A Question of Remakes

**EvilNed** · 18-Apr-2006

"Yeah, but you haven't shown how Stephen has developed"

I did earlier, maybe you missed it. Anyway, go read my old posts.

"And, I've shown how Michael changes and that he has backstory. Both come from that scene at the dinner table. As I've said a couple of times, it doesn't matter that it didn't come at the beginning of the film--it's still there."

No damnit. Seriously, this is getting so old. You haven't proven one thing about Michael. You claim to say that you've proven that he changes... Where does he change? I'll tell you where, before the film even starts. During the entire film, Michael does not ever change. That's where you're wrong, but I doubt you'll realize it.

If you mean "develop" as in, tell us a bit more about him. Then yes, there is a scene where we get to know Michael's backstory. But if you mean "develop" as in evolve and change, then that's just wrong. I'm sorry, I'm sorry but you're wrong. Michael doesn't ever change. I asked you to provide me with how he changed, name a few scenes where he does so and then relate them to each other. But until you've done that, you haven't proven anything (despite your claims to the contrary).

"Not quite. That's a matter of your own personal experience. And, as I've pointed out before, I think alot of fans confuse familiarity with the characters with character development. They've seen the same film countless times over the years, and have become very familiar with those characters and have found them likeable. That doesn't make them developed."

True, it is a matter of my personal taste. A taste shared with 90% of the people who have seen both films, but yes still my taste. But what's not my taste, is the fact that we spend more time with Stephen, we watch him develop as a character and we get to know him. With Michael, we get to know him because he tells us. But that's it. That's very poor screenwriting.

"Stephen is the main character who binds the entire story together in terms of plot and social commentary. 90% of it revolves around him. Peter is a more popular character, sure...but he's not the main character. In effect, he's even more 2 dimensional than Stephen, and reflects GAR's poor screenwriting skills. He's basically "Shaft" in SWAT coveralls, and is a manifestation of GAR's tendency to put whatever is trendy in his flicks."

As I said, Peter is as much needed as Stephen is. Stephen binds the characters together, but once they arrive at the mall the film could definetly have gone on without him. The film won't go anywhere without Peter.

And as for your pointless rant at the end, where you seem to think yourself superior because you opened a book once and misinterpreted the phrase "character development", I'm not even going to answer it because it has nothing to do with this debate.

**~~Svengoolie~~** · 18-Apr-2006

I did earlier, maybe you missed it. Anyway, go read my old posts.

Uh, no you didn't. The same character manifesting the same character trait in different ways doesn't count as "development". See the definition of "character development" for details.

No damnit. Seriously, this is getting so old. You haven't proven one thing about Michael. You claim to say that you've proven that he changes... Where does he change? I'll tell you where, before the film even starts. During the entire film, Michael does not ever change. That's where you're wrong, but I doubt you'll realize it.

If you mean "develop" as in, tell us a bit more about him. Then yes, there is a scene where we get to know Michael's backstory. But if you mean "develop" as in evolve and change, then that's just wrong. I'm sorry, I'm sorry but you're wrong. Michael doesn't ever change. I asked you to provide me with how he changed, name a few scenes where he does so and then relate them to each other. But until you've done that, you haven't proven anything (despite your claims to the contrary).

See my old posts where I talk about how we don't have to see Michael's loserness to acknowledge it for details.

True, it is a matter of my personal taste. A taste shared with 90% of the people who have seen both films, but yes still my taste. But what's not my taste, is the fact that we spend more time with Stephen, we watch him develop as a character and we get to know him. With Michael, we get to know him because he tells us. But that's it. That's very poor screenwriting.

Maybe 90% of the GAR fans posting here feel that way...but rest assured the rest of the world doesn't see it that way.

Stephen doesn't develop at all. He simply manifests his own selfishness in different ways.

As for getting to know Michael because he tells us about himself...that's not poor. It's a common device that's been used both in writing and in real life since the dawn of time. It's not poor screenwriting...but, what we got wasn't Shakesperian, either. I'd say it's mediocre....but it's still better than we ever got out of GAR.

As I said, Peter is as much needed as Stephen is. Stephen binds the characters together, but once they arrive at the mall the film could definetly have gone on without him. The film won't go anywhere without Peter.

