>>86452673>but it's apparently hard to balance the preachiness and good story telling.
That's because you should never preach. Period. One should always push for thinking, not preaching a side.
It takes me back to two films that drop at the same time in 96 with similar narratives but had such drastic story telling differences where one was comically bad and the other thought provoking:
Eye for and Eye and Dead Man Walking
Both were about brutal violence to children, the court system, religion and the trails we face with the evil ever present in this world.
Dead Man Walking, ask if the world is broken as well as beg if we can even fix it, it floods the whole film in greys only in brief moments can we see truths but not enough to feel comfortable with the outcome, only to pause and reflect on events that fell on the cast.
Eye for an Eye however is a hamfisted message of the authors that is so preachy it can be summarized as "bad people get away with everything, you are justified to entrap them and kill them"
I bring this up because as strange as this sounds Chelsea's writing is very similar to the formula of the film Eye for an Eye, which is "I'm right, the world is wrong, here let me grab the straw needed to prove it"