I wondered why they said that they lost Tank when he obviously survived the first movie... maybe this is why. nothings had complained that the Link subplot was pointless, but it turns out it just feels that way because it's a (poor) patch.
Current Music:Robert Fripp and the League of Crafty Guitarists - Aspiration
Yeah, I dunno. I'd heard some of this--not that it was about salary negotiations, although I'd assumed that.
The thing is, either they already had a similar subplot for Tank--which I'm not sure would have worked--or somehow the introduction of the new character, they felt they had to give him some extra face time so we could get to know him? (Despite not knowing Tank all that well.) And either way it doesn't really feel necessary to me.
Most likely, as I think I said, the point of this is to give us a personal attachment in Zion, someone to care about instead of just the nameless masses. Or, possibly, it's to give us someone who will be killed in the third movie.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
syntheid
no subject
Date: 2003-05-20 01:34 pm (UTC)The thing is, either they already had a similar subplot for Tank--which I'm not sure would have worked--or somehow the introduction of the new character, they felt they had to give him some extra face time so we could get to know him? (Despite not knowing Tank all that well.) And either way it doesn't really feel necessary to me.
Most likely, as I think I said, the point of this is to give us a personal attachment in Zion, someone to care about instead of just the nameless masses. Or, possibly, it's to give us someone who will be killed in the third movie.