After watching this, I don't need to see the movie. We got a whole movie experience right there: mutant powers are gone, Logan is living alone and dying until he finds a broken Professor, Logan meets the little girl who is the future, they bond like a family and are pursued by cyborg policemen, fights ensue, the Professor dies, Logan and little girl continue on trying to find hope. All with Johnny Cash's classic song about a broken shell of a man. Good stuff.
You do not actually need exposition about what virus wiped out mutant powers, or how Logan found Charles, or who these post-apocalyptic government thugs are working for. You don't need to see the whole action scene where Wolverine rescues the surrogate daughter, just the one awesome dive with his claws. These two minutes are enough to paint a cohesive picture.
This ties in to the post earlier this week about the pure-imagery short stories that prologue recent Star Trek movies. We don't need more plot or backstory, we need to learn to take in and read the small details that are presented to us.
Yes, this was a very good trailer, and I am hoping that it works out and leads to there being more comic book movies that rely about atmosphere at least as much as flashy CGI and don't want to be just popcorn movies.
ReplyDelete(Or, alternatively, since you argue that the Transformers franchise is much deeper than most people believe: I think that if the franchise requires an entire book's worth of analysis to show this then it has probably failed to communicate, if only because the creators didn't accurately judge how to build the right bridge between their intended meaning and our capacity for understanding.
And in that sense, most comic book movies seem to either be uninterested in communicating very much beyond the level of "these are the bad guys, those are the good guys, they have different color schemes" or just unable to successfully communicate, and it would be nice if we could see more comic book movies that have figured it out.)
Generally the right gist, yeah. Though I'd say: try not to analyze in terms of depth. How deep is a movie? 3 ft? 1 mile? A movie is entirely at the surface, and we are just reading the texture.
DeleteSuch as for Transformers, I would not say I needed to read a novel to understand it. I should be able to appreciate it perfectly fine as I am watching it, but actively paying attention to each scene and asking myself what's going on here. I was able to do this for the most recent Transformers, and I rather enjoyed it.
The book length analysis just functions as supplementary material that _was also_ entertaining to read. And as an encouragement to try that hard ourselves.
> How deep is a movie? 3 ft? 1 mile?
DeleteWell for *starters* we'd obviously be using the metric system... >:P
Texture is a doable word. Anything that's more succinct than "That quality which most people would know that Logan has, but wouldn't see in Transformers unless you handed them a literal book."
The critical texture that can be named is not the eternal critical texture?
(I'll say, though, that you may not have needed the textbook in order to get at Bay's message, but you've got more equipment in your toolbox than most people--which is why this site exists at all, isn't it?)