|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 30, 2017 15:22:48 GMT
A trilogy of films with bad dialogue? You disappoint me, my friend. 1. Either all six have bad dialogue, or none of them do. 2. The dialogue can still be affected and have subtext. 3. Personally, I think you are under-thinking this and falling into the staid, lazy malaise of blind prequel hate. Stop being a walking, breathing internet nerd stereotype. 1. The prequel trilogy is slightly worse than the OT...plus I wasn't sure if "Sixology" was a word, so I stuck with the 3. 2. As much as it can be shabby with no subtext 3. Not blind hate...there is a quick shot where some Stormtroopers emerge from a sandstorm in AOTC...I quite like that. 1. I think it's sextology? Sextilogy? Something. I really think they're equal, but I guess it's just personal preference. 2. Sure. I guess its interpretation is subjective. 3. Me too! That specific shot really struck me upon initially viewing the flick. I remember thinking, "THIS is the fucking Clone Wars! We're finally getting it!"
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 30, 2017 15:24:07 GMT
Either all six have bad dialogue, or none of them do. Lolwut? I just meant that I view the dialogue as stilted/affected in all six Lucas movies pretty equally. If anything IV has the cheesiest dialogue and it's probably the best one objectively, so...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 16:08:06 GMT
I just meant that I view the dialogue as stilted/affected in all six Lucas movies pretty equally. If anything IV has the cheesiest dialogue and it's probably the best one objectively, so... I'd say the dialogue is probably equally bad. The acting seems to be better in some films more than others. Good acting can sell shitty dialogue.... I'd say that the OT actors were probably able to overcome the shortcomings of Lucas as a director in ANH, whereas the PT actors, especially Natalie Portman, had a tougher time. But, for the life of me, I don't get how Hayden is panned for his performance while Portman is left off the hook. When I watch their scenes together, I see Hayden acting and Portman just lifelessly reciting lines. It's her performance that kills all their scenes together....
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on May 30, 2017 19:57:35 GMT
typical Lucas poetry & rhyming, describing the situation and the character's conflicts figuratively Personally I think you are over thinking this and giving more credit to Lucas than he deserves...it's a terrible line in a trilogy of films with bad dialogue Lucas is one of the few ideas-men and storytellers in an age of blockbuster films designed by corporate committee. Lucas in known for his maniacal use of story-immanent references and layering. He is subtle enough to let dead Qui Gon call out for Anakin during the massacre, he carefully laid out Anakin's already formed attachments when he joined the Jedi in Ep1, and then shows his inability to let go of them regarding his mother, and him finally projecting them on Padme when he "fails" his mother. The same conflict we see in Ep 2 we then see in Ep III on a much grander and deadlier scale. In this context I think it would be naive to believe Anakin was really just talking about his literal dislike of sand, and not figuratively about his lowly background and character conflicts. Accordingly, the great musical theme accompanying them is called star-crossed-lovers. I thinks Lucas deserves more credit as a storyteller than he is given, one just needs the mind for it.
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on May 30, 2017 20:18:00 GMT
1. The prequel trilogy is slightly worse than the OT...plus I wasn't sure if "Sixology" was a word, so I stuck with the 3. 1. I think it's sextology? Sextilogy? Something. I really think they're equal, but I guess it's just personal preference. Singularity, Duology, Trilogy, Quadriology, Pentalogy, Hexalogy, Heptalogy, Octalogy ....