Regardless, Stephen is still the main character in terms of plot and social commentary. Peter might be useful to the group, but it doesn't make him the main character. You're about as ignorant of the technical concept of the "main character" as you are the term "character development".

And as for your pointless rant at the end, where you seem to think yourself superior because you opened a book once and misinterpreted the phrase "character development", I'm not even going to answer it because it has nothing to do with this debate.

I never misrepresented the term "character development". In fact, my repeated explainations of that term are spot on. You're just too ignorant to understand it and apply it correctly to what we're discussing here.

What you're doing is looking for good things to say and ways to defend a film you really enjoy by trying to use terms that really don't apply to what you're talking about--in effect, you're talking outta your a$$. You're confusing popularity and likeablity with "character development" and the concept of the film's main character. Character Development and Main Character are technical terms not connected to popularity or likeability.

But, at least now you're acting like a "true fan" by getting confrontational when I asked you to explain the social commentary behind the original.

**EvilNed** · 18-Apr-2006

But, at least now you're acting like a "true fan" by getting confrontational when I asked you to explain the social commentary behind the original.

For your information, I ignored that part because it has nothing to do with this debate. If anything, it tells me your feeling your losing this argument and is trying to steer clear of it. Why would I want to explain the social commentary behind the original? I watch it because I like the characters. They're well developed.

But you sure proved yourself as a great debater when you got confrontational when I asked you to elaborate on Michael's so called "developed" character.

Nice going. Besides, you've been pretty confrontational throughout this entire debate, so excuse me if I'm not to shook up by your attack.

Anyway, I think we've safely established that Michael isn't developed at all, or at least not in the sense you think he is. Because development occurs onscreen, during the running time of the film. Michael is the exact same character the first time we see him as the last. Can you deny this?

But yes, there is one scene where Michael tells us about his past. There is one single scene, admist the zombie hordes, blackouts and crunchy buses that Michael, in about thirty seconds, lays forth everything that is to know about his character... Even though he is a MAIN character. Yes, that is poor development.

As for Stephen being the main character: As I said, without Peter there is no movie. It's Peter who runs the whole thing. Stephen is needed in the beginning for the sole reason to bind the gang together. But it's Peter who drives the movie forward.

**~~Svengoolie~~** · 18-Apr-2006

For your information, I ignored that part because it has nothing to do with this debate. If anything, it tells me your feeling your losing this argument and is trying to steer clear of it. Why would I want to explain the social commentary behind the original? I watch it because I like the characters. They're well developed.

Nope. I already won the argument a long time ago. Now, you're just embarrassing yourself while demonstrating your ignorance. Once again.

But you sure proved yourself as a great debater when you got confrontational when I asked you to elaborate on Michael's so called "developed" character. Nice going. Besides, you've been pretty confrontational throughout this entire debate, so excuse me if I'm not to shook up by your attack.

More bs. You took it to a personal level a long time ago when you started with your "Get real" crap.

I explained how Michael was well developed in the context of the definition of "character development" several times. Just as I showed you how Stephen didn't develop at all. You simply haven't read what I posted.

Anyway, I think we've safely established that Michael isn't developed at all, or at least not in the sense you think he is. Because development occurs onscreen, during the running time of the film. Michael is the exact same character the first time we see him as the last. Can you deny this?

Actually, I can deny it.

You haven't established anything beyond your own ignorance to the technical terms of screenwriting I've tried to educate you in.

I've already told you repeatedly that it doesn't matter that we didn't actually see his loserness durring the running time of the film. He told us in his own dialogue, and that was enough.

He goes from being a loser (off-screen) to being a survivor to being a leader of the survivors over the course of the film. That's development.

Stephen stays exactly the same selfish jerk from the beginning of the original to the end. No change.

But yes, there is one scene where Michael tells us about his past. There is one single scene, admist the zombie hordes, blackouts and crunchy buses that Michael, in about thirty seconds, lays forth everything that is to know about his character... Even though he is a MAIN character. Yes, that is poor development.

I think I've said at least five times over the course of this exchange that Michael's development isn't great. In fact, I think it's mediocre, at best. But, it's still more than we got from GAR's "Stephen".

Yet another concept you've been unable to grasp...even though I've been forced to type it over and over again.

