Derek and Jay discuss in-depth topics on film and television. Our videos range from analysis discussions and comparisons to parody trailers. Our focus is on quality media that you would normally see win awards and exhibit excellence in entertainment. If you have an idea that you want to see us discuss, please do not hesitate to contact us!
I agree that the writing dipped a little bit but I agree that this was all there. I'm getting some pushback on the full analysis video so many people still aren't convinced!
I think that argument could be made. I think a large factor is that she had the recognition she sought and trusted advisors/friends to hold her back, which she lost towards the end.
It never made sense. The disconnect between her character and the events of the last few episodes is shocking. A 40 min+ video seeking to justify shit script writing ain’t going to change that.
I don't disagree that the pacing felt quick compared to earlier seasons. The point of this video is not to justify anything, it was to examine if this development into madness was consistent with earlier traits and character progression from a psychological perspective. From that framework, it is very consistent. Do you disagree with any of the diagnostic or personality trait points? That is the content of this video.
Thank you, I appreciate hearing that! I'm not sure if long videos explaining these concepts have mass appeal and it takes me forever to make them. I'm content as long as some people enjoy it!
I like both, but i disliked the influence bourne had on the Bond films. It seems out of character for classic Bond to be so bare knuckles. I like craig, but i prefer my Bond men fancier. Less punching, more poker.
Also I just wanted to add that this is a pretty good comparison. Good work. Both very good films considering they were mostly shot in a single room or so it’s meant to appear.
No, a diagnosis is a label to describe various symptoms and conditions. Personality traits and styles can exist without a diagnostic label. In the USA, a diagnosis is simply a coded title from the DSM-5-TR
The movie doesn't introduce Keanu's character properly, it doesn't explain why he does what he does. The entire movie feels like a TV show rather than a film. There's no proper introduction to the main character, explains his motives or reason for his personality. With Training Day, the film has Jake as a vehicle for the audience. You said it in this video, they intentionally made Jake relatable to the audience. That's why the film works, because your introduction to Denzel doesn't show him as corrupt, but it gives clues. The film also makes you think Denzel isn't that bad of a guy and his actions are necessary for dealing with criminals until it reaches the poker scene. The film also ties in the writing of the character's directly with the plot. Jake saving that girl in the alley because he has morals is what saves his life. Denzel wouldn't care at all about that girl as it doesn't benefit him directly, he only does anything for his own benefit which is the quality of a corrupt cop. This film explores the topic of corruption and vigilantism. At the beginning of the film, it tries to get you as the audience to accept the idea of how ludlow operates is good. But it doesn't do a good job of it. They should of wrote the plot in a manner showing a past experience where ludlow did things by the book but it hurt him. Maybe how he arrested a rich business man who was friends with the someone on city counsel, and that same businessman was the old guy at the Korean house about to abuse those girls. That would of made the introduction to Ludlow much better. The writing of the film is the worst aspect of Street Kings. The writer dropped the ball, that's just it. It was B grade writing while Training Day was A grade.
I definitely think Training Day had superior writing. Ludlow isn't given a ton of background but they do follow a similar structure keeping Whitaker's motives under wraps until later on in the film. I'd say Ludlow is much more of a less conventional character, in that he isn't a completely good guy.
@@BirdsEyeViewMedia the set up of training day allows the audience to invest more into the protagonist and the vilian. It gives the audience more scenes to showcase the backgrounds and personality of Denzel and Ethan Hawke. Street kings has several characters all extensions of corruption and at different levels and makes it less personal as a audience looking into this world. It's not really surprising on who the villian is at the end. The lazy eye also doesn't help. It's like a pirate eye patch on cartoon villians symbolizing they are blind to justice.
Great video. Although, I’d say in Red Dragon, Lecter isn’t displaying fear when being faced with the prospect of torture, rather a detached sense of fascination at the situation he is in.
I like Training Day but i think the reason that movie was so loved is because Denzel played a horrible person and there was this air of shock value about it. if anything Narc with Jason Patric is far more comparable to TD than SK.
I'm having some trouble pacing my story right now (doesn;t help i'm a month past my deadline, still less than halfway done) the insights on building up character and world *around* violence, and keeping violence to a minimum to give it maximum impact, as well as the note that torture scenes, after showing it explicitly, need to be implied or exhaust the audience and therefore interest in your story. This was super helpful, thanks! Keep up the good work my dude!
Have to admit my opinion Keanu has played in alot more action movies sn is good at it. Cruz i only know of him for top gun which was ok not my type of movie though.
I think I disagree on stunts specifically, because of the more grounded nature of them. They were still spectacular, but they fit the films in a way that always felt like it pushed the story and character building. I think it's important to note if bond is hurt in a stunt often it feels like its gone the next scene, but bourne actually pays for the stunts and shows the injuries accumulated over the films. I guess at best a tie could have been taken, because of the just awe inspiring nature of Bonds. Ahh, the beauty of different values at play. Great video.
imo death proof is a evidence on the fact that even tarantino used bad pacing. the movie is so slow and filled with unnecessary scenes which dont benefit anything at all
I didn't understand this scene can you explain? : it’s funny you don’t remember I wrote a poem for a girl once She wrote her name on it and gave it to other boyfriend 1:33:25
Excellent analysis. My only issue is that if you're going to base your analysis on the films, Hannibal Rising needs to be included, despite Anthony Hopkins not being in it. It would certainly flesh out the diagnosis section.
@BirdsEyeViewMedia I don't know if it would significantly change the overall diagnosis, but exploring Hannibal's formative years would flesh out any possible causes for the behavior. I was just surprised that it wasn't included since it's considered cannon.
@@buckyhate7695 It certainly might have, but if I open the all media that's cannon box I'd be drowning in the show and books! Interestingly, there are some serial killers without any clinical trauma in their pasts. Some presentations of ASPD have a genetic component.
I have toagree with you. The pacing trend has shifted. But I feel the solution ckuld be in the dialog. I aee more films with dialig with nothing to say.As Robert McKee says.
I dont think you understand what pacing is and in fact I doubt you have ever shot a narrative. You are confusing repetition of information, the length of a scene , the rhythm of editing and actual pacing, which is the selection of scene length, mostly by the screenwriter, to emphasise the importance of certain moments in the story while cutting secondary stuff short, so that they appear to be such. For very important but naturally short events (such as a person being shot for example), pacing is faked by shooting extra coverage so that the editor can make a long visual introduction to the important moment. Being a cinefile and a filmmaker are two different tings mate.
"Pacing can be thought of as the tempo of a narrative. Narrative pacing may result in a story being called slow or fast-paced. Pacing may also be referred to as an indicator of quality, as in “that film was perfectly paced” or “that story had awful pacing.” Do you agree with this definition?
