Starker on 22/5/2019 at 05:52
Quote Posted by Sulphur
I think that's overselling dramatic chops when reality demands a very careful balance to be maintained between the tone of what the screenplay intended and what's acted before the camera. An actor's interpretation may not jive with the ethos of a production, and it's the director's job to ensure their talent is leveraged in support of the overall vision instead of letting them go off-piste without justification.
The sand line was clearly intended as a jokey throwaway, and giving it undue importance through dramatic reframing via the soundtrack, cinematography, and line delivery sounds like a critical misreading of its purpose, a bit like hiring Tommy Wiseau to play Willy Wonka and then soundtracking the entirety of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to Jerry Goldsmith's score for Alien.
Um... a screenplay is not a suicide pact. Neither actors nor directors are required to stay true to the intent or the tone of the script, even when it's less open to interpretation and prescribes in great detail how a scene should play out. Moviemaking is very much a collaboration and everyone, especially actors, can add to it. And that's not even going into the practice of retroscripting, which happens in larger or smaller scale in quite a few movies and can improve the script quite a bit. A lot of directors are willing to let actors bend the dialogue to some extent and they can ignore what an actor can bring to the table only at their own peril.
I'm not saying that a good actor alone can save a bad movie by a director that doesn't give a rat's ass (which is not to say Hayden Christensen is a miracleworker, though). I'm saying that a good actor can bring even the most throwaway line to life with their performance in a way that often seems to be underestimated and overlooked. And of course it's not just an actor's performance, it's also the direction and the
mise-en-scène and the editing and all the rest of the jazz.
Sulphur on 22/5/2019 at 06:08
Quote Posted by Starker
Moviemaking is very much a collaboration and everyone, especially actors, can add to it. And that's not even going into the practice of retroscripting, which happens in larger or smaller scale in quite a few movies and can improve the script quite a bit. A lot of directors are willing to let actors bend the dialogue to some extent and they can ignore what an actor can bring to the table only at their own peril.
Exactly, it's a balance of both. I'm glad we agree on everything else. What I've been saying re: Metro Exodus is -- maybe choose a better example next time.
Starker on 22/5/2019 at 06:41
I haven't played the Metro games, so I can't speak to that, but I'm talking about the general principle of the thing. You'd be surprised what good actors are capable of (especially with the right direction), that's all I'm saying. Even the most mundane lines like "No need for alarm, Ladies, just passing through." or "It's a long way down." or "I have a bad feeling about this." can become amazing when a great actor is on the job.
WingedKagouti on 22/5/2019 at 10:14
Quote Posted by Starker
I haven't played the Metro games, so I can't speak to that, but I'm talking about the general principle of the thing. You'd be surprised what good actors are capable of (especially with the right direction), that's all I'm saying.
A good actor uses their voice, cadence, posture, movements, and facial expressions to deliver their lines, a good director makes sure these things fit with the character being portrayed, the situation at hand, and what is to come after. Games will too often just focus on the voice itself possibly along with the cadence, rarely do games that don't employ motion capture touch upon the other facets the actor brings to the table. And games will quite often forego the tasks of the director, or at least not give them time to properly handle things.
Pyrian on 23/5/2019 at 02:50
I tend to burn out on the Protoss campaign of StarCraft 1. The Protoss vs. Protoss missions are exhausting.
Malf on 23/5/2019 at 08:33
Quote Posted by icemann
And yes I know, you get to play as the bad guys in Warcraft 3 with the Undead Scourge, but I'm talking about established bad guys being changed to not so bad in later sequels.
They even did the same with the Undead when moving to WoW.
Next up, Diablo IV: Diablo saves the world!
Sulphur on 23/5/2019 at 08:39
Diablo was just a misunderstood soul who wanted to be loved, but could only communicate his love through tender disembowelment.
Thirith on 23/5/2019 at 09:29
You try tenderly caressing squishy mortals with claws like that! Something's gotta give. Usually viscera.
demagogue on 24/5/2019 at 10:48
This is an obscure game in an obscure niche, but Gravteam Tactics plays at the best scale for a war sim that I think I've ever played before ... which is to say it's at a massive scale. There's two of them, Mius Front & Operation Star, basically the same game, largely set in the WWII Eastern Front but DLC maps will cover a lot of other obscure fronts (like the Balkans). The map can be like a 20 to 50 mile square, and it basically plays in real (or accelerated real) time over the course of several days, enough for countless skirmishes along the front and the occasional epic all out battle and for the front to really move or be shattered or completely encircled.
You're giving really high level orders for entire columns. But you can still zoom in to individual platoons and soldiers to see how your orders are trickling down to that scale. And it's depth of simulation is pretty cool. If a unit loses its radio guy, a runner will have to be sent to get orders to them, or they're just cut off and you can only watch how they react. If a unit can't be resupplied, they'll start looting the weapons from the enemy and you'll see them using them. It's feels very real and alive and makes Total War games downright arcadish by comparison.
Well I like just being in its world, trying to prepare for the unexpected, watching my poor guys get slaughtered when I make a bad decision but watching in triumph when they muscle through. Now I wish they could do this style for other periods, particularly the US Civil War and Napoleonic Wars, maybe also Korea & Vietnam. I'm really liking its mix of insane scale with little moments of triumph and tragedy.
Uh, I'd recommend it to no one except people that have a realism and depth fetish for war sims. The learning curve is very steep and individual scenarios can take up to 50 hours or more ... I mean when you're in it you're really sucked into it. You can do shorter ones in just a few hours though. If what it says on the tin, what I just described, sounds appealing, then this delivers on it. I can say that much.
Pyrian on 24/5/2019 at 17:23
Ahaha the first time I reached the final mission of StarCraft 1, I pushed some tanks forward early to set up a defense in depth. Little did I know I actually set them up in range of the Overmind! I suddenly won the mission to my total surprise while still exploring the map and building up my bases.
