the destination are important. Bioware forgot that. Or simply didn't care that people might believe that.
Bioware didn't forget that. The destination was a part of the journey as well. Not liking it doesn't dismiss it.
The journey and destination in Mass Effect are not unacceptable.
Really?
"They are not acceptable"
Really?
"They are not acceptable"
They are acceptable. You don't have the strength to accept that you're not getting what you want.
For a moment, I thought this would be about the one Diana Allers fan.
Well I do like her... email. Yeah.
Its a really good email.
Well I do like her... email. Yeah.
Its a really good email.
I find it funny that the one good aspect of her character is the one thing that doesn't involve Jessica Chobot.
I find it funny that the one good aspect of her character is the one thing that doesn't involve Jessica Chobot.
That's exactly what I meant.
And this isn't some slam about 'Y U HAVE IGN'. I could have totally welcomed her. She just, simply put, was not implemented enjoyably. She was a jarring appearance, sounded like she was reading off the page sometimes, the face was modeled strangely.
The writing wasn't so bad.
But I disgreesssss.
Definitely poorly executed. I see what the outcomes are meant to be and like those scenarios for the most part, but the story does an atrocious job of bringing them home to me. The big is one is using the antagonist as the mouthpiece for explaining our options, combined with the fact that we must choose one of these options or let everyone die. By story conventions that means, as one article put it, that the antagonist's values are ascendant, and that means we lose, no matter how objectively positive the outcome is. It's not rational, but it's how stories work, and it takes immense mental effort to get around it. The same options for the final choice, presented by someone else and enacted with no help from the antagonist, would still be extremely uncomfortable to some, but they wouldn't make you feel that you lost.
I'm something of a consequentialist, more concerned with outcomes than methods, so I'm set up to be less susceptible to this kind of reaction than most. Maybe that's why I could wrap my mind around them more easily, but I still felt its emotional impact. I can fully understand anyone who feels unable to make their peace with it, though I think some emotional distance is appropriate after two years. Being obsessive about it for so long is unhealthy.
I suspect that how one feels about moral realism comes into play here too. As a full-on noncognitivist I can barely see "the antagonist's values are ascendant" as even being a meaningful statement, in the absence of any actual people who believe in those values.
They are acceptable. You don't have the strength to accept that you're not getting what you want.
I prefer to think of it as I have the capability to, rather than blindly accept what Bioware/the Catalyst tells me, instead examine the endings, compare them to the narrative and themes of the trilogy as a whole, as well as my own personal tastes and say, with a reasonable degree of of confidence:
"WTF!!!!?"
I prefer to think of it as I have the capability to, rather than blindly accept what Bioware/the Catalyst tells me, instead examine the endings, compare them to the narrative and themes of the trilogy as a whole, as well as my own personal tastes and say, with a reasonable degree of of confidence:
"WTF!!!!?"
You're getting emotionally distressed at a moral dilemma that doesn't let you upper-left blue trigger your way out of everything.
There are valid reasons to hate the ending. I myself hate the ending. But emotional distress and personal tastes is not an argument to making it bad. It's dismissed, and rightfully so.
Retour en haut
