|
Zoran posted:Oh, are we back on the “ANH was a terrible mess that was saved by the edit” thing again? Do you have any memes proving otherwise?
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
Zoran posted:Oh, are we back on the “ANH was a terrible mess that was saved by the edit” thing again? No I'm saying that George Lucas produces demonstrably better films when he takes a backseat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:Yeah I think after ANH was almost a disaster he should've just stuck to the story treatment role and let others direct and pull a script together. It worked pretty well when he did that (ESB, Raiders). Agree, it is funny because I think if Lucas had come up today he would make an excellent showrunner for TV. euphronius posted:Dialog in the prequels was fine. A new hope was distracting because the actors were trying to be too naturalistic with the unnatural lines. He did a much better job directing the actors in the prequels and in RoTj to be flatter in their delivery and it worked much better. The dialogue felt stilted and to be honest if you have the bevy of talent Lucas had available, even fairly average dialogue can work. I am not sure why you wouldn't expect your actors to be generally naturalistic anyway. Why bother getting Jackson, McGregor, Neeson, Stamp etc if you don't want them to humanize their characters. The universe itself is mechanical enough, what made the original films work as well as they did was that you had the hero's journey with enough pathos to sell it in a weird space environment. Space senate and governments moving to fascism/dicatorship is not an uninteresting idea (frankly it is a hell of a lot more inspired than VII and VIII to me) but if your characters feel like wood moving through a very rote story, well you are going to have problems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
I like the prequels, but whatever Lucas and Christensen were doing with his weird riff on James Dean is not one of the things I stick up for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Lucas intended for mostly flat dialog. It's the aesthetic he wanted and got. I think it works well in the prequels. As for getting famous actors that's a lot about box office. Wrt SLJ I think he requested to be in the movie? Alec Guinness was definitely box office.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Zoran posted:Oh, are we back on the “ANH was a terrible mess that was saved by the edit” thing again? I am sorry that this theory impugns the editing instincts of a dude who took that film which won an award for editing and dumped back in a scene that slows down the first act, restates redundant information the audience has already been told, creates a continuity error, and neuters a villain that had been previously saved for the third film. In order to showcase some state-of-the-art 90s CGI character animation that aged real bad. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
If the dialogue and delivery was supposed to be terrible it would've been better if they got complete unknowns or even non-actors. Instead he directed talented people to act as poorly as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
It was supposed to be in most cases flat. Not terrible lol. There are obviously scenes where the actors do much more emoting and in think the contrast pays off well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
I think the problem with some of the movies was that ALL of the characters had the arch dialogue and acting, whereas in the good ones there are characters who are more informal to contrast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
euphronius posted:As for getting famous actors that's a lot about box office. Wrt SLJ I think he requested to be in the movie? Alec Guinness was definitely box office. It probably is about box office, but that doesn't really change that the talent who would probably be fine if the dialogue didn't make them appear so artificial. I think you would really struggle to find actors who could make the dialogue in the films work that much better. If he was going for flat he hit it out of the park, and it just didn't work at all for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
As a corollary to what euphronius is getting at, if you don't see the difference between "flat" and "bad," then you are suffering from unexamined expectations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
I don't know about the editing thing either way, but it's not as if saying that Hitchcock owes a great deal of success to Alma Reville is impugning his talent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:I think the problem with some of the movies was that ALL of the characters had the arch dialogue and acting, whereas in the good ones there are characters who are more informal to contrast. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
Shepard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:As a corollary to what euphronius is getting at, if you don't see the difference between "flat" and "bad," then you are suffering from unexamined expectations. Flat can definitely be bad though, and generally is an unflattering description- you don't tend to aim for flat. Most stories you want your actors to be displaying emotions and pulling your audience in. Flat may work as a statement in itself or in a more mechanical story, BUT is that what Star Wars really is? At least what expectation is and what I would say makes the series work. You can have interesting higher concepts, but if you want to create a microcosm in that with people we are supposed to care about, well it behooves you to make them dynamic and interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
unlawfulsoup posted:It probably is about box office, but that doesn't really change that the talent who would probably be fine if the dialogue didn't make them appear so artificial. I think you would really struggle to find actors who could make the dialogue in the films work that much better. If he was going for flat he hit it out of the park, and it just didn't work at all for me. He was def going for "flat, talking head dialog" that moves the plot along. Except for the obvious climax scenes where every word is important like with Palpatine and so on. Or when obi wan breaks down at the end of ep 3
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:34
|
|
|
unlawfulsoup posted:Flat can definitely be bad though, and generally is an unflattering description- you don't tend to aim for flat. Most stories you want your actors to be displaying emotions and pulling your audience in. Flat may work as a statement in itself or in a more mechanical story, BUT is that what Star Wars really is? At least what expectation is and what I would say makes the series work. You can have interesting higher concepts, but if you want to create a microcosm in that with people we are supposed to care about, well it behooves you to make them dynamic and interesting. On the one hand I think Disney's doing a good job making even lofty dialogue like Kylo Ren's or Snoke's interesting, but on the other they rely way too much on quips when the humor in the Lucas films was almost all visual or character-based.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
The only real issue I have with the dialogue or delivery in the ST was when Leia had to say the word 'Snoke' in an otherwise serious scene. In isolation that line comes across as a parody of science fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
i'm reminded of something i read once where the author asserted that you could watch all 6 star wars movies without dialogue, just the music and sound effects and still have a pretty good understanding of what is going on
