|
Your criticism is that incidental characters look a bit clumsy when they climb into a flying vehicle. This isn't actual criticism. The hangar meanwhile, reflects the conflict going on. It's an austere cavern with level ground so that there's nothing to interrupt the action or characters moving. It's closed and slightly claustrophobic to emphasize the emotions of the character.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
Not so sure of that line, but Lee's performance in the scene where he's talking to Obi Wan is great. The whole "this is a mistake, they've gone too far" bit is even funnier because he's a little flat on it, like Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka saying "stop, don't, come back."
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:Have you possibly considered that this was a creative decision to show that Dooku perhaps isn't buying what he is selling, rather than a weak example of a supposed vast conspiracy of runaway incompetence in filmmaking? So, how many characters in the prequels aren't apparently excused by being awkward, disingenuous, indoctrinated, or emotionless?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 10:10
|
|
|
Also Jerkface is right about the setting; the hangar is dull as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
I think it's a reasonable expectation for a mainstream blockbuster film to communicate its intention clearly. Especially in Star Wars. Considering the amount of exegesis and hermeneutic wrangling necessary in order to redeem the prequels, maybe they're too subtle for its own good (although they're good fodder for a hot take economy). If people think the characters are clunky it's because they're reacting within their horizon of expectations for the genre, and it is in fact the film's and not the audience's fault for failing to expand that horizon. It is an extraordinary expectation to have of the audience, that they do the level of reading that is exhibited in this thread. No blockbuster should be exclusionary to that extent, it completely misses the point of making a blockbuster movie. Also making something boring on purpose is an awful idea. Nothing should be boring in any film, everything should be interesting. And it should earn that interest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:So instead of criticism we get lame riffing. The post you make right after this is some kind of attempt at lame riffing. Thinking it's technically and logically dumb that a laser sword cutting that can cut through anything isn't turned off by three different trained professionals in a hectic and dangerous escape, even after they're away from the threat of blaster fire, is sloppy and idiotic and absolutely should be criticized. If Episode II or III came out on their own there would not have been seven plus episodes of Star Wars, nor would it have had the pop culture impact its had. They would have been the type of movies that paved the way for a single, small budget sequel called Splinter of the Mind's Eye, at best forgotten about as movies with the same writing as Troll 2. Star Wars did not become popular because of "deep" couched motivations coming from the characters which sound like you made them up to prove a point. Movies are an emotional thing, and thus when terms like "it's boring" or "it's not genuine" get thrown around it's because that's what we feel emotionally. To write that off as poor criticism doesn't make sense because most fans of Star Wars do not view it through an objective emotionless lens like a Vulcan. The reason the originals and episode 7 have resonated with people is because they evoke things in our beings that we find pleasurable in a movie - they aren't overly cerebral, depressingly melodramatic, or mindbogglingly complex. A kid has less trouble deciphering what's happening with the Resistance and Republic than they would with the boring political mess spanning the first three episodes. A while back someone tried to 'prove' Episode 7 is an inferior movie because it doesn't get talked about as much as the prequel trilogy -- how does this make any sense? Most of the time the originals are only ever brought up in connection to a discussion about said prequels or this new movie. This is because they stand on their own as movies most of us have accepted range from decent to fantastic. There's no need to overjustify why they're good, or try to 'talk people out' of disliking them - there is security in knowing they're enjoyable rather than an insatiable need to find meaning from every dull hand raise or anything of that sort. Even if this deep heavy handed meaning was intended this doesn't make Lucas any sort of auteur for being so clever - rather it expresses the inability to connect with the masses that made the prequels even possibly by demand. From a filmmaking perspective Lucas either failed by not knowing his audience and using up three episodes of Star Wars to make an overly bloated big budget 'arthouse' film, or he failed by expecting to live up to the spirit set by the original movies with movies so out of tone (and out of touch) that they're become famous in pop culture for being the bad ones (or simply not mentioned at all).
