Case in point, I think I would make a really boring Shojo romance heroine because I would talk things out with the boys right away and probably be asking THEM out within the second chapter. However, that story could not work well with that kind of main character because the romance has to be all teasing and dokidoki.
Lack of creativity for a moment? Such a character can work perfectly fine, you just have to change the side-characters and move the issues slightly. Heck, you could make an awesome story starting at the 'first kiss' instead of ending with that. Though you might argue you'd get closer to drama then instead of romance.
I've had this happen to me before. I hated The Breakfast Club because of this. Those kids were all idiots.
You have made many enemies this day.
First you stupidly hate Aaron Sorkin, now this...
Dude, The FRC breakfast club. Look up the thread - everyone making those responses are people from the FRC breakfast club. That's the joke.
Yeah I know. It was a lame joke that is neither funny nor interesting. The Breakfast Club is far more interesting and awesome, contrary to what that outlier, Matt, says.
My apologies that the joke wasn't up to your lofty standards.
Case in point, I think I would make a really boring Shojo romance heroine because I would talk things out with the boys right away and probably be asking THEM out within the second chapter. However, that story could not work well with that kind of main character because the romance has to be all teasing and dokidoki.
Lack of creativity for a moment? Such a character can work perfectly fine, you just have to change the side-characters and move the issues slightly. Heck, you could make an awesome story starting at the 'first kiss' instead of ending with that. Though you might argue you'd get closer to drama then instead of romance.
I think if you are trying to write the usual definition of the romance genre, the romantic conquest is the main conflict. If you pair the characters up immediately it will not be a "romance." It may be a very good story with romantic elements, but not the type of story that people who enjoy romances are going to expect if you market it as such. It is not that I lack creativity (in fact I don't tend to prefer romances because I find them limiting and silly as the central conflict of a work of fiction.) but merely that I am stating that in order to make certain types of stories work, you have to think outside your own rational, pragmatic approach to life and try to portray someone more naive and sentimental when you create your characters.
Because I have a job, kiddo. I have been not looking at the forum very often because I have been making the arts. It doesn't count as necroposting if the thread is less than a week old. This is a rule I have just made up right now.
Because I have a job, kiddo. I have been not looking at the forum very often because I have been making the arts. It doesn't count as necroposting if the thread is less than a week old. This is a rule I have just made up right now.
I wasn't even complaining about any necroposting. That doesn't exist on these forums. You're just so slow with your reply that I completely forgot about the discussion.
And I wish more of those so-called "Americans with a job" on these forums would spend their 9-5 hours working, instead of reading and posting on these forums.
And I wish more of those so-called "Americans with a job" on these forums would spend their 9-5 hours working, instead of reading and posting on these forums.
The Nazgûl have flying mounts, and Gandalf acknowledged he would succumb to the ring if he had it. Hell, he held it for a few seconds and almost couldn't give it up.
The Nazgûl have flying mounts, and Gandalf acknowledged he would succumb to the ring if he had it. Hell, he held it for a few seconds and almost couldn't give it up.
There was a Flash animation that came out shortly after the first movie, with that exact concept. Frodo got on an Eagle in the Shire and just flew over Mount Doom, dropped the ring in, done. Over.
It would have made a boring book.
I read the entire LOTR trilogy in 5th grade (Hobbit, too). I tried to re-read it once recently and just couldn't do it. It's too damn dry. It reads like the Bible (The Silmarillion is worse, I know.)
The Nazgûl have flying mounts, and Gandalf acknowledged he would succumb to the ring if he had it. Hell, he held it for a few seconds and almost couldn't give it up.
Please, if you are going to argue about one of the most geeky subjects in existence then you should make sure as fuck that your facts are straight ;-).
At the time Gandalf finally realizes the nature of (by then) Frodo's ring the Nazgul were still moving on horesback and had hardly left Mordor. Secondly (and I just verified this by reading the appropriate section) Gandalf held the ring for more than just two seconds and had no trouble giving it back to Frodo.
Ok, so theoretically Gandalf gets on an Eagle and flies to Mount Doom. Even if he's attacked by all the Nazgûl, there are a lot of other eagles that will come to help, and he'll probably make it. This will take much less time, and save lots of lives and trouble.
BUT, I do have one real explanation for why they could not do the Eagle method. Remember, that one key of Frodo taking the ring to Mordor is that the Eye of Sauron did not fall upon him until the last. If Gandalf starting flying Eagles into Mordor carrying the ring, the eye would be upon him so fast. It was only upon Frodo for a mere moment, and by then the ring was already in the fire. The power of the eye is so great, it could not be overcome directly. The only hope was to get the ring into the fire without being seen.
Also, note that once one gets to the point of actually destroying the ring, it becomes difficult to maintain that resolve. Frodo likely would have kept it had Gollum not dumbassed himself into the fire with it.
