Creator Misinterpreting Their Own Creation

[PainInTheAssInternet]

I watched the special features for the movie The Lost World: Jurassic Park. It's basically a run-down of how the movie was made from start to finish. Amongst the many cool inside looks into the making of this movie, Spielberg himself made a comment that sticks out at me. Basically, he said Malcolm was not a tourist like he was in the first one and had a significant influence over the plot this time around.

All I can respond with is "what movie did he watch?"

Malcolm is almost entirely inconsequential to the plot in TLW. In almost every instance, the plot is moved forward by the hunters or the real villains of the movie; Nick Van Owen and Sarah Harding. Malcolm spends his time on site attempting to call in an extraction for the team and is unsuccessful in that meagre goal since he doesn't even know the frequency of their radio. When the trailers are attacked (thanks to Van Owen and Harding), Malcolm's presence doesn't make any difference since Eddie becomes the driving force on whether they live or die. It's debatable whether or not Sarah would have died, but Van Owen could have saved her if he didn't focus on the satellite phone. The group is later sieged upon by the Rex thanks to everyone's collective idiocy regarding a blood-soaked vest. The hunters tell them where the radio tower was and ultimately Van Owen, and not Malcolm, is the one who succeeds in radioing for help.

The only time he really makes a difference is back in San Diego, and even then he's just doing what Harding is telling him to do.

So what instances can you think of where the author seems to be incorrect about their own work?

 

[Vault101]

So what instances can you think of where the author seems to be incorrect about their own work?

also isnt the whole enviromentalist messgae undermines by the fact that the "good guys" are complete fucking idiots and the poachers seem to know what they are doing?


I don't think this is "misinterperetin" your own work...thats pretty much impossible

this is "what you intended to show" and "what you actually showed" conflicting

take for example Patch Addams (sorry Robin Williams) we are suposed to see this as a whimsical and spirited conflict with authority....what we see instead is a guy who should not be doing half the shit he does

for example philip seymour hoffmans charachter says in regards to accusitng Patch of cheating "you have the highest marks yet we never see you study" and Patch looks utterly shocked and disgusted

...well..ya know HE HAS A POINT

 

[Prime_Hunter_H01]

It's less that they are wrong but your mind fills in what you know. So if they managed to mess up showing the plot it makes sense to them because they created it therefore they have all those missing details in their own mind and their mind fills them in as they watch. Its like if you have ever known a person who is a bad communicator (I am guilty of this myself) and they say something but a lot of their meaning is left unsaid so in their mind it makes sense where as they might as well have said nothing at all because the person they are talking to didn't get the whole story.

So I would less say that he is wrong but he can explain from intent, where as it sometimes take other people to explain from reality.

In fact many things like plot holes and bad/shallow characters could be a result of intent unsuccessfully translating in to execution. And baffling comments from the creator, like your example, can show where this was the case.

snip

ah so you beat me to typing the same thing

 

[Vault101]

It's less that they are wrong but your mind fills in what you know. So if they managed to mess up showing the plot it makes sense to them because they created it therefore they have all those missing details in their own mind and their mind fills them in as they watch. Its like if you have ever known a person who is a bad communicator (I am guilty of this myself) and they say something but a lot of their meaning is left unsaid so in their mind it makes sense where as they might as well have said nothing at all because the person they are talking to didn't get the whole story.

also the fact that movies are massive projects made by many people...its a wonder they turn out anything cohearant at all

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I'd still say that apart from the Hunters, Ian Malcolm was definitely the most level headed person on the Island. He only came to find Sarah and planned to leave immediately afterwords. The dude had a firsthand experience with a T. Rex and knows how dangerous the place is. But everyone around him is a complete moron.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

I agree with OP. Malcom was the viewpoint character/audience surrogate (Both him and anyone in the audience who's seen the first film knows what's going down when they get to the island). Hammond only got him to go when he mentioned Malcom's girlfriend was already there. He really could have been left out of the movie and nothing major would have changed, other than a dire lack of Jeff Goldblum. The movie only focused on him, so we would have a returning character.

I can't think of many more examples, and don't really want to mention the ones on my mind, since the fan outcry is becoming a broken record. I'll come back with some juicy ones if I go on a tvtropes binge, or something smacks me in the face in the form of a Cracked (or other humor site) article.