gwenniethepooh said: is it bad that in the third sketch, the first thing i noticed was his butt
Though actually butts/general crotch areas are really hard for me to draw. 8| I just don’t understand what all goes on down there… . muscle-wise.
Oh, okay! I didn’t see IM3 (I just forgot), so there totally could have been overlap. But possessing Jane was really the only interesting thing the Aether ever did! So … maybe we should just forget the Aether … forget the bad guy entirely … just write a whole new A plot for the entire movie plz …
I totally agree that Jane’s superpower is her brain, which is why I support an alternative movie I just made up called "Thor 2: Jane and Loki team up to save Thor’s handsome ass!" The trouble was that this movie was so focused on its giant action sequences that anything involving brains kind of faded into obscurity—I guess Jane was doing some Science in the third act, but they were so busy shoving in so much punching (and aimless subplots like the “intern intern” plotline) that it was hard to make out exactly what she did. It was less “Yeah! Jane saved the day!” and more “I think Jane is doing a thing there off to the side?”
Quick obvious disclaimer: I am really not a fan of action sequences.
Anyone know any good starting points to research people of non-white races living in Victorian England?
I have a story thought I want to look into »
EDIT: Sorry, I think I need to clarify this! Specifically, I would need research to be able to write a non-white, middle class gentleman living in London in the late 19th century.
It’s … it’s …
Basically I am thinking of race-bending Dr. Lanyon because diversity. :|
I don’t have much time to write this, so I’m going to try to keep this short! Most of this is going to be spoilers, so I’m putting it below. But first, let me offer my quick and dirty suggestions for how to restructure the story:
—Possible main character arc: Thor needs to learn how to use his brain!
—Secondary character arc: Loki needs to rekindle his connection with his family and realize there are more important things than taking over the world!
—Possible mini-plot: Thor encounters an enemy who cannot be defeated by punching them over and over and over! After he and his buddies punch the bad guy a WHOLE LOT, Thor finally becomes desperate enough to turn to Loki for help. Loki initially refuses and gloats over Thor’s defeat, but after [spoilery traumatic event in the movie], he agrees to help his brother in order to exact revenge on the enemy. Loki teams up with Jane (because she is also super smart!) to help Thor learn how to think of a clever, unexpected strategy to defeat the enemy. Thor learns the value of not punching things always!
That’s my quick two cents. Now here’s the critique of the actual movie.
Writing this late at night and queuing it:
Just got back from CTN Expo. I talked with a bunch of great people who were kind enough to visit me at my booth. Thanks, you guys! Hope to do the same next year, maybe at a booth that is actually inside the convention center (gracious)!
Desdemonia asked: Hey you! I recently watched A Monster in Paris and was thoroughly underwhelmed, but couldn’t strictly articulate why, and then I remembered the post you made a while back about the film and what did you say???????
I am sure I ranted about A Monster in Paris before but I can’t find the original post! It was before I started tagging story thoughts under #story, for sure. Let me take a crack at deciphering that vaguely underwhelming feeling*.
AMIP’s strengths lie primarily in its visuals. Its beautiful design and color create a certain expectation that we should like this story and care about the characters, so it is a surprise when the story fails to deliver in:
—Character: AMIP’s characters are based enormously on shallow running gags (such as the skinny guy’s straw coat) that reveal nothing about the character or build towards anything. The cast are given very few recognizable traits (the main girl is pretty? she sings well? she likes other things that sing well?) so it’s hard to empathize with them. Secondary characters are often limited to astoundingly one-note gags—oftentimes literally repeating the same gag over and over.
—Dialogue: The characters talk CONSTANTLY but rarely say anything really important. Oftentimes, writing that might have been resonant in one sentence lose their meaning when expanded into long rambling diatribes. The song sequences are by far the strongest in the film, if only because it shuts Raoul up for a few minutes.
—Focus of story: Who is the protagonist? What is the main point of the story? The film’s promotional art promises an exciting story about a monster and a pretty French girl in Paris, but the first twenty minutes gives us almost nothing but two chatty dudes going on errands. I genuinely don’t know who the main character is supposed to be. Francouer is clearly the most sympathetic character, but it’s hard to tell what he wants at any given moment, and a huge chunk of the story downright ignores him.