|
Guy A. Person posted:The fact that this specific contingent is largely silent about the editing in the ST just shows what bullshit politics it all is. And again, I'm not just talking about analyzing the editing in general. If people think the editing of the original was such a key factor in making it a sci-fi classic that transcends generations, shouldn't there be a massive amount of conversation about who is editing the ST, how it's affecting each title, and demanding higher quality and more insight into how and why these reshoots and reedits are happening? It's a bit early for anyone to have written the Secret History of Star Wars Part 2 about Mary Jo Markey and Maryann Brandon. When you talk about fans promoting theories about Lucas being moderated by his collaborators here, you are talking about Michael Kaminsky's book that predates the Disney buyout entirely. There may be some absolutely fascinating stories about how the latter Star Wars films came to be what they are, but fans aren't talking about them because they don't have any way of knowing about them. People default vague auteurism with the sequel trilogy in large part because the production is such a black box. SuperMechagodzilla posted:Literacy. "Illiterate" is the free space on SMG bingo.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 05:04 |
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:"Illiterate" is the free space on SMG bingo. It is very often true
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
The interpretation of the structure of an edited film is a skill that exceeds what's necessary to simply understand the events depicted. This is true of other media as well: you can appreciate and remember a melody and a rhythm just from listening to it, but describing the way a song works requires close analysis and theoretical knowledge, for instance; and we're all aware that there's a difference between knowing how to use a computer program and understanding how and why the computer works. Even written language is stratified in this way: how complex a text can you accurately understand, paraphrase, or generate? Whether used for artistic purposes or practical ones, film editing is a specialized form of communication like any other, and there are degrees of ability that a person can possess and demonstrate in the interpretation of it. It's a space in which a literacy clearly exists. However, unlike some other literacies, most people don't receive formal education or continuous practice in improving their film literacy. So it's pretty accurate to say that a lot of movie-goers are, to a relative degree, film-illiterate; or rather, they're only literate enough to follow the events and emotional content of the story.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
Mooey Cow posted:It's weird in the editing narrative that Paul Hirsch and Richard Chew are totally absent, as if they didn't edit a third of the movie each and Marcia Lucas was the only one who knew how to do it. Or the fact that it was George Lucas who brought in all these people to cut the movie the way he wanted it to be cut, after the original editor, John Jympson, had failed to do so. Funny enough, Marcia's editing on Star Wars is mostly confined to the Death Star sequence. Which, yeah, is one of the best-edited sequences in cinema history, but that's because Marcia Lucas was an incredible editor, and probably a lot of the reason she only worked on the Death Star stuff is because she was in demand as Martin Scorsese's preferred editor and literally went straight from locking the edit on that final reel to going and trying to save New York, New York when the guy Marty hired instead of Marcia died. Chew and Hirsch were stuck going through all the rest of the movie (and their process was such: just build a new assembly cut, basically starting from scratch, and just re-edit the entire picture, minus the end - which George had asked Marcia to do). Kinda sad that Marcia's more famous for cutting twenty minutes of a space movie instead of editing Taxi Driver and Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and American Graffiti.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
The Cameo posted:Kinda sad that Marcia's more famous for cutting twenty minutes of a space movie instead of editing Taxi Driver and Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and American Graffiti. That is unfortunate as those movies are far better than loving Star Wars. I hate these movies so much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 22:44
|
|
|
Disneyworld's 'Land of Scorsese' when
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:So it's pretty accurate to say that a lot of movie-goers are, to a relative degree, film-illiterate; or rather, they're only literate enough to follow the events and emotional content of the story. Are you arguing that this literacy gives someone some insight into the objective quality of goodness of editing? I'm not saying literacy isn't a thing, I'm saying that claiming it can give you self-evident insight is nonsense. There is no such thing as "actual quality," that's Objective Movie Review fantasyland. Criticism can be informed to varying degrees but being informed does not bring you closer to the platonic ideal Correct Criticism. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Mar 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Are you arguing that this literacy gives someone some insight into the objective quality of goodness of editing? I'm not saying literacy isn't a thing, I'm saying that claiming it can give you self-evident insight is nonsense. No. "Objective quality" is a red herring. But editing does have objective qualities, which literacy is necessary to identify and discuss intelligibly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
I feel like to really understand editing, you should give a try at editing. You don't have too I guess. But I dunno. Even if it's just re-editing movies or whatever. You learn so much from moving one scene around. Or even taking something as simple as glances and re-arranging them. Editing is my favorite part of filmmaking because so much can be crafted at that point to allow it to become something new.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
Literacy and understanding of craft are not the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
sponges posted:That is unfortunate as those movies are far better than loving Star Wars. Get this: she wasn't even nominated for an Oscar for Taxi Driver. In fact, TD somehow didn't get a single technical award nomination, just Picture, Actor, Score and Supporting Actress (which would have made sense if it was Cybill Shepherd, but Jodie Foster is very clearly the lead actress).  At the very least she did get a nom for American Graffiti (alongside easily one of the best editors in cinema history and mentor to her, George, and many others in that first Zoetrope group, Verna Fields, who also introduced Marcia and George to one another when they were brought on as her assistants for Journey to The Pacific).
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
The Cameo posted:Funny enough, Marcia's editing on Star Wars is mostly confined to the Death Star sequence. She also cut the scenes with Luke's friends on Tatooine – which she lobbied for including.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 00:06
|
|
|
Considering she had edited Biggs's death, it's unsurprising she would want to include the scene she worked on that introduces him more than five minutes before he blows up But to be honest, it's pretty obvious why that whole scene was cut, since it's introducing multiple characters, only one of which will have anything to do with the movie once Luke is off Tattooine, and simply having Biggs and Luke run into each other on Yavin 4 and mention old times gives the audience just enough information that they can fill in blanks on their own and create whatever sort of relationship the two had as backstory themselves. It's an American Graffiti scene in a movie that had no real use for it (hell, George even shot it more like he shot American Graffiti, it actually feels a little weird compared to the more utilitarian way the rest of the movie is shot). And all it really does is express information that is covered elsewhere - Luke wants off the planet, there's a Rebellion against The Empire, Uncle Owen needs him for one more season.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 00:22
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I feel like to really understand editing, you should give a try at editing. You don't have too I guess. But I dunno. I learned a ton making re-edits of TPM and AOTC, not just about editing in general, but about those specific movies - why I liked some things and not others, and even why I was wrong about some things. I studied them as I've never come close to studying any other films before or since. It was a lot of hard work, but it was both fun and edifying and I recommend giving it a shot even if you never share it with anyone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 04:09
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Are you arguing that this literacy gives someone some insight into the objective quality of goodness of editing? I'm not saying literacy isn't a thing, I'm saying that claiming it can give you self-evident insight is nonsense. Remember, you are claiming that film editing simply ‘passes muster’ if a given film is not ‘offputting’ - effectively stating that the quality of a film’s editing is immediately, instinctively apparent to anyone. I am writing the opposite: that film editing is a language that you need to learn. You may not have noticed anything ‘offputting’ that caused you to experience feelings of dislike - but you also didn’t notice the cut from Rey (at the southern end of the tent cluster) extending her hand to FN with offscreen dialogue saying “follow me”, to two consecutive shots of FN dodging explosions and not following her (at the northern end of the tents), followed by a cut to Rey and FN exiting Simon Pegg’s house. What this means is that the film does not successfully convey that FN is following Rey, the general direction Rey is leading him, etc. That’s bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 04:41
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Remember, you are claiming that film editing simply ‘passes muster’ if a given film is not ‘offputting’ - effectively stating that the quality of a film’s editing is immediately, instinctively apparent to anyone. It's a language you need to learn in order to describe how a film ends up the way it does. The process isn't the product here, though. Take your example. (I'm striking what I'd normally just delete, for completism.) SuperMechagodzilla posted:
What is the problem here? "It's so bad"... what's wrong with it? What is the essentially bad quality of editing in this example, and more importantly why does it matter to the quality of the final product? You've got an argument that supports why the edit is messy (it's a crazy edit stitched together from separate takes), but a rhetorical gap between crazy fuckery and so bad. I happen to think it's effective despite the wild process that went into making it, because, like I said, it's Finn awkwardly getting his head around a bizarre idea, with the character trying to put on a new act he's not used to yet. The mouth being obscured takes frame by frame analysis; it flashes by in a split second. How is that a problem? "Yes I am" is a nervous, too-fast blurt, but so is "Well this'swhattheylook like. SOME'veus. Otherslookdiff rent." The whole conversation from "This droid says you stole it" to "Luke Skywalker?" flows cleanly, and it doesn't run into any of the problems you describe with inconsistent lighting or sometimes-confusing motion. Why does this particular moment stand out as an example of inherently bad editing? I can't find it in any of your other posts, which all are about different scenes - but I agree with your arguments that those other scenes are flawed. quote:You may not have noticed anything ‘offputting’ that caused you to experience feelings of dislike - but you also didn’t notice the cut from Rey (at the southern end of the tent cluster) extending her hand to FN with offscreen dialogue saying “follow me”, to two consecutive shots of FN dodging explosions and not following her (at the northern end of the tents), followed by a cut to Rey and FN exiting Simon Pegg’s house. This nicely supports your claim that Niima Outpost is chronological and spatial nonsense, so much so that I can implicitly figure out that you're arguing that this scene is disjointed and difficult to follow. This argument is fine; I'm not trying to fight you about it. In all of these examples, it isn't strictly necessary - although it is interesting! - to know how these ended up like this. While it's helpful, a person doesn't need to know the temperature or cooking time to be able to detect the taste of burned garbage. SuperMechagodzilla posted:It really puts the Marcia Lucas urban legend to rest: fans don’t give a poo poo about editing at all, if this stuff is considered acceptable. This also leads to some confusing half-arguments where you mention Marcia Lucas, who very famously edited a scene full of obvious scars from being restructured in editing, but one which I've never known you to be critical of. Are you critical of the Yavin IV segment? (This is not just "is it good or bad", although that's a very basic thing you might want to mention, lol). What makes it different? "It's good/bad, and you'd know that if you gave a poo poo about editing" is a boring and uninformative shitpost answer. The smug superiority also gets in the way of your crit. You've decided these scenes are bad, and that anyone who likes them is wrong. Try looking through other people's eyes for once and at least considering the reasons they were edited the way they were other than thin caricature of fans and creators who don't give a poo poo and a world full of people who don't immediately agree with you and are thus illiterate. It would make your own arguments stronger and make you sound a bit less... well, smug and boring. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Mar 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 05:44
|
|
|
just popping in to say that both Coruscant and Hosnian Prime were referenced in todays 'Star Wars Resistance' TV show, which maintains a canon rating *higher* than the ST film trilogy as the ideas come from George Lucas' conduit, Dave Filoni.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 07:06
|
|
|
Canon should be shot into the sewer to die a thousand deaths
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 07:08
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Canon should be shot into the sewer to die a thousand deaths That kind of D-Canon level thinking is gonna get you in trouble around here...
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 07:09
|
|
|
Rian Johnson is our hero.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 07:10
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:This also leads to some confusing half-arguments where you mention Marcia Lucas, who very famously edited a scene full of obvious scars from being restructured in editing, but one which I've never known you to be critical of. The "urban legend" is that George Lucas is a bad filmmaker who makes bad films, and that he made a bad film that was only saved by Marcia's magic editing powers. SMG is not criticizing Marcia Lucas; they are saying that Star Wars fans have dishonestly glommed onto her as an explanation for their gut feeling that, basically, the Original Trilogy are good, well-made movies while the Prequels are dumb bad poo poo made by an idiot. You've smugly dismissed the argument while failing to understand it and accused the other of being smug for expressing a belief. If you read an implied "in my opinion," before all of SMG's posts would it help?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 08:52
|
|
|
Martman posted:I think you are still confused about what SMG was saying in the first place. The argument is half-formed, because it isn't clear what that has to do with the next part of that same post, where SMG describes a perfectly functional and effective scene that is merely visibly edited as self-evidently bad and implicitly an example of people somehow not giving a poo poo about editing. I am pressing on this point because I do actually think SMG's answer could be interesting and want to read it, Christ. Climb down off the loving ramparts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 09:08
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:The argument is half-formed, because it isn't clear what that has to do with the next part of that same post, where SMG describes a perfectly functional and effective scene that is merely visibly edited as self-evidently bad and implicitly an example of people somehow not giving a poo poo about editing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 09:19
|
|
|
Martman posted:Here it sounds like you understand the argument. So why act like you thought he was criticizing Marcia Lucas's editing? Like he said, criticizing isn't the same as saying a thing is good or bad. I want him to criticize it, especially in the context of what was supposedly wrong with the scene where Finn and Rey join up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 09:29
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:I want him to criticize it, especially in the context of what was supposedly wrong with the scene where Finn and Rey join up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 09:47
|
|
|
Martman posted:Why? How do you think a critique of those particular scenes would relate to the argument he made? Because I think those two scenes are very similar, despite the fact that he approves of one and thinks the other is so self-evidently bad that anyone who thinks that TFA is an acceptable movie must not give a poo poo about editing at all in any movie ever. I'm fairly certain SMG thinks they're different; I think explaining how (beyond ANH good and TFA bad) would be interesting and a good way to illustrate the differences between the editing styles of both films.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 09:54
|
|
|
So just ask the question instead of making all these disingenuous tone-policing concern troll posts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 10:04
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Because I think those two scenes are very similar, despite the fact that he approves of one and thinks the other is so self-evidently bad that anyone who thinks that TFA is an acceptable movie must not give a poo poo about editing at all in any movie ever. I'm fairly certain SMG thinks they're different; I think explaining how (beyond ANH good and TFA bad) would be interesting and a good way to illustrate the differences between the editing styles of both films. quote:I'm open to the idea that there is some logical connection, but I can't read anyone's mind and I don't know what Marcia Lucas has to do with it. quote:Try looking through other people's eyes for once and at least considering the reasons they were edited the way they were other than thin caricature of fans and creators who don't give a poo poo and a world full of people who don't immediately agree with you and are thus illiterate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 10:24
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:It's a language you need to learn in order to describe how a film ends up the way it does. The process isn't the product here, though. Take your example. (I'm striking what I'd normally just delete, for completism.) Again: you need to organize your thoughts and do cursory fact-checking before writing the thousands of words. This would likely save you the trouble of ‘just asking questions’ over and over. Why isn’t it good that images of the protagonist screaming are accompanied by a monotone voice saying “yes I’d like a sandwich”? Well, that’s a mystery. It could be that nothing in the shot actually conveys that the character wants a sandwich. It’s just a shot of John Boyega standing up, overdubbed with wackity smackity. Moments later, a shot of Boyega obviously screaming “RUN!” is dubbed over with a milder “come on!”. There is a gulf between the narrative and the plot. It’s also noteworthy that the geography and lighting are in fact really bad in this scene. Between two shots, the background behind Boyega (seen from the exact same angle) changes from a bustling marketplace to a piece of scrap metal. I‘ve already posted a shot where the sun is rising behind the characters despite the scene taking place at noon. When BB appears behind Rey to alert her, the lighting is inconsistent with the rest of the scene and BB appears through the wrong door. The angle at which the Stormtroopers are seen is wrong, because those shots are taken from a different scene: they are shooting towards the tents, not Simon Pegg’s house. When FN and Rey run outside, they are going the wrong way - and the exterior is suddenly/briefly foggy (fog machines were used to disguise the fact that reshoots were done on a soundstage). They run into a marketplace that doesn’t exist in any wide shot. The stormtroopers are shown firing from the exact spot FN and Rey are running towards. Later expository dialogue tells us Rey is a target because people seen standing near FN are ‘marked for death’(???). What the film actually shows is that Rey was accused of being a Resistance sympathizer by the two men she concussed earlier. (Also, nobody actually saw her with FN. The two kidnappers were unconscious.) Rey shouldn’t be confused at all, because she was just doe-eyed at the thought of assisting Resistance spy BB8. I can keep going, but you hopefully get it. In any case, it’s worth noting that this is not a “post-continuity” stylistic choice; no other scene in the film(s) resembles this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 10:41
|
|
|
Martman posted:This is Bad Posting. If you have thoughts about the reasons that TFA scene was edited in that way, feel free to express them. No one is stopping you from arguing that the editing in that scene is actually good. Good arguments proactively consider counter arguments rather than merely presuming that they must not exist because nobody personally delivers them to your doorstep. It heads off futile argument and offers people ins on offering refined counter arguments you haven't considered before, allowing you to improve your arguments or revise your thesis for the better. On top of this, the occasional overt noise about how all Star Wars fans other than yourself are total creeps/illiterate/idiots/etc. are a really bad form of shitposting that has infected this thread (and CD in general it seems). It's just obnoxious filler, and it actively short-circuits critical thinking because if everyone you disagree with is stupid or posting in bad faith, then their disagreement is proof of their own inability or malice rather than the problems with your own arguments. Adults can have differing opinions in good faith, as long as they in turn treat people as adults who differ with them in good faith. By extending that good faith, you can both sharpen your own criticism and defuse hostility that makes it difficult to have any productive conversation at all. Alternately we can just shitpost joust at each other but that just gets boring and chases people away from teaching anyone anything interesting. Okay, eyes closed, head first, can't fail. SuperMechagodzilla posted:Again: you need to organize your thoughts and do cursory fact-checking before writing the thousands of words. This would likely save you the trouble of ‘just asking questions’ over and over. I am just asking you questions because I am interested in the answers to those questions and think you might be able to answer them. It's not a rhetorical trick, unless prodding you to talk about Star Wars is a trick. SuperMechagodzilla posted:Why isn’t it good that images of the protagonist screaming are accompanied by a monotone voice saying “yes I’d like a sandwich”? Well, that’s a mystery. There's isn't a gulf between narrative and plot there in that particular example. I'm still not clear why you highlighted, what, 10 or so frames of Finn's mouth being obscured and an awkward spliced line reading at a time when the character is himself awkward. He's standing because his new lie and new, still-uncomfortable airs have changed the dynamic of their relationship, literally changing his standing in Rey's eyes. Rey is looking up at him, vaguely awed, instead of down on a pathetic maybe-thief, maybe-refugee; she clearly buys into his terrible act because she's sort of a mark under the reflexive toughness. None of this is genius but the things we see are clearly reinforcing the intended impact of what we are being told. He decides he wants a sandwich, he awkwardly puts on the airs of someone who could really go for a tuna melt, and Rey's expression and posture go from gently caress you guy to golly an actual sandwich wanter wow. How is this scene badly edited? There's lots of confusing geography in Niima, including bracketing either side of that scene. That much isn't in dispute, at least not with me. How does that end up happening? What kind of decisions can lead to those compromises? Why do you think so many people have glossed over it entirely?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 11:47
|
|
|
You know with all the editing talk, was George Lucas even the only editor on the prequels, seems like a lot of work for one man to do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 12:47
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Good arguments proactively consider counter arguments rather than merely presuming that they must not exist because nobody personally delivers them to your doorstep. It heads off futile argument and offers people ins on offering refined counter arguments you haven't considered before, allowing you to improve your arguments or revise your thesis for the better. Please stop posting so bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 13:21
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:You know with all the editing talk, was George Lucas even the only editor on the prequels, seems like a lot of work for one man to do. I believe Ben Burtt edited the prequels (or at least TPM), which also discredits the "OT only worked because of who Lucas worked with" theory, as Burtt is a constant in both trilogies. Cease to Hope posted:Alternately we can just shitpost joust at each other but that just gets boring and chases people away from teaching anyone anything interesting. At this point, your rambling is what is boring and chasing people away from this thread. Personally, I've found SMG's revelations about how TFA changed during production much more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 13:26
|
|
|
Jerkface posted:just popping in to say that both Coruscant and Hosnian Prime were referenced in todays 'Star Wars Resistance' TV show, which maintains a canon rating *higher* than the ST film trilogy as the ideas come from George Lucas' conduit, Dave Filoni. No, that's not true! That's impossible!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 13:58
|
|
|
SMG, I think the editing stuff is valid, but you should still find another word besides "literacy" to describe what you're trying to say. Broadly when we talk about literacy we just mean ability to read. You're breaking it down as literacy means understanding a language. However, it means more than that. The main thing we mean when we say literacy is that we can understand a text on a literal level and infer subtext. The power of this ability comes in the fact that we can derive meaning from things we don't fully understand on a literal level (A word we've never heard before or an allusion to 8th century architecture isn't much a bother if we have a wholistic understanding of a text). People not being bothered by the weak editing you're pointing out is because they are literate. Actual literacy means that readers/viewers are on some level collaborative with the author. The things you say make sense, but people do the mental leg work in the moment to help support the film. It has to be pretty egregious editing to actually confuse a reader. I'm not saying that good editing doesn't matter. It does matter because good editing means better communication to the reader/viewer. But the craft behind that is often invisible in the moment. Readers and viewers don't derive understanding from dissection of the editing. In short, a reader doesn't need to understand the meter of a poem to understand, that doesn't mean the meter doesn't matter, and the poet sure should understand the meter of their own work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 14:08
|
|
|
Literacy also means “competence in a specific area” in addition to “being able to read”. It is related to literate which means “having sufficient knowledge to be competent in an area” ie “she is literate in physics”. It’s use in these threads is good tho because both denotations are at play depending on the circumstance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 16:30
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:In short, a reader doesn't need to understand the meter of a poem to understand, that doesn't mean the meter doesn't matter, and the poet sure should understand the meter of their own work. Someone who has a desire to offer a literary criticism of a poem should. Someone who didn't understand meter could correctly be told that they aren't literate [in poetry] and that would be correct
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
mark hamill cannot be controlledquote:He said: “They had me walking by Threepio, not even acknowledging him. I said: ‘I can’t do that!’ [Rian Johnson] said: ‘okay, go over and do whatever’. So I went over, and I did whatever. Would like to hear someone who thinks the new movies are so great to explain why Mark Hamill was wrong to feel this way, or to want to feel at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
Hemingway To Go! posted:mark hamill cannot be controlled Mark Hamills feelings aren't relevant with regards to someone who thinks the the Last Jedi is great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 05:04 |
|
|
I mean Hamil clearly isn’t divorcing his personal feelings for his irl friends there. Not saying he has to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 16:59
|
|