Info & Ideas: ESB and ROTJ Wishlist — Page 207

Theres nothing wrong with the pacing, it is how stupid the battle is and looks.  We don't need to see 10 minutes of screwing around when we only need to see 3-4.  How ever long the "battle" is (more like a scene from a play it's that bad), it still gets the point that there is a battle.  It's not like we are taking out important scenes that build characterism.

Sometimes you need to break from the story a little bit to make the overall movie better to watch.  The final battles should be nothing short of spectacular because it is the end of the best saga of all time. What will get more people in to SW, the SB battle or an updated more important space battle?

Ghost said:

Sometimes you need to break from the story a little bit to make the overall movie better to watch. 

Christ, are you joking? If there is one, single cardinal rule of film-making, it is that you never, ever break from the story. Everything else is secondary. Everything, be it some fantastic scene that you really want to keep, or a great FX sequence. If they don't contribute to the plot, they have to go. If you don't get that, don't waste time trying to do anything with movies.

Do you know why people got bored with the fights and battles in the prequels? Because they wasted time showing us "pretty stuff to watch" when they should have been advancing the story. Yes, you can have duels and battles. But they should serve their function to the plot and nothing more.

All I meant was we don't need 10 minutes of the SB battle.  Cutting time off it wouldn't be breaking from the story.  It would be better to see Luke dominate it rather than him looking like he didn't know what he was doing.

Well, that's not exactly what you said, is it.

Nope. 

Star Wars films are broken down into Acts.

In ANH you have Leia captured and sending the droids to Tatooine where they meet Luke, Ben and Han.

That's a first Act.

Then you have our heroes on the Death Star finding the Princess, Obi-Wan and Vader fight and they escape.

That's a second Act.

Then you have the arrival at Yavin, the launch of the fighters the battle and the destruction of the Death Star.

Each Act has a conclusion which has to be dramatic.

So end of Act One the fight past the Destroyers into Hyperspace.

End Of Act Two the Tie Fighter attack.

End Of Act Three the celebration, the conclusion of the film.

Act one of ROTJ is the rescue of Han it has to be a major set piece to draw a line under the end of the Act so the audience can move onto the next part of the story.

If you skimp on that you cheat the audience.

One of the problems with the PT was the poor stucturing of most of the Acts.

Act One of the ROTS was possibly the closest we got to that traditional structure.

When the ship crash lands it feels like a mini-ending to a mini story.

The conclusions to the first Acts in TPM and AOTC is less easy to define.

The Queen's ship jumping into hyperspace happens too soon in the movie and it's hard to tell what the act one ending of AOTC's is.

Mess with the story structure at your peril (besides with all it faults it still the best paced part of the film).

Darth Venal said:

Ghost said:

Sometimes you need to break from the story a little bit to make the overall movie better to watch. 

Christ, are you joking? If there is one, single cardinal rule of film-making, it is that you never, ever break from the story. Everything else is secondary. Everything, be it some fantastic scene that you really want to keep, or a great FX sequence. If they don't contribute to the plot, they have to go. If you don't get that, don't waste time trying to do anything with movies.

Do you know why people got bored with the fights and battles in the prequels? Because they wasted time showing us "pretty stuff to watch" when they should have been advancing the story. Yes, you can have duels and battles. But they should serve their function to the plot and nothing more.

 

Correct, one, single cardinal rule of Hollywood filmmaking. If you're talking about a 3 act narrative structure yes. If you're talking about an episodic structure, no. Ever heard of Italian neorealism? It tends to "waste time" on small everyday events that often don't have anything to do with the narrative, but allow the characters to breathe and reflect their reality, as if they were you and I. Also, when a film has a very deep message, it is usually a good idea to force some long takes to give the audience a chance to reflect on what they just saw.

You're also completely throwing experimental or non-narrative structure out of the window.

Sorry, I'll shut up now. I believe you are in the industry and I'm a lowly first year film student so I probably don't know what I'm talking about...but yeah I would say in a Star Wars film you wouldn't want long breaks from the narrative.

Octorox said:

Darth Venal said:

Ghost said:

Sometimes you need to break from the story a little bit to make the overall movie better to watch. 

Christ, are you joking? If there is one, single cardinal rule of film-making, it is that you never, ever break from the story. Everything else is secondary. Everything, be it some fantastic scene that you really want to keep, or a great FX sequence. If they don't contribute to the plot, they have to go. If you don't get that, don't waste time trying to do anything with movies.

Correct, one, single cardinal rule of Hollywood filmmaking. If you're talking about a 3 act narrative structure yes. If you're talking about an episodic structure, no. Ever heard of Italian neorealism? It tends to "waste time" on small everyday events that often don't have anything to do with the narrative, but allow the characters to breathe and reflect their reality, as if they were you and I. Also, when a film has a very deep message, it is usually a good idea to force some long takes to give the audience a chance to reflect on what they just saw.

You're also completely throwing experimental or non-narrative structure out of the window.

But Star Wars is classically structured, both within the first three films, and those three films as a three-act trilogy. The episodic structure you're referring to is the trilogy, and that also clearly follows the three act rule. They are very conventional, not that that is a bad thing. But the prequels...

Sorry, I'll shut up now. I believe you are in the industry and I'm a lowly first year film student so I probably don't know what I'm talking about...but yeah I would say in a Star Wars film you wouldn't want long breaks from the narrative.

I was also a film student once and it doesn't have much bearing on how much you know. Do a Masters, PhD, then you're talking. Some Bachelors students are gifted, others are not, and that carries through into work. Trust me, there are very many people in this industry that have no idea what they're doing and only got into it because they thought it would be glamourous/cool/enjoyable/blah. Seriously. (Nepotism also has a lot to answer for!)

RoccondilRinon said:

TPM really has more of a four-act structure: act one ends with the escape from Naboo, act two has the podrace as its climax, act three is the Coruscant section and act four is the return to Naboo and final battle. Four acts is unusual in most media; hour-long television dramas are the only format that regularly use it. I disagree that act one of TPM is too short; a lot happens in it.

ROTS has a shortish first act, and a long second one; the most likely candidate for the end of act two is Order 66.

ESB has a clear first act; it's less clear where act two ends, but I would venture Luke's departure from Dagobah makes the most sense.

ROTJ follows the standard three acts; act one ends with the sail barge battle, and act three begins with the Rebel fleet jumping to hyperspace.

The Phantom Menace is three acts, not four. It is just badly structured. The second act begins when they meet Anakin. Act II is everything on Tatooine and back on Coruscant, Act III is the return to Naboo and battles (and the denouement is the parade). That highlights the problem with TPM; it's structured around the wrong character - Padme. The blockade of Naboo should just be a MacGuffin to get the events in motion and lead to them meeting Anakin, which it does, but it becomes the actual focus of the story and the goal of the characters. Anakin is secondary, when he should be the focus. Instead we get an entire movie wasted on his introduction, a fatal flaw. Was Star Wars wasted on Luke's introduction? Nope. Compare what we know about Anakin by the end of TPM to what we have seen of Luke by the end of ANH.

In the overall scheme of things, Obi Wan should have been the lead and Anakin the focus of Episode I, but instead Qui Gon is the lead and Padme is the focus. Qui Gon is completely superfluous, there is nothing he does that couldn't have been given to the others, and Padme is subsequently abandoned in the following movies. In Episode II the MacGuffin is protecting her from assassination, which puts all the events in motion for Obi Wan, Anakin and Padme. I'd say Act II begins with Anakin being assigned to protect Padme and them departing for Naboo. Act III begins with Anakin slaughtering the Sand People out of revenge. Much better structurally, but the execution ruins it.

In Revenge of the Sith, the beginning of Act II is Padme and Anakin when she tells him she's pregnant. The end of Act II is Anakin choosing to help Palpatine - the Padme's Ruminations scene. The tipping of his character (so horribly undermined by his immediate regret after helping kill Jules).

You're right, in Empire, the turn into Act III comes when Luke chooses to leave Dagobah and rescue his friends.

In Jedi, Act I ends as they leave Tatooine, Act II ends with Luke handing himself in to Vader. This is about Luke, not the Rebel Alliance.

It's generally accepted that Act changes come with a character decision, not the most obvious break or change in action. A reader/viewer's emotional investment is in the characters, and it is around those characters that virtually every good script is structured.

RoccondilRinon said:

It's debatable, really. The films weren't explicitly planned so that act one ends here or there. An act break can come at any change in the story, and I think it's more a matter of the feel of the film than Significant Character Decisions.

Well, our opinions are debateable, the three-act structure isn't. If TPM does have four acts, then that's yet another reason it fails.

If act two of ROTJ ends with Luke handing himself over, act three begins with the Rebel fleet. Your point being?

My point being exactly what I said. Clearly I was referring to Luke's decision to face Vader and the Emperor. Act changes have absolutely nothing to do with a scene break, and everything to do with the actions/motivations of the characters. Go ahead and ask any working screenwriter, and then discuss it. I don't mean that to sound conceited, arrogant or whatever, but that's screenwriting. Act II and Act III transition at exactly the same point, not the CUT TO the next scene.

RoccondilRinon said:

1. What's wrong with having a four-act structure?

2. Acts are subdivided into scenes. I've never yet seen a film where an act break comes in the middle of a scene. Surely Screenwriting for Dummies 101 taught you that much?

That's a really dumb answer, mate. You've never yet seen a film where an act break comes in the middle of a scene? Possibly because you don't see act breaks. An act break is a transitional point. It is the scene itself within which the change comes. Ergo, the transition to Act III in Jedi comes within "Luke and Leia" when Luke accepts that he has to face Vader. It's about the meaning, not the technicality of a scene break.

Clearly you're the one who's never read up on how to write a script, otherwise your answer wouldn't have been so stupid.

Oh, and what's wrong with a four-act structure? Well, that depends on the medium you're writing for, and the story you're intending to tell. There are very few screenwriters who vary much from the industry norms, and there are very, very well established reasons for the three-act structure being what it is.

Darth Venal said:

That's a really dumb answer, mate.

Darth Venal said:

Clearly you're the one who's never read up on how to write a script, otherwise your answer wouldn't have been so stupid.

DV, I generally find myself agreeing with your points.  It's clear you know what you're talking about.  But I find the constant insults a bit tiring.  Just saying.

TV's Frink said:

Darth Venal said:

That's a really dumb answer, mate.

Darth Venal said:

Clearly you're the one who's never read up on how to write a script, otherwise your answer wouldn't have been so stupid.

DV, I generally find myself agreeing with your points.  It's clear you know what you're talking about.  But I find the constant insults a bit tiring.  Just saying.

 No that's cool. I have a very short fuse in some situations, is all. Either that and/or I'm overworked and don't realise I'm sounding so "short". Although, that reponse was in response to an insult directed at me. It works both ways.

Darth Venal said:

That highlights the problem with TPM; it's structured around the wrong character - Padme. The blockade of Naboo should just be a MacGuffin to get the events in motion and lead to them meeting Anakin, which it does, but it becomes the actual focus of the story and the goal of the characters. Anakin is secondary, when he should be the focus. Instead we get an entire movie wasted on his introduction, a fatal flaw.

I don't always agree with DV, but THIS is so true.

I even think this is THE biggest problem with TPM. The MacGuffin is usualy the thing the characters care about but the audience not. In TPM we, the audience, are suppose to care about taxation and blocus of Naboo while we just want to know what  the characters feel and think. We only have "I'm cold" and "I sens much fear in you" (notice how Yoda needs to explain how Anakin is feeling. It's not a good thing when you need to tell the audience what you could have shown. An now I'm waiting for the Ric Olié post.)

TMBTM said:

We only have "I'm cold" and "I sens much fear in you" (notice how Yoda needs to explain how Anakin is feeling. It's not a good thing when you need to tell the audience what you could have shown. An now I'm waiting for the Ric Olié post.)

Ok, time for a little game.  Everyone who agrees with TMBTM line up on the left.....

No one?  Ok, now every one who agrees with Ric and YODA, THE WISEST OF ALL THE JEDI, line up on the right.

'Nuff said.

TMBTM said:

Darth Venal said:

That highlights the problem with TPM; it's structured around the wrong character - Padme. The blockade of Naboo should just be a MacGuffin to get the events in motion and lead to them meeting Anakin, which it does, but it becomes the actual focus of the story and the goal of the characters. Anakin is secondary, when he should be the focus. Instead we get an entire movie wasted on his introduction, a fatal flaw.

I don't always agree with DV, but THIS is so true.

I even think this is THE biggest problem with TPM. The MacGuffin is usualy the thing the characters care about but the audience not. In TPM we, the audience, are suppose to care about taxation and blocus of Naboo while we just want to know what  the characters feel and think. We only have "I'm cold" and "I sens much fear in you" (notice how Yoda needs to explain how Anakin is feeling. It's not a good thing when you need to tell the audience what you could have shown. An now I'm waiting for the Ric Olié post.)

I always agree with DV, and agree that is true. And you're right, TMBTM, being told what should be shown through character action is really very poor.

Darth Venal said:

That's a really dumb answer, mate...

... Clearly you're the one who's never read up on how to write a script, otherwise your answer wouldn't have been so stupid.

I love it when "know-it-all" people agrue with others:
If they can't tear down another person's viewpoint as being inferior, then they'll just call you a dumbass. :P

doubleofive said:

Darth Venal said:

TMBTM said:

Darth Venal said:

That highlights the problem with TPM; it's structured around the wrong character - Padme. The blockade of Naboo should just be a MacGuffin to get the events in motion and lead to them meeting Anakin, which it does, but it becomes the actual focus of the story and the goal of the characters. Anakin is secondary, when he should be the focus. Instead we get an entire movie wasted on his introduction, a fatal flaw.

I don't always agree with DV, but THIS is so true.

I even think this is THE biggest problem with TPM. The MacGuffin is usualy the thing the characters care about but the audience not. In TPM we, the audience, are suppose to care about taxation and blocus of Naboo while we just want to know what  the characters feel and think. We only have "I'm cold" and "I sens much fear in you" (notice how Yoda needs to explain how Anakin is feeling. It's not a good thing when you need to tell the audience what you could have shown. An now I'm waiting for the Ric Olié post.)

I always agree with DV, and agree that is true. And you're right, TMBTM, being told what should be shown through character action is really very poor.

You would. :-P

 Wait, did I reply to myself? Must be a Ghost in my machine. ;-)

JasonN said:

Darth Venal said:

That's a really dumb answer, mate...

... Clearly you're the one who's never read up on how to write a script, otherwise your answer wouldn't have been so stupid.

I love it when "know-it-all" people agrue with others:
If they can't tear down another person's viewpoint as being inferior, then they'll just call you a dumbass. :P

The dumb answer I was referring to was his attempt at belittling me with his Screenwriting for Dummies joke, not actually calling him dumb. Dumbass. Funny how you didn't notice that. And regardless of me stooping to that level, which I'm not sure I did, doesn't make what he was saying any more correct or mine any less so.

If you actually read what I said, in neither of those sentences do I call him dumb. I said his answer was dumb, and it was. There's a difference. A smart person would notice. ;-)