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
Squinty posted:Can you point to exactly where and how he gives the reading a hint of resignation? It's very straightforward: Lee's Dooku is plainly unhappy that he has to fight his old friend, but then blasts lightning at him anyways. BravestOfTheLamps posted:Your criticism is that incidental characters look a bit clumsy when they climb into a flying vehicle. Also, Dooku is consistently associated with darkened rooms lit with small spotlights, creating pools of light that he passes through. His interrogation of Obiwan is lit the same way. This leads to the part filmed entirely in darkness, lit only by the swords - which trumps TFA's neon blue, day-for-night thing. What's interesting is how fans are allegedly getting upset about that the rocks in a cave are brown, that normal speech hides an unknowable alien quality, and things of that sort. You are really fixating on the wrong things. J_RBG posted:I think it's a reasonable expectation for a mainstream blockbuster film to communicate its intention clearly. Especially in Star Wars. Considering the amount of exegesis and hermeneutic wrangling necessary in order to redeem the prequels, maybe they're too subtle for its own good (although they're good fodder for a hot take economy). If people think the characters are clunky it's because they're reacting within their horizon of expectations for the genre, and it is in fact the film's and not the audience's fault for failing to expand that horizon. It is an extraordinary expectation to have of the audience, that they do the level of reading that is exhibited in this thread. No blockbuster should be exclusionary to that extent, it completely misses the point of making a blockbuster movie. This makes sense if you have absolutely no concern for truth. And you should be aware of how you employ the mythical 'general audiences' as a way to avoid speaking truthfully: "I think the characters are clunky because I'm reacting within my horizon of expectations for the genre, and it is in fact the film's and not my fault for failing to expand that horizon. It is an extraordinary expectation to have of me, that I do the level of reading that is exhibited in this thread." [sic] In truth, nobody expects you to do anything. You've done this to yourself. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Jun 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
korusan posted:The post you make right after this is some kind of attempt at lame riffing. Thinking it's technically and logically dumb that a laser sword cutting that can cut through anything isn't turned off by three different trained professionals in a hectic and dangerous escape, even after they're away from the threat of blaster fire, is sloppy and idiotic and absolutely should be criticized. So you're saying that: 1. It's dumb that these space samurai monk don't handle their laser swords professionally 2. If the prequels hadn't followed up extremely popular movies they would've been forgotten. 3. The prequels didn't connect with the masses, which is why they are discussed more than the original movies or TFA. The first is of course riffing. Yeah, it's funny when the stormtrooper hits his head on the door, using, but pointing it out is not criticism. The second is patently obvious. A Star Wars movie is popular because it's part of the Star Wars series? Well duh. The third is a misunderstanding of the controversy around the prequels. Fans have spent more words on how much they hate the prequels than how much they love the original movies or TFA. There were seven years between the last prequel movie and the first Plinkett review, yet that's how long it took for cinematography to enter discussion. And even then it was harnessed only for the purpose of denouncing the prequels. According to you, this is because everyone accepts them as good and thus there needs to be no discussion about them. In other words, there's no real critical thinking to it. This is why some people are baffled when, for example, somebody points out that the heroes are slave owners: they just don't understand these movies. They're products to be consumed, and "criticism" enters the frame when something goes wrong. If the Original Trilogy is remembered because it "connected with the masses", then why are the Prequels remembered even better? The answer to that is that you're partially correct: people only care so much about the Prequels because of the Star Wars brand. People love Star Wars the product, so they wanted more Star Wars to consume. The Prequels, it turns out, is something that fans can't quite digest, so to speak. As long as fans try to consume it, it cannot be digested. The way out of this dilemma is simple: one simply needs to approach these movies critically, and to stop hating the Prequels. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Jun 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Just look at these lines Lee was forced to say in that scene: "You've interfered with our affairs for the last time" "I've become more powerful than any Jedi" "It is obvious that this contest cannot be decided by our knowledge of the Force, but our skills with a Lightsaber" This is the type of poo poo you hear before a boss fight in a video game. As noted, it's a combination of things, the poor line reading, the atrocious dialogue, the bland direction, the fact that they're just staring at eachother while a clearly bored Lee is throwing debris at Yoda. The scene isn't cinematic. To top it off, what happens next is the worst lightsaber duel in the series. We all suspected Yoda didn't have a lightsaber in the OT because it would look dumb. AotC confirmed this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
quote:VADER
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:
You've gone ahead and assumed I hate the prequels. I like most of all the idea behind the prequels, and think if the project was done better it would have been brilliant. As it stands I can see it glimmering through in certain inspired occasions, but then I might find myself disappointed with a confusing plot or a poor bit of dialogue or... The scope is actually tremendous: a three-part blockbuster Wagnerian tragedy (just plain audacious (and the reason why RotS is the best prequel)), the old redeeming the new, the return to origins not actually explaining but complicating what came before(/after). But the best barometer of whether the ambition matches the execution in a blockbuster movie is the clear communication of this intention. It's because it's the most democratic artform, aiming for (ideally speaking) the most people possible. Arthouse films can afford to obfuscate their meaning, because the obfuscation is expected. So the reception of a movie that aims for popularity has to be factored into a discussion on its value. If a blockbuster movie requires an essentially elitist hermeneutic structure to maintain its worth (i.e. it requires exegesis, making appreciation of the films' value incumbent on having access to not just the text but the (massive) con-text) then it has failed according to the audience's expectations. Unless you think a blockbuster's audience expects such movies not to clearly communicate their intention?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:So you're saying that: Lightsabers are giant glowing beams of colored light that draw the eye and cut through the scene's composition. Why is it wrong to pay attention to where the director placed them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Notice that the criticism didn't actually touch upon cinematography. The light-sabres were placed as to draw attention to the characters clambering up into the vehicle. Seems like competent film-making. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Jun 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
The other issue, one I've made note of previously, is that fans fixate on the laser-swords to the exclusion of everything else in the frame. That shot of the jedis climbing into the helicopter is exceedingly well-composed, but the focus is on the enormous helicopter as protective shell. Note the laser-proof bubble highlighted in the background. If you're just staring at the swords, you're confusing yourself. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Jun 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Notice that the criticism didn't actually touch upon cinematography. No it is not, because youre essentially just saying that as long as something exists in the scene and gives you some basic understanding of what is going on that it is fine and there is no inherent difference in quality. This is just untrue. Lets consider an example. Take any john woo shootout from his asian releases and compare it to any of the mid 90s straight to video action movies. The straight to video action movies may convey to you in a scene that there is a shootout going on by showing people shooting guns but that does not mean it is of equal quality to Hard Boiled. Similiarly if someone made a movie where in various scenes characters were holding guns upside down and shooting from the stock instead of the barrel due to shoddy cgi effects work you would not give it a free pass. The john woo films possess an attention to detail and care in how the characters use their weapons and interact with the scenery and that is part of what makes them quality films. The scene of the jedi boarding their ship conveys its basic information while at the same time looking clumsy and stupid especially given how the audience has come to expect lightsabers be handled. They are only ever activated when being used and turned off right after. They cut through anything. They are extremely dangerous to living things. You cannot do certain things you could do with a nornal sword because its so powerful. You cannot have a knight plant his laser sword in the ground and have him lean on it like a medieval knight could with a large sword. It would look ridiculous if that happened. Jedi dont leave the sword on when they sheath it. So you have the main subjects of the scene handling their swords like idiots, in a way that looks bad. It is a lack of attention to detail and care that seems to be present in a lot of these mass lightsaber extras scenes. Now for the most part that IS relegated to the background extras in scenes looking stupid. However this is a not a background shot. It is a few jedi council members who, again, are the main focus of the scene. Something looking stupid or incredulous is absolutely the fault of either direction or cinematography.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
You insist that they all look stupid, but actually just one of them moves rather clumsily because of how she's holding her sword. The others are moving rather smoothly. All this amounts to is a character looking a bit strange in an otherwise well-composed shot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Ok good ive got you to concede one of the main subjects of the scene moves clumsily, and its not even the one holding his sword upside down like its a stick, because he is holding a prop with a long rod installed on it. Now you just need to look into your heart and realise how a scene looks and how the actors move in it is part of the quality of it. These are motion pictures after all. You have savaged rothfuss over the equivalent in your bookbarn thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Jerkface posted:Ok good ive got you to concede one of the main subjects of the scene moves clumsily, and its not even the one holding his sword upside down like its a stick, because he is holding a prop with a long rod installed on it. One of the characters moves rather clumsily. All the others move rather smoothly. The Jedi being helped on board, the clone troopers covering them, it's all good. The composition emphasizes how they're retreating In the Rothfuss thread I intentionally avoid just making jokes and mocking whatever comes up in the text. I'm writing everything in the mind of a final thesis to make people understand the books and thus free them from Rothfuss. Pointing out that the character moves rather clumsily doesn't deepen one's understanding of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Pointing out rothfussian attributes doesnt deepen your understanding of the story either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Yaws posted:Just look at these lines Lee was forced to say in that scene: More "video game" dialogue: Rey: Where am I? Kylo Ren: You're my guest. Rey: Where are the others? Kylo Ren: Do you mean the murderers, traitors and thieves you call friends? You'll be relieved to hear I have no idea. [pause] Kylo Ren: You still want to kill me. Rey: That happens when you're being hunted by a creature in a mask.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:Kylo Ren: You're my guest. Whenever I hear a similar quote, I can't help but think of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tBXcbSFFNk It's stuck in my head, forever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:You've gone ahead and assumed I hate the prequels. I like most of all the idea behind the prequels, and think if the project was done better it would have been brilliant. As it stands I can see it glimmering through in certain inspired occasions, but then I might find myself disappointed with a confusing plot or a poor bit of dialogue or... The scope is actually tremendous: a three-part blockbuster Wagnerian tragedy (just plain audacious (and the reason why RotS is the best prequel)), the old redeeming the new, the return to origins not actually explaining but complicating what came before(/after). But the best barometer of whether the ambition matches the execution in a blockbuster movie is the clear communication of this intention. It's because it's the most democratic artform, aiming for (ideally speaking) the most people possible. Arthouse films can afford to obfuscate their meaning, because the obfuscation is expected. So the reception of a movie that aims for popularity has to be factored into a discussion on its value. If a blockbuster movie requires an essentially elitist hermeneutic structure to maintain its worth (i.e. it requires exegesis, making appreciation of the films' value incumbent on having access to not just the text but the (massive) con-text) then it has failed according to the audience's expectations. Unless you think a blockbuster's audience expects such movies not to clearly communicate their intention? You're operating under a variety of faulty premises - like, for example, this fundamental assertion that fine art is undemocratic. And then, your definition of democracy is a dull populism conflated with majority rule. This is ideology. Art is for the people, and there is nothing in the prequels that is difficult to understand. We have actually witnessed thousands of attempts to escape from what is clearly expressed in the films: that the Jedi are evil, that the droids are slaves. and so-on. To escape this, you imagine that 'elites' are hiding secret messages. Others imagine that there's something wrong with the rocks, there's something wrong with the cadence. They imagine that everything is a computer simulation, like it's the matrix. Just this most recent example: the dissonant image of the supposedly noble Jedi replacing their swords with an imperial helicopter gunship, to rain death from the skies, motivated by self-preservation. Seduction by power. The ship is adorned with tiny death-stars. The Jedi are evil. But the fan fixates on an IMDb goof. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Jun 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Jerkface posted:Pointing out rothfussian attributes doesnt deepen your understanding of the story either. You've misunderstood them, but I guess that's fair since I haven't really explained it well. Rothfussian Attributes are a very specific and recurring phenomenon where descriptors draw attention to themselves and lose all meaning. I pick them out to illustrate a recurring stylistic element, and I specifically isolate them at the end of entries so I don't get bogged down. You're doing the exact opposite by just mocking whatever you see in the text. MonsieurChoc posted:Blind Guardian 
BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Jun 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:You've misunderstood them, but I guess that's fair since I haven't really explained it well. Rothfussian Attributes are a very specific and recurring phenomenon where descriptors draw attention to themselves and lose all meaning. I pick them out to illustrate a recurring stylistic element, and I specifically isolate them at the end of entries so I don't get bogged down. No im pretty sure we all understood why rothfussian attributes were stupid. Use of cgi and their subsequent failure is a recurring element in the prequels. Im sorry but my pointing out the poor direction of that scene is equivalent to you posting a quote box with an arbitrary sentence that uses a stupid phrase to describe someone's smile.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:Whenever I hear a similar quote, I can't help but think of this: SPEAK TO ME-E-E-E-E-E-E! It all would be easier I want to talk to you...
