Since I agree with someone you disagree with, you assume that I am that person in hiding?
Not very rational.
I've been a member on here for over a year, the number of posts I've made is irrelevant to anything.
I'll be glad to give you my name, my contact information, the name of my agent and my IMDB link if you want after I receive yours. I would like to know who I'm speaking to after all, I don't just give my info out to strangers.
Also, implying someone can't make a judgement or call because they lack a specific expertise isn't very productive.
That was just the feeling I got when you asked him what he's written. If your logic is only working professionals have validity, it would make me wonder what you yourself have written and sold. If the answer is nothing, then the questions becomes: why do you think your comments have any validity?
anyway, just a common fallacy of debate I encounter all the time which annoys me.
This is a very entertaining thread to say the least. I've been reading along and there have been some interesting comments.
I must say though, I do agree with 808billbo. A forced sub-story is fairly obvious, no sense in arguing over it or trying to justify it.
Also, from an unbiased standpoint as someone following along, if I had to guess who is a working writer/professional in the industry, it would be 808billbo. His complaints are detailed and valid, which would probably offend the casual viewer, like it seems he has. Everyone else just seems to be reciting obvious points to the movie, which is fine, but he/her seems to be thinking on a different level, cinematically speaking.
His arguments have depth and perspective. Other arguments, especially those attacking each other personally, don't display the same type of thought.
I am a working screenwriter, which is why I can appreciate his views, especially concerning the story.
"Plotted" is a term we use very often, it isn't made up.
I don't think he was trying to nitpick at the film. I thought the writing was also lacking. There are many unbelievable points one could bring up, including recovering from a broken spine in 3 months.
Not very rational.
I've been a member on here for over a year, the number of posts I've made is irrelevant to anything.
I'll be glad to give you my name, my contact information, the name of my agent and my IMDB link if you want after I receive yours. I would like to know who I'm speaking to after all, I don't just give my info out to strangers.
Also, implying someone can't make a judgement or call because they lack a specific expertise isn't very productive.
That was just the feeling I got when you asked him what he's written. If your logic is only working professionals have validity, it would make me wonder what you yourself have written and sold. If the answer is nothing, then the questions becomes: why do you think your comments have any validity?
anyway, just a common fallacy of debate I encounter all the time which annoys me.
I must say though, I do agree with 808billbo. A forced sub-story is fairly obvious, no sense in arguing over it or trying to justify it.
Also, from an unbiased standpoint as someone following along, if I had to guess who is a working writer/professional in the industry, it would be 808billbo. His complaints are detailed and valid, which would probably offend the casual viewer, like it seems he has. Everyone else just seems to be reciting obvious points to the movie, which is fine, but he/her seems to be thinking on a different level, cinematically speaking.
His arguments have depth and perspective. Other arguments, especially those attacking each other personally, don't display the same type of thought.
I am a working screenwriter, which is why I can appreciate his views, especially concerning the story.
"Plotted" is a term we use very often, it isn't made up.
I don't think he was trying to nitpick at the film. I thought the writing was also lacking. There are many unbelievable points one could bring up, including recovering from a broken spine in 3 months.