deilaitha
Sage
Sigh. I have studied and dabbled in writing for about 10 years now. I have read multiple books on the topic of writing, and specifically, writing fantasy. I have very high standards. It has ruined my ability to enjoy most movies.
I went to see Riddick with my hubby and a couple of our friends. Our friends had seen the original Riddick movies, but hubby and I had not. Anyway, I went with an open mind, assuming that anything that didn't make a ton of sense would be because I had not seen the first movies.
So here I am, in the theater. I can accept the monsters and the special Riddick eyes, space travel and aliens, the whole nine yards. I am willingly suspending the proverbial disbelief and enjoying it.
Then, not 30 minutes into the movie, they totally lost me.
Riddick is being attacked in the desert by a vicious wild dog. It's starving and trying to eat him. Suddenly, he gets the brilliant idea to throw a frisbee-like piece of his armor, and the dog chases it. Miraculously, Riddick is now safe, at least until the rest of the plot happens.
WHAT THE HECK, MAN???
Seriously, I was so mad about that. Why include it? Perhaps it was meant for comic effect? However, I feel that in all my studies of writing, this type of thing is discouraged. It doesn't matter how funny or neat something is if it contradicts the "rules" of the world. I will suspend disbelief until the cows come home (pardon the cliche), but alternate realities still need to follow their own rules. I'm sorry; a vicious starving dog who just wants to play? Not believable, considering that this is like the 5th hostile dog or creature he has fended off.
Another thing? Stringing the f-word together with a few articles, verbs, and nouns (though sometimes the f-word is used as a verb or a noun) does not make for very compelling dialogue. I have nothing against the f-word as such, but when it's the only one being used, it gets quite tedious.
All in all, it wasn't a bad flick. I enjoyed all the hacking and killing, I was being so picky that my friends rolled their eyes at me. Ignorance is bliss, eh?
I went to see Riddick with my hubby and a couple of our friends. Our friends had seen the original Riddick movies, but hubby and I had not. Anyway, I went with an open mind, assuming that anything that didn't make a ton of sense would be because I had not seen the first movies.
So here I am, in the theater. I can accept the monsters and the special Riddick eyes, space travel and aliens, the whole nine yards. I am willingly suspending the proverbial disbelief and enjoying it.
Then, not 30 minutes into the movie, they totally lost me.
Riddick is being attacked in the desert by a vicious wild dog. It's starving and trying to eat him. Suddenly, he gets the brilliant idea to throw a frisbee-like piece of his armor, and the dog chases it. Miraculously, Riddick is now safe, at least until the rest of the plot happens.
WHAT THE HECK, MAN???
Seriously, I was so mad about that. Why include it? Perhaps it was meant for comic effect? However, I feel that in all my studies of writing, this type of thing is discouraged. It doesn't matter how funny or neat something is if it contradicts the "rules" of the world. I will suspend disbelief until the cows come home (pardon the cliche), but alternate realities still need to follow their own rules. I'm sorry; a vicious starving dog who just wants to play? Not believable, considering that this is like the 5th hostile dog or creature he has fended off.
Another thing? Stringing the f-word together with a few articles, verbs, and nouns (though sometimes the f-word is used as a verb or a noun) does not make for very compelling dialogue. I have nothing against the f-word as such, but when it's the only one being used, it gets quite tedious.
All in all, it wasn't a bad flick. I enjoyed all the hacking and killing, I was being so picky that my friends rolled their eyes at me. Ignorance is bliss, eh?