Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×

More from deviantART



Details

Submitted on
March 30, 2013
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
152
Favourites
1 (who?)
Comments
13
×
Not a tirade about nuclear weapons, before you ask.

Since I apparently live in a vacuum, I only just saw a trailer for the new GI Joe movie today, and only because it kept showing up when I was trying to read articles on Mass Effect wiki. I can't lie, it doesn't much appeal to me - it seems to be trying to be more 'realistic' then the last, when what I liked about the first one was that is was quite stupid and therefore amusing. So yeah, no Bruce Willis for me.

One thing that caught my eye, however, was a certain scene. Specifically, the destruction of London to some kind of improbable Earthquake missile thing.

Being the nationalist sod I am, my first reaction was to tut and shake my head and say 'those blasted colonials, why can't they blow up their own cities, what?' But then I started thinking. The original movie got some flak from the French for destroying the Eiffel Tower, an event which is basically used to wow the audience and introduce a plot element the characters and audience already knew about - after this, it and the hundreds of presumably dead French citizens are never mentioned again. A similiar thing happens in Modern Warfare 3 (with the unfortunate implication that the French and Germans need America to do 90% of the heavy lifting, but that's not what we're here to talk about.)

So, why did the French complain?

The answer is simple - in both examples, the Tower was destroyed and Paris made a war zone, with absolutely no bearing to the wider plot. It could have been any other city in earth and it wouldn't have made any difference. It could have been Chicago. It could have Seattle. It could have been Nashville.

The complaint is not that it's destruction - it's that it's pointless destruction. It's simply there to fill up the trailer and entice the viewing public.

Is there anything wrong with that? I don't know. I object to London's destruction because I feel attachment to it and because I know people who live there. If it is to be destroyed in a work of fiction, then the destruction must mean something to the overall story.

And as I say this, I bat not an eyelash to the Eiffel Tower falling down.

Anyway, what do you think?
  • Mood: Bemused
  • Listening to: See above
  • Reading: My journal.
  • Watching: The screen.
  • Playing: Mass Effect 3
  • Eating: Food.
  • Drinking: Drink.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconknightfall44:
Knightfall44 Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Frankly, it seems a little wrong, yes, because we're trivializing mass destruction. But at the same time, it's a dramatic tool used to up the tension.
Reply
:icone350tb:
E350tb Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
True, but if it's never mentioned again and has no real impact on the cast, then there is no dramatic tension. They may as well have destroyed one of those 1950's nuke mock-up towns.
Reply
:iconknightfall44:
Knightfall44 Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
This is also very true...so it's pretty much glorifying destruction for no real purpose.
Reply
:iconorange-octopi:
Orange-Octopi Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2013
Meh, it's just fictional destruction, so it doesn't reeeeeally bother me... but they could go about it better, like how in the Avengers they have the scene at the end with the news reports about how many people died, and you see the memorials and shrines that have been set up. That was done well, and it only took, what, two minutes of the moved tagged to the end? Anyone could do that.
Reply
:icone350tb:
E350tb Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
That was done well, and it only took, what, two minutes of the moved tagged to the end? Anyone could do that.
Exactly. Unfortunately, a lot of directors/writers/ect are too stingy with time/money to do that.
Reply
:iconorange-octopi:
Orange-Octopi Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2013
It can't take that much money to recreate a new story, the news stations do it several times a day!
Reply
:iconel-thorvaldo:
El-Thorvaldo Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
It's probably a Hollywood trend, symptomatic of a US-centric worldview. They want to showcase the 'exotic', but damned if it's a segue into any meaningful cultural exposition! It's like in "Aliens of London", how the Doctor dismisses the UFO crash taking out Big Ben as a cheap show.

It frustrates me just as much, and it's something that's ever at the front of my mind in DYOS (there is a lot to be said about CG sticking the Slottet in Moscow). One of my main motivations for dragging Krieger into Part II was to establish a personal connection to the situation in Germany, lest certain people dumb it down to Hickten et al. (Same thing with Czciborycz & Poland, but I haven't really had the time to flesh that out yet.)
Reply
:icone350tb:
E350tb Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
It frustrates me just as much, and it's something that's ever at the front of my mind in DYOS (there is a lot to be said about CG sticking the Slottet in Moscow).
I must admit, I'm a bit guilty of doing it there as well - Sydney comes to mind. =P Trying to improve, through.

One of my main motivations for dragging Krieger into Part II was to establish a personal connection to the situation in Germany, lest certain people dumb it down to Hickten et al. (Same thing with Czciborycz & Poland, but I haven't really had the time to flesh that out yet.)
I might do something like that myself, if I ever get back to X.5.
Reply
:iconel-thorvaldo:
El-Thorvaldo Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I must admit, I'm a bit guilty of doing it there as well - Sydney comes to mind. =P
Ah, but I justified that with Deaconescu! :meow:
Reply
:iconvader999:
Vader999 Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2013
It's like when Bay destroys the Lincoln monument or the Statue of Liberty getting destroyed or besieged in many COD knockoffs. It's just cheap pandering.
Reply
Add a Comment: