4/1/2023 0 Comments Subvert expectations meaning![]() ![]() People assumed the king of the dead would be killed by Jon Snow, a traditional, valiant man trained as a soldier to defend the living while Daenerys would overthrow the queen with her dragons. The two longest lasting plot threads with antagonists in the show were an army of resurrected dead attacking the living, and overthrowing the cruel monarch of Westeros. The series is infamous for killing main characters before they can conclude their arc as a result of other people's plans. Will that have much meaning to the audience? Not really.Īnswer: The other comments answer pretty well but to add a little background for those further OoTL, Game of Thrones and its source books A Song of Ice and Fire are known for being interesting because they don't follow typical fantasy plot tropes.Ĭhapters are often not told from the perspective of leaders and the classical hero doesn't always win. Arya's entire arc was built around a revenge plot against the people who's intrigues killed her father. Not only is it just a plot twist, it's a plot twist with little to no buildup. However, when there are no guidelines for expectation, swapping A for B is not subversion, it's just a plot twist. The audience expectation creates a guide to why the Cersei/Robert/Jaime relationship is so wrong and why it's so tantalizing to read and watch. ![]() Instead of being romantic and tragic, it's lusty and sordid. For example, the Cersei/Robert/Jaime relationship is a subversion of Guinevere/Arthur/Lancelot/Morgana relationship. Now, the books and the early episodes are good because George RR Martin (GRRM) knows what he's doing when it comes to subversion. 'Subversion', especially the last few years, is being used to justify plot twists in which the viewer or reader expected A but got B instead. smfh.Answer: let me start by saying that I'm more familiar with the books than the show. ![]() Not only did you fuck up the thing you were trying to be clever about you didn't even recognize that your approach fundamentally clashes with job you were given to do. **This is itself, even more childish than botching a subversion, as there is a great argument that the traditional structure is the entire point of Star Wars and the source of its cultural power and longevity. because you needed some antagonist who could be plopped into 9 to give the retroactive impression that something, anything, really had been going on the whole time. From that point on, 9 had to start and end a brand new conflict without the ability to make sense out of the larger context in which it was placed. It more or less invalidated/rendered unimportant every single thing in TFA (and it's own first two acts). It said, clearly, things have just been happening for no rhyme or reason and no explanation is coming. Him dying without serving that role disintegrates everything. He was structurally critical to explaining what is this story about, How is it happening, and why is it happening. Snoke didn't need to be anyone specific, but his position in the context was required to illuminate what the FO (or really anyone) was trying to do. only the first one got subverted and the second one was left hanging in the wind and with it - the ability for the ST to have any coherent single story or narrative. The problem is that RJ didn't realize or didn't care that Snoke represented TWO expectations. the audience expected him to be pivotal (because he was positioned as such structurally). Essentially, many of TLJ Subversions burned down the ST narrative around it for the sake of surprise (or the sake of a hipster inclination to give SW a post structural treatment**) and offered nothing to replace what was expected. Many if not all of the subversions in TLJ paid little heed to the preceding material or the requirements they highlighted for the story in process. you still have to attend those sources of expectation and you still have to meet your narrative requirements and responsibilities. To subvert them successfully and in a way that is meaningful and constructive to the story. If there's a consensus expectation it's because the story has informed it. Subverting expectations can be tricky because the expectations are real and they are set by the story as it goes along. ![]() not 'subverting expectations' in a general sense, but rather specifically the narratively disastrous things in TLJ that were often defended as 'subverting expectations' That's what most people are referring to. many of which were poorly executed subversions to audience expectations. On this sub "subverting expectations" has kind of become a neologism /shorthand referring to a bunch of horrifically bad decisions in TLJ. Subverting expectations isn't bad (and contrary to what seems to be common believe it's not automatically good or meritorious either). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |