Re: Oscars


The story only NEEDS high-end f/x to make people go it if the movie is bad without it. Think of Saving Private Ryan or Forest Gump;

but we're not talking about that KIND of movie. we're talking about a series of movies set in deep space and several alien planets. you can't fake that kind of thing with low-end f/x and expect the movie to survive.



high-end or low-end isn't the point; of course it would be high-end because that is what is now available and would be used. My point is not to use low-end effects to achieve the goal, but instead stop using the f/x in an exhibitionist fashion. Exhibitionist=long, unnecessary scenes that slow the pace of a movie, these are usually scenes in which the camera is far away and setting is exhibited without any real purpose. The audience doesn't need extraneous scenes just to show them a setting, they can pick it up quite well as the characters move through it or are surrounded by it. I love great special effects, I think they are a huge advance to movie-making; I just don't like the way they are being used at this point in time. I believe the trend will stop when audiences dwindle to an amount that demands the attention of the industry. Looking at the trend in box-office sales, I think that time is coming soon.


<snippage>

Many would argue that SW is a movie which needs more f/x because it is Science Fiction.

so you can tell the future, too. yippee.


I can tell the future? What exactly was I predicting here?


while you're at it, look back at Flash Gordon or any of the Buck Rogers movies and tell me they were solid without all the flash-bang f/x.


I have to say I never really got into either of those, so I really can't give an opinion.


This is probably the reason why 90% of the Sci-Fi movies produced are real disasters.

no. 90% of SF movies are disasters because 90% of the population doesn't particularly care for SF. that's why we're still "geeks".



I really don't feel that is the case. The popularity of original Star Wars and pretty much all of Star Trek prove that the population really enjoy a good Sci-Fi story when it is done well. Science Fiction was also hugely popular in print from the 40's all the way through to the present day. The fact it doesn't do well in the theaters isn't because people can't get behind a good Sci-Fi story, it's because it is rarely presented well. Independence Day was a hugely successful movie and the MIB movies did very well also. The Alien series of movies also did quite well at the box-office. These examples are unfortunately in a very small minority of the total amount of Sci-Fi movies produced.


An example of a Sci-Fi story where extraneous f/x isn't needed, and more importantly, isn't used, is the Battlestar Galactica program on right now. It doesn't need to hide behind all the pretty effects, it just uses them as necessary to embellish the plot-lines, not substitute them.

think again. it doesn't use any f/x because most of the show is set inside the ship. all it needs is a set. the space battles can be stock backgrounds and minimum greenscreen, because--like Star Trek--their space battles suck. and so did the original Battlestar Galactica (in terms of space battles). i, however, don't really want to besmirch my memories of the original series by watching this lame knock-off, so i'm not going to discuss it on a Star Wars newsgroup.


If you don't watch the series than I suggest you refrain from commenting on it, I wouldn't refute your comments any more than that because you don't think talking about it would be appropriate in this newsgroup.



People seem to be under the assumption special effects or dialogue are the only two drives behind a story.

by "people", you're being too general. this statement doesn't include me or my opinion, and yet i'm still a people.



Sorry I guess? People can be specific or general, it's all a matter or perspective and reference.


i believe that story drives a story, which is why i happen to like the Star Wars movies. all of them. and you know what? with a few exceptions (most notably _The Crystal Star_), i like the EU material as well. because it enhances my experience of the Star Wars universe.



I completely agree with you on the Star Wars movies (IV-VI) and the EU. I absolutely love the reading the novels and I think I have read every single one (with the exception of the prequel related novels). As far as story drives a story, that only works if the elements used to tell the story are done well, elements I referred to below. There are many, many stories that were excellent, but where destroyed when transfered to movie form. One example would be Battlefield Earth, the novel was brilliant and one of the best I've ever read, the movie however was something I will never watch again.


When people, including myself, refer to many modern movies as pure visual without substance, we are not saying there needs to be a ton of dialogue added to make it a solid picture.

ok. so don't add dialogue. then you have a lot of empty space to fill. meanwhile, you're watching non-f/x-laced scenery and set. what's the point of that?



I still think you missed the point of quality over quantity of substance, both in the case of the dialogue in a film and the f/x used. I think writers are not producing the quality scripts we've seen in the past. There is more to the lack of quality in modern film making than just adding or subtracting dialogue or f/x, there needs to be a fundamental shift in the stories themselves.


I believe we are saying there is so little value to the dialogue existing in these films that it makes the movie of poor quality with or without the f/x.

look at the originals too, then. the dialogue was just as poor.


I don't think the dialogue in the originals was quite as bad as what has been produced lately. However it certainly wasn't the best ever created, but the movies were good and people enjoyed them because of the story they told. It eludes to the point you made, and I agreed with, about the story driving the movie. So the dialogue wasn't spectacular and the f/x were nothing compared to what is possible now, it really doesn't matter because GL had a really great story. It seems as though GL lacked a bit on the ingenuity of the story for the prequels and used the f/x as a crutch.


A good movie is one in which the audience (whether long time fans of a series or a one-off picture) actually cares about what happens to the people in the film.

yeah, and? so you're saying you don't care what happens to the people in the film. fine. you don't like Star Wars anymore. why are you on this newsgroup?



I love movies, and that is why I pick them apart. There are many movies which I think are great, even in current film-making, unfortunately the American movie industry just isn't producing many of them at this point in time. I commented earlier that I enjoy the SW universe in general and I've spent a lot of my time immersing myself in the total story line. If I hadn't, I assure you I wouldn't be in this newsgroup. As long as GL is done making crap and allows the talented people to continue the saga I will always be a fan.


This is done through quality writing, professional acting, and skilled direction.

i'll believe you if you can prove you graduated film school with a 4.0. and even then, that only works 75% of the time. and i'm being generous.


So if I haven't graduated film school with 4.0 what I said would be inaccurate? I would really be interested in seeing a movie where the three attributes I mentioned where included and the movie still reeked. This, of course, would be highly subjective, but I doubt such a movie would fair poorly. I would say it is a far more accurate statement to say those three things aren't done 75% of the time and that is why many movies fail. The audience isn't stupid, when one of those things is done in a shoddy manner, they can tell and they won't like what they are watching.


The f/x should only be there as something with which the story can flow through, without interference. By interference, I mean scenes, long scenes, which are created solely for the purpose of exhibition. The prequel movies are full of this,

uh...huh. give me an example of a scene that was purely to exhibit the f/x. i'm assuming you mean that it has no dialogue, because dialogue would detract from the presentation of f/x, right? oh, and it wouldn't have any bearing on setting, either, because that's part of story, as it lets the viewer know where the action is taking place.


Refer to exhibitionist scenes which I explained earlier.


and because of it, the movies feel stagnant even though they are full of action on the screen.

i know this makes logical sense, but once you think about it....

By stagnant, I mean the story isn't being progressed and the pace is slowed. Watching the third or fourth space battle scene really isn't telling the audience anything other than "look at the pretty space ships, isn't our CG team the shit".


When the action in a scene is finished, the audience is left with a feeling of emptiness which leads to confusion and an overall dislike for what they are watching.

you know what i think? i think you should stop watching movies at all. either that or go to Hollywood and tell them what they're doing wrong. i'm sure with your professional background and experience, they'll listen to you.


Should I stop watching movies because I hold an opinion of them? I don't think I ever said it tears me apart or that I can't sleep at night, I was essentially pontificating on what I thought of them in general. That is basically what forums like the newsgroups are for isn't it?

Many, many people are telling Hollywood what they are doing wrong, THEY AREN'T GOING TO MOVIES. I'm not really sure where your belligerent attitude is coming from, but I don't care much either. I'll keep writing, and you'll, I'm sure, keep arguing. It makes it more interesting anyways.


To say a movie is of better quality when more dialogue is added is ridiculous, instead of more, what needs to be done is an increase in the quality.

ah, finally you're making sense. but wait. you can't possibly be talking about the Star Wars movies. since when has there EVER been quality dialogue? (wait, i remember. in the South Passage at Echo Base! of course!)


I do feel I misspoke there, I should have said better story writing as opposed to better dialogue, but the emphasis was the similar, better writing.

*gruff*
JAC


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SPLICHT!
    ... Sometimes our favorite movies and TV shows feature some hideously ... awesomest lines of unintentionally funny dialogue from science ... Another great candidate from the original Star ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)
  • Re: Oscars
    ... completely changing the way he makes movies just because it's almost 30 ... Star Wars was always about the f/x. ... we are not saying there needs to be a ton of dialogue ...
    (alt.fan.starwars)
  • Re: Oscars
    ... fake that kind of thing with low-end f/x and expect the movie to survive. ... movies and tell me they were solid without all the flash-bang f/x. ... dialogue added to make it a solid picture. ... I still think you missed the point of quality over quantity of substance, ...
    (alt.fan.starwars)
  • Re: Letterboxing evil on FMC
    ... place to air a lot of movies from the '70's that aren't in anyone else's ... The movie solved the problem of stupid dialogue by ... turn off stations that can't manage to broadcast correctly framed (and for ... you'd have to add a compulsory license to copyright law for ...
    (rec.arts.tv)
  • Re: Letterboxing evil on FMC
    ... place to air a lot of movies from the '70's that aren't in anyone else's ... The movie solved the problem of stupid dialogue by ... the Navy captain character says little ... and the SD downlink may have gone away. ...
    (rec.arts.tv)