A question I have to ask is, “Was the clip supposed to be poking fun at Jonathan Blow, and his somewhat pretentious, borderline obsessive, level of wanting to completely control the way that people perceived his game?” I don’t think it was, and that’s a whole other issue. There is never any counter point even hinted at in the movie.
Another chance for risk averted; never show your subjects in any light that might make their sense of world space and importance seem the slightest bit wrong. I think some in the audience really paying attention to Jonathan Blow gets that he is kind of off; he sounds self-important and really into his own thing. But avoiding some real conflict by actually allowing Phil Fish’s old business partner to be in the movie and perhaps making Phil look any less right in his unhinged anger just, again, feels too fucking safe.
One of the big things that I loved about the movie, and the follow up Q & A session, was having Danielle McMillen featured to at least some extent. It really struck a chord with me, what with being recently married and coming home daily from my big developer job to create art for a then hobby game project and working hard on design ideas every night. Seeing Danielle in the movie gave me some hope, because everyone else seemed very alone, and seeing a relationship that could stand the test of insane development days was one of the genuinely inspiring points in the movie.
But as my wife pointed out, even that part was fairly lacking. A few choice words are highlighted about only seeing the back of Edmund’s head and if Danielle wasn’t happy, that she should go, but there is a greater story there, I’m sure of it, and the movie just quietly glosses over everything without allowing Danielle, a very important person in the movie, from actually taking her rightful place among the “stars” as a commentator or otherwise developed piece of the puzzle.