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
I still laugh at every C-3P0 scene and wish he was in more of it
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
Flat-ominous is good Just flat is bad
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:If the dialogue and delivery was supposed to be terrible it would've been better if they got complete unknowns or even non-actors. Instead he directed talented people to act as poorly as possible. You’re operating under faulty premises. It is foolish to insert the word “bad” into the phrase “on purpose”. The assertion that things are “on purpose” is redundant anyways; of course a movie was made purposefully. When we remove these stupid parts of your post, we are left with this: “The dialogue and delivery was supposed to be. He directed people to act.” You are beginning with a conclusion - “...therefore, it’s bad!” - to distract from the fact that you are saying nothing. You skipped every step in your rush to post. For example, you have skipped the basic step of identifying different styles of acting. You are effectively claiming that there are only four type of acting, that can be charted on an X/Y axis of Good/On Purpose: -Good On Purpose -Good Not On Purpose -Bad On Purpose -Bad Not On Purpose That is stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:On the one hand I think Disney's doing a good job making even lofty dialogue like Kylo Ren's or Snoke's interesting, but on the other they rely way too much on quips when the humor in the Lucas films was almost all visual or character-based. Kylo Ren is the standout to me, but in general the primary characters are written adequately as far as humanizing them goes. It also helps that they are all capable actors. I would actually say that VIII actually made Rey a more dynamic character as well and shifted her much more in a positive (character writing wise) direction. My sort of problem is that, yeah this is Disney. We aren't going to get a more nuanced look about good and evil. The quips were really awkward at times, the yo momma opener in VIII was REALLY painful and there are definitely some issues balancing humor in with the current films.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:The only real issue I have with the dialogue or delivery in the ST was when Leia had to say the word 'Snoke' in an otherwise serious scene. In isolation that line comes across as a parody of science fantasy. No, never mind, I want to see Kylo Ren go up against Howard Alan Treesong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:You’re operating under faulty premises. It is foolish to insert the word “bad” into the phrase “on purpose”. The assertion that things are “on purpose” is redundant anyways; of course a movie was made purposefully. What did you mean by meme before you edited? I literally just suggested that different casting choices could've benefited the angle he was going for (if indeed he was going for anything).
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:if indeed he was going for anything). Are you suggesting the movies are accidental ?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:On the one hand I think Disney's doing a good job making even lofty dialogue like Kylo Ren's or Snoke's interesting, but on the other they rely way too much on quips when the humor in the Lucas films was almost all visual or character-based. Yeah... On the balance I'm okay with the new film but the Whedonification of dialogue is definitely infecting it and it's not great. Steve2911 posted:The only real issue I have with the dialogue or delivery in the ST was when Leia had to say the word 'Snoke' in an otherwise serious scene. In isolation that line comes across as a parody of science fantasy. https://vimeo.com/202443968
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
Pac-Manioc Root posted:Yeah... On the balance I'm okay with the new film but the Whedonification of dialogue is definitely infecting it and it's not great. I'm ok with it but it does distract from the film. But whatever. Lucas doesn't have total control anymore and they look great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
This is Anakin Skywalker. We have purposely directed him wrong, as a joke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Are you suggesting the movies are accidental ? They can be. Plenty of movies achieve something other than the director's intent. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
There was a documentary about some film or another entitled "Films Aren't Released, They Escape."
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:56
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:They can be. Plenty of movies achieve something other than the director's intent. Well ok but Lucas intended the dialog you see on the screen to be there. Actors weren't reading from other movies or novels or improvising.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:Shepard. ANAKIN: I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Here everything is soft and smooth. PADME: I should go.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
jivjov posted:They put some willow stuff in the Star Wars Databank as an April fools joke back in like 2004. loving hell
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Well ok but Lucas intended the dialog you see on the screen to be there. Actors weren't reading from other movies or novels or improvising. Idk man, can you show us some actual lines you liked?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
Billzasilver posted:Idk man, can you show us some actual lines you liked? Liked? Who cares what I like. But ok for example most of the dialog between Gui gon and Schmi I like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
If a Gungan and a Wookie save each other's life do they have a mutual life debt and basically might as well get married?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
Serf posted:i'm reminded of something i read once where the author asserted that you could watch all 6 star wars movies without dialogue, just the music and sound effects and still have a pretty good understanding of what is going on George Lucas himself asserted that ANH in particular is almost a silent film, in which the dialogue is just another sound effect that adds to your understanding of the action.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
Here you go to fairly answer your question I like this by of dialog a lot ANAKIN: You're a Jedi Knight, aren't you? QUI-GON: What makes you think that? ANAKIN: I saw your laser sword. Only Jedi carry that kind of weapon. QUI-GON leans back and slowly smiles. QUI-GON: Perhaps I killed a Jedi and took it from him. ANAKIN: I don't think so ... No one can kill a Jedi. QUI-GON: I wish that were so... ANAKIN: I had a dream I was a Jedi. I came back here to free all the slaves... have you come to free us? QUI-GON: No, I'm afraid not ... ANAKIN: I think you have ... why else would you be here? QUI-GON thinks for a moment. QUI-GON: I can see there's no fooling you ... (leans forward) We're on our way to Coruscant, the central system in the Republic, on a very important mission. ----- I assume that's accurate. I'm going off internet scripts who knows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
euphronius posted:Here you go to fairly answer your question I like this by of dialog a lot Huh, I didn't remember them using the term "laser sword" before Luke's dismissive line in TLJ.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 21:30
|
|