As for Stephen being the main character: As I said, without Peter there is no movie. It's Peter who runs the whole thing. Stephen is needed in the beginning for the sole reason to bind the gang together. But it's Peter who drives the movie forward.

Peter is not the main character of the original. Stephen is. He ties it all together in terms of plot and social commentary. Peter is clearly the more POPULAR character, and is more resourceful in the story, but Stephen is the main character. Peter's popularity and resourcefullness have nothing to do with the technicalities of the screenwriting.

You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of those technical aspects, even when they're explained to you over and over and over again.

I'd lay five to one that you're in your teens...early twenties, tops. Am I right, Ned?

**Craig** · 18-Apr-2006

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...ition&ct=title

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_development

I know these aren't the most reliable sources but both definitions suggest that Sven has the point...

**~~Svengoolie~~** · 18-Apr-2006

Thanks for the links, Craig. Those explain what I'm getting at rather well with all this.

Like I said, a character's likeablity or popularity has no bearing on whether or not he's developed, or whether he's the main character of the piece.

For example, let's take a quick look at "Goodfellas" to illustrate what I'm talking about in terms of the "Main Character".

In that film, Henry Hill (played by Ray Liota) is the main character...but, Tommy DeVito (played by Joe Pesci) and Jimmy Conway (played by Robert DeNiro) are more memorable; and over the course of the story it can be argued that they're more resourceful than Henry (especially Jimmy).

I bet more people quote lines and remember Joe Pesci's antics in that one than they do Ray Liotta's....but that doesn't change the fact that Henry Hill is still the main character of that film.

Same thing with Dawn. Although Peter is more popular, likeable, and resourceful in the story...Stephen is the main character and brings the entire piece together in terms of plot and social commentary. It doesn't matter that he's a selfish coward, or that he wouldn't have been able to secure the mall without Peter...he's still the Main Character.

**EvilNed** · 18-Apr-2006

Originally Posted by Craig

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...ition&ct=title

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_development

I know these aren't the most reliable sources but both definitions suggest that Sven has the point...

Thanks for proving my point.

As you see Sven, Michael doesn't develop throughout the entire film. His development is complete when the film begins. Doesn't look like you want to back your side up, so I'll just assume that this argument is over.

**~~Svengoolie~~** · 18-Apr-2006

Actually, he does.

He goes from being just a TV salesman at Best Buy (which we learn fairly early in the film) to being one of the survivors (in the immediate aftermath of the zombie apocalypse) to being the de-facto leader of the survivors.

When we learn about what a loser he was in the last third of the film, that development becomes all the more clear. He's able to excel and realize his full potential after the dead rise, even in his personal life when he strikes up a relationship with Ana.

The backstory and development doesn't have to be shown in a linear or chronological way for it to still be in effect. It doesn't even have to be shown onscreen, and can be revealed through dialogue. In fact, probably half to three quarters of all character development is revealed that way.

The development, however minimal, is still there...and it still puts his character light years ahead of Stephen from the original.

The only point proven here is that you don't know what you're talking about...as I've been saying all along.

But you ARE right--the argument is over. And you lost. If this was the same "geared up" argument you presented at the IMDB boards then even those boneheads must've laughed you off the board....

**Danny** · 18-Apr-2006

woah there thats like a threee page argument,lol.

**EvilNed** · 18-Apr-2006

Thank you Svengoolie for providing me with these facts. To bad they don't nullify what I've said all along: When we meet Michael for the first time he is the exact same character he is in the last scene. His development is zero. Nada. You see something that isn't there. Just because Michael has a backstory and shares it with us, doesn't mean he evolves. He is the leader throughout the entire film. Whatever development he had, occured before the film even started.

Even though your attempts to win this one over by claiming I've lost, it doesn't really matter. Until you actually provide us with something concrete and where Michael actually evolves, you've got nothing. If you think that your argument is saved from the sole fact that Michael mentions he has a past which doesn't fit with his current position or character (which he retains throughout the film), then I'm not so sure you're really so hot on what "character development" means yourself.

Oh well.

**~~Svengoolie~~** · 18-Apr-2006

That was as weak as the rest of your argument, Ned.

I've demonstrated that you have no concept of what character development is, and even the links that Craig provided show this as well...so now your entire stance has become just a variation of "I know you are but what am I!"

You lost, kiddie. You don't know what you're talking about.

Now, what about that social commentary?