@Matchstick said:
@WDW said:
@Matchstick said:
So putting a woman in a red top with a jacket is a WW reference? You're trying to read way too much into that. The reason no one else caught it is because there is nothing to catch.
LOL art in all its forms is SPECIFICALLY designed so people extract meaning from it. By definition you are supposed to read deeply into artistic creations and find hidden meanings. Art is not random like you are implying. Same principle applyes to film making which is an art form.
Costume elements are SPECIFICALLY picked by the costume department/director or someone in all movies and TV. All costumes that characters wear have some meaning. Some have specific meaning some more general but nothing is random.
Someone went and picked a red top with gold trim including visible vertical seams and dark blue pants all elements and the general style of Wonder Womens costume.
The argument can also be made that the black and red symbolise a Black Widow spider which is also black and red but the addition of the gold and dark blue pants make me believe he was also pulling off a reference to is work on a wonder woman script.
Anyway, the color combination/Style was not a random choice. I would also like to add that RED is a very intense color and almost always has a signifigant meaning anytime its used in art and costumes.
That combined with the fact that Joss worked passionatly on a Wonder Woman script for years and had it rejected by Warner Bros. Makes me believe it wasnot picked by accident.
If it was just a red top and a jacket then you have a point but still its not a random choice it means something.
Who says nobody caught it? Anyway, this reference was not ment to be easily caught by fans and audiences its very subtle. It probably was his own personal message/statement that he can refer to years down line maybe in an interview or simply leave as is.
Artists do this sort of thing all the time. Leonardo Di Vinci comes to mine.
Take it or leave it I am just point out what I see as someone who works in the industry. Could I be wrong? of course I could. But honestly art is ment to be deeply appreciated.
You're entire theory is still based on a very thin assumption on your part. Sure you could be correct, but the evidence you present is very circumstancial and unconvincing. The heavy odds are that you are simply reading too much into this and are looking for evidence to support your claim rather than letting the evidence lead you to a conclusion. Fans have a tendancy to over analyze things and make claims that most times turn out to be false. Pulp Fiction is a prime example of this. In trying to explain what was in the brief case some fans saw the band aid on the back of Ving Rhames' neck and assumed there was a much deaper meaning behind it. They developed a whole theory about Rhames' character selling his soul and the band aid was to cover where the soul left the body. In trying to explain the contents of the briefcase they assumed it was a soul and further assumed a backstory for how it got there based on the band aid. Turns out the band aid was there for strictly cosmetic reasons and it had nothing to do with the plot. This is most likely the case here.
I think you are missing the whole
point. I am starting with
a FACT and using that FACT to
establish an observation. I am not trying to prove
anything or convince you at all
since nothing I am saying can be proven unless
Joss clarifies. Joss would say
yes you caught that or no it has nothing to do
with Wonder Woman.... But he
would also add the exact reason why the clothing
choice was made. It would not be
random like you are suggesting.
Its not that you disagree with me
you can do that no problem. Its that you think looking at hidden meanings in
art is meaningless and that art is static and what exists on the surface is all
there is.
The FACT it every detail of a
film set is specifically
chosen for a reason. If you do
not understand that then you can't possibly
understand what I am saying.
If you understand that props
colors designs and etc are
chosen for a reason to a high
degree of detail especially in big budget films
then it's not a stretch to
analyze any character based on simple clothing
choice or any other thing you see
on screen, like I am doing.
Now, I noticed a strong
correlation in color combination and
design in this particular scene with
Black Widow and came to my conclusion based on my knowledge of
set design. If any one of the
factors was off (say she had black pants instead
of blue or no gold in her top or
another director was involved then I probably
would not have spotted anything.
I am not saying I am 100%
correct. I am saying that it is
something that is common in film
making and art and if I ever got the chance I would
ask Joss about it.
Now, regarding Pulp Fiction.
Speculation about the Band-Aid
is completely warranted. It's not
just fan nonsense. Why? because everything in
film is done for a reason.... The
band aid was partly a cosmetic solution and
also served as a visual prop.
Ving has razor bumps in that area but instead of
simply putting makeup over or
avoiding neck shots, Tarantino chose to use a Band-Aid. He could have handled the situation a number of ways but instead uses a bandaid. Thats not a strict cosmetic solution in the age of special effects makeup. it was purposfully used.
which actually serves to make the
character MR WALLACE more interesting and he
was successful in that regard.
You trivialize the act of reading
into a movie or film.
which is actually the opposite of
what you should do if you really appreciate
the film you are watching. Sure
you can just sit back and enjoy a movie without
understanding anything about
movie making and still be entertained there is no problem with that. But
honestly I think I should have posted this on a critical review website rather
than comicvine. my mistake LOL. sorry
Log in to comment