In the middle of the first book. The proliferation of proper nouns without exposition is starting to wear on me. I've had one moment where I was really excited about what was happening and almost nothing of what actually happened was described. Such a tasty morsel. Whole armies have been wiped out and I barely know what Schoolmen do or how they do it! /shakefist
I've discussed Django Unchained with a couple of people on this issue. Why not just buy the wife or pretend to buy her and then steal her in the middle of the night? The argument was that if Calvin Candie knew Django wanted to buy his wife then he wouldn't give her back, right? And then he offers to sell her back even after knowing the truth? And then Christoph Waltz shoots Candie instead of shaking his hand to make a point about standing up to slavery, but then he dies and he gets Django and his wife stuck in a very unfortunate situation, so why not just shake Dicaprio's hand and leave? And then Django killing those guys that he could've used to ransack Candie's place because they were white guys with slaves?
The argument was that Candie would not sell Brünhilda for cheap which is why they went for the bait and switch. Candie selling B for a ton of money is not inconsistent. The rest of what you describe is called character development and drama.
The argument was that Candie would not sell Brünhilda for cheap which is why they went for the bait and switch. Candie selling B for a ton of money is not inconsistent. The rest of what you describe is called character development and drama.
I distinctly recall the issue being that he wouldn't sell her if he knew her husband was trying to buy her back. Again; if they weren't gonna pay anyway, why not just steal her in the middle of the night?
The argument was that Candie would not sell Brünhilda for cheap which is why they went for the bait and switch. Candie selling B for a ton of money is not inconsistent. The rest of what you describe is called character development and drama.
Again; if they weren't gonna pay anyway, why not just steal her in the middle of the night?
They were not going to pay the high price Candy would have asked, do you understand bait and switch? Admittedly they were going to do an inverse bait and switch but still pretty easy to figure out.
The bad/good guy should have just shot and killed the good/bad guy when the had the chance. x1000000
Have none of you seen a Spaghetti western before? Django did its action to the "T" of the stereotypical tropes and made it unique with giving the illusion that it might not play out in that manner.
The argument was that Candie would not sell Brünhilda for cheap which is why they went for the bait and switch. Candie selling B for a ton of money is not inconsistent. The rest of what you describe is called character development and drama.
Again; if they weren't gonna pay anyway, why not just steal her in the middle of the night?
They were not going to pay the high price Candy would have asked, do you understand bait and switch? Admittedly they were going to do an inverse bait and switch but still pretty easy to figure out.
The bad/good guy should have just shot and killed the good/bad guy when the had the chance. x1000000
Really what some peole argue in this thread is not plot holes but their need for instant gratification in lieu of a dramatic story arc...
Wait. How am I seeking instant gratification? Where in my comment did I complain about something taking too long? I see holes in the plot and reasoning, is all.
Wait. How am I seeking instant gratification? Where in my comment did I complain about something taking too long? I see holes in the plot and reasoning, is all.
Well, I can't explain it better than the video. Your "plot hole" of "why did he not just shake Candies hand" is pretty much a prime example of "because then the movie would be over".
Wait. How am I seeking instant gratification? Where in my comment did I complain about something taking too long? I see holes in the plot and reasoning, is all.
Well, I can't explain it better than the video. Your "plot hole" of "why did he not just shake Candies hand" is pretty much a prime example of "because then the movie would be over".
Django would've been more interesting if it were about the dynamic between Calvin Candie and Samuel L. Jackson (can't remember the character's name right now); I personally think that dynamic was the most interesting aspect of the film, if not the best one.
Comments
And I wish more of those so-called "Americans with a job" on these forums would spend their 9-5 hours working, instead of reading and posting on these forums.
It would have made a boring book.
I read the entire LOTR trilogy in 5th grade (Hobbit, too). I tried to re-read it once recently and just couldn't do it. It's too damn dry. It reads like the Bible (The Silmarillion is worse, I know.)
At the time Gandalf finally realizes the nature of (by then) Frodo's ring the Nazgul were still moving on horesback and had hardly left Mordor. Secondly (and I just verified this by reading the appropriate section) Gandalf held the ring for more than just two seconds and had no trouble giving it back to Frodo.
BUT, I do have one real explanation for why they could not do the Eagle method. Remember, that one key of Frodo taking the ring to Mordor is that the Eye of Sauron did not fall upon him until the last. If Gandalf starting flying Eagles into Mordor carrying the ring, the eye would be upon him so fast. It was only upon Frodo for a mere moment, and by then the ring was already in the fire. The power of the eye is so great, it could not be overcome directly. The only hope was to get the ring into the fire without being seen.
I'll get through it. Eventually.
@9:35
Really what some peole argue in this thread is not plot holes but their need for instant gratification in lieu of a dramatic story arc...
@9:35
Really what some peole argue in this thread is not plot holes but their need for instant gratification in lieu of a dramatic story arc...
Wait. How am I seeking instant gratification? Where in my comment did I complain about something taking too long? I see holes in the plot and reasoning, is all.