Re: Oscars

Billy Gruff wrote:
"Spencer Meffert" <smeffert@xxxxxxx> wrote:

<snippage, for space>

so... you expect them to move through and be surrounded by an alien planet that doesn't exist without heavy reliance on f/x...how?
My point is still being missed somehow, and at this point it seems doubtful I will be able to overcome the miscommunication. Heavy f/x is fine, apparently you responded before reading my comment directly below. It is about the method of execution as opposed to the actual use.

perhaps, then, you can explain the proper use of f/x when one needs to tell a story about several planets engaged in a war on a galactic scale?


Alright, I guess when it boils down to it, my major problem with the prequels was the use of f/x as a device as opposed to a vehicle when delivering the story. That is how I personally differentiate the proper use versus superfluous use.

<snippage, again>

the idea isn't to replace high-end with low-end

i...know. i'm not using "low-end" to mean bad, exactly. but i'm hard-pressed to come up with a better word to destress the immersion of a set into an f/x world.


Now that is where I believe we are having the major miscommunication in our debate. I believe f/x should be used as a set and, aside from short excursions otherwise, only for that effect. To tell scenes predominantly through f/x is when the film begins to suffer. In fact, it isn't even the f/x aspect I have a problem with, there are plenty of movies which do this via scenes that don't have any f/x. The fact the prequels where almost totally constructed through f/x is why I dwell on that aspect.

<snippage>

Science Fiction was also hugely popular in print from the 40's all the way through to the present day.
print is an entirely different media. judging from my retail bookstore experience, i would hazard that up to 50% of the population of the United States has no desire to read for pleasure, up from 30-40% back in the '40s.
You said the population can't get behind SF and I just stated this as an opposing point. Stories are stories in the end, after all is said and done, movies, as well as print, are essentially just a story. It doesn't really matter what percentage of the population is involved in reading, those that are, enjoy good SF.

no. go to your nearest bookstore and compare the size of the SF/Fantasy section to the rest of the sections. the fact that SF and Fantasy have been lumped together ought to tell you something right there. the fact is that a VERY SMALL percentage of that half population frequents the section. ie: not that many people DO read SF. which, again, is why we're still "geeks". otherwise, SF would be in mainstream.

I spend a great deal of time in bookstores and that is major reason behind my comment. If all fiction was placed into its respective categories, the Sci-Fi section would be among the largest in the store, with or without Fantasy. To take Fantasy out of the category could be seen as making sense, but the fact many of the readers of one category also dip into the other is why the stores put them together.

Many times the writers have inadequate talent, and the result is terrible, but the idea that the writers don't even read the original text is laughable; if that was the case, then the movie wouldn't have anything to do with book.

and your point was...?

The point was Hollywood needs to find some better talent.


Most writers fail at this task because it is very difficult to take the huge amount of information contained in a book and condense it enough to make an enjoyable movie.

no. MOST writers fail at this task specifically for the reason i've already mentioned. only the good ones fail because of the difficulty in transferring 300-600 pages of text into a 2-hour script.


It certainly isn't impossible, and it has been accomplished many times before. I guess I can't abide the industries attitude of, "if it has sold well in print, then it can make a great movie regardless of the people we use to adapt it, just add more f/x and it will be successful". Refer to comment above.


...by which you mean there aren't any scenes in either the Alien saga or the MiB movies that couldn't have been told without the specific f/x?

<snippage>

i haven't missed anything. quality scripting isn't what movies are about. you want script, you go to Broadway. you get too much "quality" dialogue, and you have Shakespeare. Hollywood has been a visual media since its inception. scripting is for the ears, and story is a concept that works on the subconscious the entire time. movies are about WATCHING them. and without seamless f/x, the movie falls on its ass.
Quality scriptwriting isn't what movies are about huh? I guess you feel scriptwriting refers only to the dialogue?

no, i understand stage direction and notes about setting. but there can be no expository text in a script, because it can't be conveyed through the camera.

So "clean expository writing" is a bullshit description? Wouldn't the intent be laid down via a good writer and the conveyance through the camera be achieved in proper direction of said writing?

<snippage>
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.
no, the scripts just suck.
I think you mean, yes, the scripts suck. Stories are told by the script, if the script sucks, than that means the writer doesn't know how to tell a story and therefore, will not be able to produce a story worth following.

...which isn't what you said. this sentiment i agree with. the one above, that there needs to be a "fundamental shift" in story.... i don't.


If the writer doesn't have a good enough story to begin with, the studio will pile on extraneous scenes filled with f/x; that is the "fundamental shift" in which I was referring to; if writers create better stories, the extraneous scenes will not need to be added and a better film will ensue.

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.
point to quality dialogue in the originals, and i may leave you alone.
There are many scenes in which memorable dialogue was produced. Many things Sir Alec Guiness said was well thought out, such as the conversation with Luke about the force and about Vader killing his father. The scene in ROTJ when Luke is hiding from Vader in the Emperor's chambers was very good as well.

*blink*
oh god. ok, now i'm laughing at you. even in the prequels, all the dialogue was "well thought-out". the problem is it's poorly executed. exactly as it was in the originals.

I disagree, the emotion in the original was conveyed far better than in the prequels. You asked for an example of good dialogue and I presented it.


However it certainly wasn't the best ever created, but the movies were good and people enjoyed them because of the story they told.
i'm... having trouble following your logic. on the one hand, you're commending the first three Star Wars stories--driven heavily by high-end f/x--then backhanding the recent three for their heavy high-end f/x, saying the stories are driven by them.

...and still am. you don't care to comment?

I explained, and you commented, on the fact I felt the prequels where ill-conceived.


<snippage>


Certainly a subjective view. When it finally comes down to it though, the story of the prequels just isn't as interesting either.

"uninteresting" does not make them "bad" or even "poor quality".

Yes it does, that is a major reason most scripts don't even get considered for production; the story isn't terribly interesting so the studio doesn't produce it. The fact GL is basically an independent film-maker at this point means he doesn't have to ask anyone if what he has created is worth a fat shit.


I think it was more than a lack of writing ability on GL's part, many of things in the movies didn't feel real, and that is what f/x is supposed to be there for at its current level. Everything just felt strained and unnatural, the originals made me feel comfortably in sync with the story and the prequels didn't. I put this blame on GL solely because he took charge of all the important aspects of the film.

i put the blame on your waiting so long for them. out of curiosity, do you know anyone who didn't see the originals 20 years ago, and is just now watching the saga as a whole?

No, I really can't comment on that.


I know he isn't listed in the credits as an editor but I read in DroidMaker that his favorite place is in the editing room. Maybe if he wasn't there, the movie wouldn't have felt so bloated. An editor's job is to make the film concise and create the correct pace. It clearly was done poorly on the prequels and done well on the originals.

he's always directed from the editing room. in ANH, it was more by necessity because Fox was going to cut him off if he didn't finish shooting.

Maybe that is clue as to why ANH is widely regarded as the best in terms of pure film-making.


<snippage>

As long as GL is done making crap and allows the talented people to continue the saga I will always be a fan.
the saga is complete. stories in the universe with no attachment to the saga, however, may continue on the small screen.
When I referred to Saga, I meant the SW universe as a whole.

from http://www.dictionary.com : saga n. 1. (a) a prose narrative usually written in Iceland between 1120 and 1400, dealing with the families that first settled Iceland and their descendants, with the histories of the kings of Norway, and with the myths and legends of early Germanic gods and heroes. (b) a modern prose narrative that resembles a saga. 2. a long detailed report: recounted the saga of their family problems.


Ok, so I was wrong in my use of the word; I explained what I meant and that should be the end of it.


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?
no, uninformed.
So it would be inaccurate?

it may be considered accurate, but i have a hard time believing you because you lack the credentials to say so.


It isn't about black and white as far as what is considered accurate. If I meet a person and they tell me something I agree with, or don't agree with, I couldn't care less if they have "credentials". I weigh what they have said against my knowledge of a subject and then either disagree or agree with them. If a person with "credentials" told me something which was plainly wrong, I wouldn't then throw common sense out the window and agree because of their "credentials".

I would really be interested in seeing a movie where the three attributes I mentioned where included and the movie still reeked.
hrm. i could point to several in the not-so-distant past, but i'm assuming now you mean "good story" instead of "quality writing". in which case, i should apologize for my hasty response. because, as you know, Dickens, Hemmingway, and Melville were all quality writers.
As far as a movie goes, a good story is only produced when there is good writing to initiate it.

that whizzing sound? that was the reference going over your head. Dickens, Hemmingway, and Melville are widely regarded as being among the most boring and dry writers in the history of literature.


Were they screenwriters? Obviously not, so there is no need to comment on their writing ability. I also believe they were regarded as very talented writers who are read far more than contemporary writers. Stephen King is also widely considered a writer of poor technical quality among literary figures, yet I'm fairly sure he will be remembered as one of most talented.

<snippage>

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".
it's telling the audience that there had to be another battle. it advances the story. you can't very well start the movie with a declaration of war and expect not to have to portray any of it. what, exactly, was the first 10 minutes of Saving Private Ryan about, besides telling the audience, "hey, look at this sweet CGI gore! isn't it realistic?"
The significance of the space battle scenes in the prequels is insufficient to the story in respect to the amount of time given them. As far a Saving Private Ryan, the opening of the movie creates an atmosphere of terror in which the audience will be using to create a setting for the entire picture.

horseshit. if it were a horror movie, that might fly. but the overarching theme of the movie was heroism. they very well COULD have drastically shortened the beginning sequence without detracting from the story.


I guarantee the movie wouldn't have been as powerful. When you watched it, did the feeling that developed not prevail throughout the movie?

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?
oh no. hold all the opinions you want. but to tell other people that they shouldn't like what they're watching because YOU think it sucks? no, that detracts from my experience at the theater.
Why do you HAVE to listen to me?

i don't HAVE to listen to your opinion. but you're preaching. and you inserted yourself into this thread specifically to tell me i'm wrong.


You didn't tell me how I am actually detracting from your experience at the theater...I doubt sincerely that I am.

<snippage>

Perhaps I am reading to much into your posts,
words on a screen can be deceiving as to their intended meaning.

i intend my words to mean what the words themselves inherently mean. i'm not sure how you can misinterpret that.

So sarcasm isn't any harder to detect when read than when heard? I'm sure you, as an intelligent person, can see this as a way misinterpretations can exist.


An accepted manner?

hah! possibly. but no, i meant accepted. as in the actual rules of debate.

You're deluding yourself if you think your rules are held by all.


*gruff*
JAC


.

Relevant Pages