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
The Star Wars prequels (or at least TPM and AotC) are so clearly geared towards kids that I'm actually kinda embarrassed for people when they say they enjoy them. Its akin to liking Thomas the Tank Engine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Yaws posted:The Star Wars prequels (or at least TPM and AotC) are so clearly geared towards kids that I'm actually kinda embarrassed for people when they say they enjoy them. Its akin to liking Thomas the Tank Engine. There's actually nothing embarrassing about liking things geared towards kids or appraising them from the perspective of an adult. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Star Wars is for the Children. All of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
It's legit one of my fav albums.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Yaws posted:The Star Wars prequels (or at least TPM and AotC) are so clearly geared towards kids that I'm actually kinda embarrassed for people when they say they enjoy them. Its akin to liking Thomas the Tank Engine. What's wrong with Thomas The Train? I haven't seen it. Did the train speak with a bad cadence?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Did the train speak with a bad cadence? quote:there's something wrong with the cadence SuperMechagodzilla posted:that the late Christopher Lee had 'awkward cadence'. quote:To prove that the 'bad acting cadence SuperMechagodzilla posted:the cadence of Christopher Lee's voice. That cadence bit really got up your rear end didn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Jerkface posted:No im pretty sure we all understood why rothfussian attributes were stupid. Use of cgi and their subsequent failure is a recurring element in the prequels. Failure in what sense?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Yaws posted:That cadence bit really got up your rear end didn't it? It's fascinating because there's absolutely nothing wrong with the cadence of Lee's voice. Cadence is an actual thing, but it seems like you either don't know what that means or - worse - are hallucinating. You are consistently unable to back up such basic claims as 'a tv show is bad.'
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It's fascinating because there's absolutely nothing wrong with the cadence of Lee's voice quote:You are consistently unable to back up such basic claims as 'a tv show is bad.'
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Whenever this thread circles around to the conversation of what is realistic human behavior and whether or not it is lacking in Star Wars, it comes as no surprise that everyone trips over themselves and shows a lack of experience on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Lee sounds fine. It's just a fairly matter-of-fact line reading, which is unusual for that sort of villain confrontation, but makes sense for the character. He's not gloating over Yoda, just informing him that he's surpassed him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Lee sounds fine. It's just a fairly matter-of-fact line reading, which is unusual for that sort of villain confrontation, but makes sense for the character. He's not gloating over Yoda, just informing him that he's surpassed him. Dooku was poopsocking more then Yoda and leveled up enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:Dooku was poopsocking more then Yoda and leveled up enough. He's loving around with the dark side, which, as he points out to Yoda, has made him more powerful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Yaws posted:I admit, I don't know how to further articulate to you why Lee sounds unconvincing in that scene. It's self-evident. The poor acting in the prequels is a constant complaint about them. Both in reviews when they were released as well as now. You alone seem to be OK with it. It's a lonely hill for you to die on. I am not aware of any reviews criticizing Christopher Lee's line delivery, and you don't seem to be aware of any either. There is no 'constant stream' of reviews being released on the topic. This all leads me to believe you are hallucinating, but I am asking you questions in order to give you the benefit of a doubt. For example: I don't know anything about Thomas The Train Engine, except that it's some British stop-motion animation. You brought it up as something embarrassingly awful, but it's unclear why. It seems like a weird non-sequitur. Where are all these 'constant' reviews? What's wrong with the TV show?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:He's loving around with the dark side, which, as he points out to Yoda, has made him more powerful. That doesn't make any sense though, but George Lucas was really bad at following his own lore. The prequels turned the force into a role playing game system. Everyone has level ups and stats in it and they literally reference this in each movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 19:39
|
|