- Thread starter
- #1
What a bunch of shit. The scarring is often part of the story....
what reasonableness?Yay. Another example of reasonableness being thrown out the window.
what are you getting upset about?This bullshit is probably why British films have been garbage since the Guy Ritchie films of the early 2000s
No. I think they shouldn't unilaterally say they won't invest in movies that have one certain characteristic. If the scarring is appropriate and adds to the storytelling then they are doing their public a disservice.what are you getting upset about?
"villains should have scars!"
is that it?
that's dumb.
no, I mean what is unreasonable?No shit. Seems to be a rare and unappreciated commodity these days.
give me an example of when it was necessary?No. I think they shouldn't unilaterally say they won't invest in movies that have one certain characteristic. If the scarring is appropriate and adds to the storytelling then they are doing their public a disservice.
I'm saying that each script should be looked at and judged individually. Does the scarring have a significant part in the story? If it does then why take it out?no, I mean what is unreasonable?
you like your villains to have scars? For what reason?
they don't have facial scars though. They look normal once their faces are swapped, right?Face/Off
they need more heroes with facial scars, like Captain Winters from Band of Brothers or Sloth from GooniesAnd I'm not arguing that it hasn't been overused in the past (especially the Bond franchise) but artistic restriction is not usually a positive move for any society.
And I'd be fine with that too..... IF it lends to the storytelling. But again, artistic restriction is akin to fascism.they need more heroes with facial scars, like Captain Winters from Band of Brothers or Sloth from Goonies