|
|
|
Post by sostie on May 30, 2017 22:38:56 GMT
Personally I think you are over thinking this and giving more credit to Lucas than he deserves...it's a terrible line in a trilogy of films with bad dialogue Lucas is one of the few ideas-men and storytellers in an age of blockbuster films designed by corporate committee. Lucas in known for his maniacal use of story-immanent references and layering. He is subtle enough to let dead Qui Gon call out for Anakin during the massacre, he carefully laid out Anakin's already formed attachments when he joined the Jedi in Ep1, and then shows his inability to let go of them regarding his mother, and him finally projecting them on Padme when he "fails" his mother. The same conflict we see in Ep 2 we then see in Ep III on a much grander and deadlier scale. In this context I think it would be naive to believe Anakin was really just talking about his literal dislike of sand, and not figuratively about his lowly background and character conflicts. Accordingly, the great musical theme accompanying them is called star-crossed-lovers. I thinks Lucas deserves more credit as a storyteller than he is given, one just needs the mind for it. I'm sorry, but if by ideas man you mean in respect of the story etc (as opposed to the technology that got it there) I don't see it myself. His films are full of scenes and ideas from other films and established myths. At times he does no more than let's do a bar scene...with aliens and robots, let's do gladiatorial scene...with aliens and robots, lets do a chariot race...with aliens and robots etc etc. And if there is all this well thought out subtext and layering to his dialogue and plot then he has been far from successful seeing how so many consider the films badly written. If you have the "mind for it" you can project a deeper level of subtext and layering to almost any film than was intended. I've read books doing the same for The Thing, worked on a website that dedicated pages and pages of it to the Die Hard, Alien and Predator franchises (all starting out as a joke and ending up getting really deep).
|
|
yogabagaba
Freshman
@yogabagaba
Posts: 54
Likes: 12
|
Post by yogabagaba on May 30, 2017 22:49:16 GMT
So ignore execution and focus solely on the filmmaker's intent (or what you assume the intent was)? I'm sorry, but would you praise a chef for serving you a burnt steak because they didn't mean to?
None of this changes the fact that the actors have no chemistry, or that the clunky delivery, even if intentional, is cringe-inducing instead of endearing. It also doesn't excuse how disturbing Anakin's pursuit of Padme can be at points, how she simply brushes aside his psychotic rant (tears on his part be damned) and admission to murdering children (regardless of their race or culture), and how her admission of "love" to him comes off as a young girl simply afraid of her looming death as opposed to true love warranting marriage after a grand total of, what, a week together? This after having last spent roughly another week around one another 10 years prior?
Frankly, this whole notion of it being intentional comes off as George making excuses, which is nothing new. Whether it's "these movies are for kids" (his go-to whenever anybody criticizes his, at times, nonsensical writing in the prequels), or "it's meant to be a courtly romance"/"they're supposed to be awkward," or his utterly laughable use of the race-card when talking about studios' unwillingness to distribute Red Tails (sure, George, it had nothing to do with the movie being pretty bad, and a bit insulting in its corny and simplistic depiction of the Tuskegee airmen and their plight), it all just comes off as a sad excuse to ignore any criticism, even if it's legitimate.
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on May 30, 2017 23:01:10 GMT
I never had a problem with that line. You must be a sand-lover!
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 31, 2017 7:50:45 GMT
I never had a problem with that line. You must be a sand-lover! I love sand too. What's not to love (unless you were a slave on a sand planet, and neglect to visit your dying mother there of course)?
I will print a T-Shirt with that line.
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on May 31, 2017 12:19:34 GMT
Lucas is one of the few ideas-men and storytellers in an age of blockbuster films designed by corporate committee. Lucas in known for his maniacal use of story-immanent references and layering. He is subtle enough to let dead Qui Gon call out for Anakin during the massacre, he carefully laid out Anakin's already formed attachments when he joined the Jedi in Ep1, and then shows his inability to let go of them regarding his mother, and him finally projecting them on Padme when he "fails" his mother. The same conflict we see in Ep 2 we then see in Ep III on a much grander and deadlier scale. In this context I think it would be naive to believe Anakin was really just talking about his literal dislike of sand, and not figuratively about his lowly background and character conflicts. Accordingly, the great musical theme accompanying them is called star-crossed-lovers. I thinks Lucas deserves more credit as a storyteller than he is given, one just needs the mind for it. I'm sorry, but if by ideas man you mean in respect of the story etc (as opposed to the technology that got it there) I don't see it myself. His films are full of scenes and ideas from other films and established myths. At times he does no more than let's do a bar scene...with aliens and robots, let's do gladiatorial scene...with aliens and robots, lets do a chariot race...with aliens and robots etc etc. And if there is all this well thought out subtext and layering to his dialogue and plot then he has been far from successful seeing how so many consider the films badly written. If you have the "mind for it" you can project a deeper level of subtext and layering to almost any film than was intended. I've read books doing the same for The Thing, worked on a website that dedicated pages and pages of it to the Die Hard, Alien and Predator franchises (all starting out as a joke and ending up getting really deep). - That's an oversimplification based on several scenes superimposed over the summary of 6 films. Can't agree. - The dialogue has always been cheesy and somewhat cumbersome. Good or bad it's a trademark to this fictional galaxy "far, far away and a long time ago..." - Some movies make a better argument for it than others. Some people are determined to see everything in SW at face value to reinforce their argument that it's badly written wherever they don't like these movies. I guess when the cave scene happened with Luke in TESB, you thought that the beheaded Vader whose mask exploded to show Luke's face meant that Luke had a twin brother who was another Vader. He was going to kill his twin brother Vader in the future, and there were actually 2 Darth Vaders.
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on May 31, 2017 12:29:07 GMT
So ignore execution and focus solely on the filmmaker's intent (or what you assume the intent was)? I'm sorry, but would you praise a chef for serving you a burnt steak because they didn't mean to? None of this changes the fact that the actors have no chemistry, or that the clunky delivery, even if intentional, is cringe-inducing instead of endearing. It also doesn't excuse how disturbing Anakin's pursuit of Padme can be at points, how she simply brushes aside his psychotic rant (tears on his part be damned) and admission to murdering children (regardless of their race or culture), and how her admission of "love" to him comes off as a young girl simply afraid of her looming death as opposed to true love warranting marriage after a grand total of, what, a week together? This after having last spent roughly another week around one another 10 years prior? Frankly, this whole notion of it being intentional comes off as George making excuses, which is nothing new. Whether it's "these movies are for kids" (his go-to whenever anybody criticizes his, at times, nonsensical writing in the prequels), or "it's meant to be a courtly romance"/"they're supposed to be awkward," or his utterly laughable use of the race-card when talking about studios' unwillingness to distribute Red Tails (sure, George, it had nothing to do with the movie being pretty bad, and a bit insulting in its corny and simplistic depiction of the Tuskegee airmen and their plight), it all just comes off as a sad excuse to ignore any criticism, even if it's legitimate. If you hate all of George Lucas's movies, why have you apparently bothered to watch all of them?
|
|
|
Post by sostie on May 31, 2017 13:02:28 GMT
I'm sorry, but if by ideas man you mean in respect of the story etc (as opposed to the technology that got it there) I don't see it myself. His films are full of scenes and ideas from other films and established myths. At times he does no more than let's do a bar scene...with aliens and robots, let's do gladiatorial scene...with aliens and robots, lets do a chariot race...with aliens and robots etc etc. And if there is all this well thought out subtext and layering to his dialogue and plot then he has been far from successful seeing how so many consider the films badly written. If you have the "mind for it" you can project a deeper level of subtext and layering to almost any film than was intended. I've read books doing the same for The Thing, worked on a website that dedicated pages and pages of it to the Die Hard, Alien and Predator franchises (all starting out as a joke and ending up getting really deep). I guess when the cave scene happened with Luke in TESB, you thought that the beheaded Vader whose mask exploded to show Luke's face meant that Luke had a twin brother who was another Vader. He was going to kill his twin brother Vader in the future, and there were actually 2 Darth Vaders. No, because it was pretty obvious what was being said/shown. And if it wasn't obvious instantly, you would think about what it meant. The interpretation of the "sand" line...did you work out what you thought he was trying to say in the moment? Was it sometime after? I'm guessing it was sometime after, and it wasn't because you (or whoever concluded he was trying say something much deeper) thought "aah, now there must be some deeper meaning here" but more of a case of "surely he couldn't have written something that bad, let's see if I can find something there to defend him" sometime after the fact. As I said, you'll find a deeper meaning, as you could in many films, in many lines, but was it intended? I doubt it. Any metaphor or deeper meaning, whether intended or not, can't really be concluded as you watch the film...the line stands out, on it's own, and it's bad. As a piece of dialogue it's a fail. As a metaphor/subtext/whatever...it's a fail. It is nothing more than a some dialogue to propel the story. Like the majority of his writing.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 31, 2017 17:10:00 GMT
If you hate all of George Lucas's movies, why have you apparently bothered to watch all of them? he didn't, he religiously watched the silly Plinkett reviews. Per usual, he mindlessly rants through them point by point and, dude!, does he force them upon any topics discussed, regardless of facts or merit, truth or evidence. It's his nature, regardless of names or appearances.
You must recognize our old foe from IMDb days in new clothes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2017 17:29:21 GMT
I'm sorry, but if by ideas man you mean in respect of the story etc (as opposed to the technology that got it there) I don't see it myself. His films are full of scenes and ideas from other films and established myths. At times he does no more than let's do a bar scene...with aliens and robots, let's do gladiatorial scene...with aliens and robots, lets do a chariot race...with aliens and robots etc etc. And if there is all this well thought out subtext and layering to his dialogue and plot then he has been far from successful seeing how so many consider the films badly written. If you have the "mind for it" you can project a deeper level of subtext and layering to almost any film than was intended. I've read books doing the same for The Thing, worked on a website that dedicated pages and pages of it to the Die Hard, Alien and Predator franchises (all starting out as a joke and ending up getting really deep). - That's an oversimplification based on several scenes superimposed over the summary of 6 films. Can't agree. - The dialogue has always been cheesy and somewhat cumbersome. Good or bad it's a trademark to this fictional galaxy "far, far away and a long time ago..." - Some movies make a better argument for it than others. Some people are determined to see everything in SW at face value to reinforce their argument that it's badly written wherever they don't like these movies. I guess when the cave scene happened with Luke in TESB, you thought that the beheaded Vader whose mask exploded to show Luke's face meant that Luke had a twin brother who was another Vader. He was going to kill his twin brother Vader in the future, and there were actually 2 Darth Vaders. Well I will say this much. Lucas has always built metaphorical elements into his Star Wars films; whether it's scenes or lines or characters or environments, etc. If you've seen enough interviews of the guy or documentaries and featurettes you'd know this to true. For instance General Grievous is a metaphor for the mechanical villain that Anakin will become. An example of one of many metaphors disclosed. Now where, what, and when all the metaphors occur is not always so certain. Obviously there's not a glossary index on them. So a good deal of this could come down to personal opinion. In other words either one of you could be right or could be wrong. As old Ben Kenobi said "(Luke) you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view."
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 31, 2017 19:30:41 GMT
The interpretation of the "sand" line...did you work out what you thought he was trying to say in the moment? Was it sometime after? I'm guessing it was sometime after, and it wasn't because you (or whoever concluded he was trying say something much deeper) thought "aah, now there must be some deeper meaning here" but more of a case of "surely he couldn't have written something that bad, let's see if I can find something there to defend him" sometime after the fact. As I said, you'll find a deeper meaning, as you could in many films, in many lines, but was it intended? I doubt it. comedy gold, sostie old mate, true comedy gold. This is an awesome eye opener really! Until now I have been positive that EVERYBODY with a basic literary education (or who at least read some poetry once) would get the "I dont like sand" line - not so evidently! Yeah, sostie, I worked it out immediately when hearing it (it's fairly obvious, even the title of the Williams music? lol), so did my GF, and everybody I talked to about it.... yeah mate your fallacy is "personal incredulity". Let's be honest: you are a Marvel guy like Furious and FlyingJ, and we really should talk your language. You are like that beefcake guy in Guardians who takes nearly every line literal. LOL, must be difficult in real life, eh? " I don't like Mondays" . Rubbish, wut's wrong with Mundays, mate? And OMG, the whole PT is full of figurative stuff, no wonder it does not make sense but crap: - There is always a bigger fish! Eh, fish...what fish eh? - Greed is a powerful ally. WuuuutTF? - The shroud of the dark side has fallen! What fracking shroud, you bloody muppet? - The shadow of greed that is. Fuck it, I'm out mate! Damp squid! Let's not even discuss the deeper PT layers, I remember our discussion from the past...I quote: "So twat"- It's like casting pearls before the swine..... eh? But always a lot of fun, my man.
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on May 31, 2017 19:54:10 GMT
Actually, the inability to understand allegories, metaphors or double meanings can be a symptom of Aspergers or a form of Autism. I once made fun of a slow guy on IMDB who gave me flack because I used the paraphrase "The Emperor's Old Clothes" in relation to The Force Awakens relentless rehashing.
He would correct me with everything and simply not get my variation on the fairy tale's title. Later he mentioned he had Aspergers and the whole thing seemed less funny.
That being said, often there really is no mental subtext, many prequel haters you will meet are simply mindless idiots.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on May 31, 2017 20:46:05 GMT
The interpretation of the "sand" line...did you work out what you thought he was trying to say in the moment? Was it sometime after? I'm guessing it was sometime after, and it wasn't because you (or whoever concluded he was trying say something much deeper) thought "aah, now there must be some deeper meaning here" but more of a case of "surely he couldn't have written something that bad, let's see if I can find something there to defend him" sometime after the fact. As I said, you'll find a deeper meaning, as you could in many films, in many lines, but was it intended? I doubt it. comedy gold, sostie old mate, true comedy gold. This is an awesome eye opener really! Until now I have been positive that EVERYBODY with a basic literary education (or who at least read some poetry once) would get the "I dont like sand" line - not so evidently! Yeah, sostie, I worked it out immediately when hearing it (it's fairly obvious, even the title of the Williams music? lol), so did my GF, and everybody I talked to about it.... yeah mate your fallacy is "personal incredulity". Let's be honest: you are a Marvel guy like Furious and FlyingJ, and we really should talk your language. You are like that beefcake guy in Guardians who takes nearly every line literal. LOL, must be difficult in real life, eh? " I don't like Mondays" . Rubbish, wut's wrong with Mundays, mate? And OMG, the whole PT is full of figurative stuff, no wonder it does not make sense but crap: - There is always a bigger fish! Eh, fish...what fish eh? - Greed is a powerful ally. WuuuutTF? - The shroud of the dark side has fallen! What fracking shroud, you bloody muppet? - The shadow of greed that is. Fuck it, I'm out mate! Damp squid! Let's not even discuss the deeper PT layers, I remember our discussion from the past...I quote: "So twat"- It's like casting pearls before the swine..... eh? But always a lot of fun, my man. So, genuinely, the moment you heard that line you and your GF instantly thought well that is about... - (i) Star Crossed Lovers: Padme the aristocrat speaks of lying in the sand on beaches for fun, for Anakin sand symbolizes his lowly origins as a slave on Tatooine (desert planet = sand, get it?), - (i) Ghosts of the Past: Anakin’s agonizing situation regarding his dying mother calling him back home, but who he must ignore because of the Jedi code (attachments...). This conflict is the beginning of his downfall of course.And not like many, thought it was bad dialogue? At a stretch maybe you could possibly come up with the first interpretation but the second! And the clue in Williams music! Sorry didn't have the tracklisting with me at the time...didn't listen to the soundtrack before or after. might have if I thought you needed it to decode the film's dialogue. A Marvel guy? make it sound like it's all I like..far from it.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on May 31, 2017 20:50:04 GMT
Actually, the inability to understand allegories, metaphors or double meanings can be a symptom of Aspergers or a form of Autism. I once made fun of a slow guy on IMDB who gave me flack because I used the paraphrase "The Emperor's Old Clothes" in relation to The Force Awakens relentless rehashing.
He would correct me with everything and simply not get my variation on the fairy tale's title. Later he mentioned he had Aspergers and the whole thing seemed less funny.
That being said, often there really is no mental subtext, many prequel haters you will meet are simply mindless idiots. Nice one. My brother will appreciate that in this day and age people with Autism, like his son, are still described as "slow guys". My nephew loves the prequels BTW.
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on May 31, 2017 21:02:49 GMT
Actually, the inability to understand allegories, metaphors or double meanings can be a symptom of Aspergers or a form of Autism. I once made fun of a slow guy on IMDB who gave me flack because I used the paraphrase "The Emperor's Old Clothes" in relation to The Force Awakens relentless rehashing.
He would correct me with everything and simply not get my variation on the fairy tale's title. Later he mentioned he had Aspergers and the whole thing seemed less funny.
That being said, often there really is no mental subtext, many prequel haters you will meet are simply mindless idiots. Nice one. My brother will appreciate that in this day and age people with Autism, like his son, are still described as "slow guys". My nephew loves the prequels BTW. Nice one, straw man-ing my little IMDB anecdote. Apologies to all the slow people in the world and especially on this board, no offence, if any taken. Your nephew seems to dwell on the bright side of the Force, it seems. Can only hope that one day you take after him.
|
|
yogabagaba
Freshman
@yogabagaba
Posts: 54
Likes: 12
|
Post by yogabagaba on May 31, 2017 23:05:23 GMT
So ignore execution and focus solely on the filmmaker's intent (or what you assume the intent was)? I'm sorry, but would you praise a chef for serving you a burnt steak because they didn't mean to? None of this changes the fact that the actors have no chemistry, or that the clunky delivery, even if intentional, is cringe-inducing instead of endearing. It also doesn't excuse how disturbing Anakin's pursuit of Padme can be at points, how she simply brushes aside his psychotic rant (tears on his part be damned) and admission to murdering children (regardless of their race or culture), and how her admission of "love" to him comes off as a young girl simply afraid of her looming death as opposed to true love warranting marriage after a grand total of, what, a week together? This after having last spent roughly another week around one another 10 years prior? Frankly, this whole notion of it being intentional comes off as George making excuses, which is nothing new. Whether it's "these movies are for kids" (his go-to whenever anybody criticizes his, at times, nonsensical writing in the prequels), or "it's meant to be a courtly romance"/"they're supposed to be awkward," or his utterly laughable use of the race-card when talking about studios' unwillingness to distribute Red Tails (sure, George, it had nothing to do with the movie being pretty bad, and a bit insulting in its corny and simplistic depiction of the Tuskegee airmen and their plight), it all just comes off as a sad excuse to ignore any criticism, even if it's legitimate. If you hate all of George Lucas's movies, why have you apparently bothered to watch all of them? I actually haven't seen THX 1138 or Strange Magic. With the Star Wars prequels, there was always the hope that he would redeem himself with the next one. Alas, when I walked out of Episode 3, all I could do was shrug my shoulders and say "well, I can't say I'm surprised by now." When it came to Red Tails, well, George wasn't directing the movie (though it's since be rumored that he directed several reshoots), and after all the hubub he raised about studios not wanting to distribute it due to its mostly black cast, I was willing to give it a chance. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? Same deal: Lucas wasn't directing. Hell, we had Spielberg in the chair. Too bad he wasn't willing to shoot down some of George's more questionable ideas, among other things. But ultimately, if I've got some free time, sure, I'll put on a movie that I'm curious about, whether I've heard bad things about it or not. I think watching bad movies and analyzing them can incredibly useful when it comes to realizing what makes a good movie.
|
|