They make creative decisions that reflect their views of how to best tell the story and hope the audience agrees.
While that is definitely true, there will always be outside pressure, whether it's from the studio, study groups, or test screenings on a random audience. It can be a more symbiotic relationship. If it were really true that a majority of people weren't jiving with it, you'd think that at least the creators would listen and consider it (I'm not sure that's the case though).
It just seems a strange response though when someone says, "I'd like this," and others jump in to say, "Sorry, but the writers are gonna do what they're gonna do," or basically, "fuck what you want."
This seems a really strange (and condescending) thing to say. The purpose isn't to confuse, it's to immerse.
I don't know how that's at all condescending.
I wasn't the one to suggest that it's confusion. People here were saying that confusion was a large part of the immersion.
It's the difference between Civil War reeanactments and real battle. The reeanactment is scripted, sterile, and slow. It's just a depiction (because who really wants to volunteer to die or be disfigured?
). There's time for someone viewing it to take it in, think, and analyze (there's where they made their mistake; that's the turning point), but it's not real.
Real battle is spontaneous, very real, and happens very fast. The outcome is not certain. Whether an act on the battle field is a mistake or inspired move is problematic. There is little time to think. It's mostly reacting. There's little time for analysis. The battle takes on a life of its own, and the level of confusion is high. If a director wants to give the audience a real taste of battle, those things must be conveyed. He's not diliberately trying to confuse to audience. He's conveying the reality of the moment to them.