xhonzi

Boost:

sequal, a sidequal, or a gritty reboot, I think Temple's status as a prequel is weak at best.

Dang it Boost!  We've been over this!  If you want me to take you seriously, when discussing 'quels, you're going to have to learn to spell the word correctly!

Until then, your opinion is moo*.

Slugoo:

A prequel ought to set up a story of an already existing movie with in the same 'franchise'.

Agreed on the 'franchise' bit.  But I believe that's covered by the sequel clause as well.  Stories that happen later are not usually considered sequels unless they are in the same franchise.  And not even then.

But what, books and comics, videogames, radioshows, and ballads can't have prequels now?  Just movies?

Boost says:

Godfather II is not a prequel.

Anchorhead, the legend of Brian Daley said:

Godfather II is the gold standard of prequels.

I'll leave this to you two to sort out.  I've never actually seen the Godfather movies.

Diddy solo's daddy said:

im really apprehensive about Ridley Scott making a prequel to Alien

Good point.

xhonzi said:

cutnshut said:

Alien has 7 acts

xhonzi said:

No it has 3 acts... and maybe 2 other non-act thingyies.

cutnshut said:

thats great but its still 5 acts :p

It's true.  It's 5 segments.  But, as far as I understand the 3 act structure, it makes sense to call them prologues and epilogues, because the central 3 Acts ARE the 3 Act structure.

I was thinking about this one the other day.  It has been asserted (not by me, but I think I agree with it) that all stories must at least loosely follow the three (AKA five) act structure.  That it's some sort of hardcoded expectation in human DNA.  If a story is told without act structure... people wouldn't know that it was over.  Or that it had started.  Some would say a story without act structure is not a story at all.

So, Aliens has 5 acts (I can't deny it anymore, and Cut'n'shut isn't here to gloat).  I still thing P,1,2,3,E are good names for the acts (vs 1,2,3,4,5) since the central 3 and the three.  Is this the (or one of the) reasons that people are so attacted to Aliens?  Does the 5 act structure set it apart from all of the other 3 act movies and make it seem more epic?  Does it scratch some sort of preternatural itch that we as humans (or at least MEN) have for a 5 Act yarn- that they reduced 3 act structure just isn't getting?

What do you think?

Back to the Future
in 3 Acts

The Problem: Marty's Parents are Losers.  Marty Doesn't Connect with his Parents.  Doc. Brown is killed.  Marty gets Stuck in the 50s.

BttF is very much a character driven movie.  By definition, character driven stories are less "plot driven" which I think does one of two things: The plot is much less complicated- therefore easier to identify the 3 acts ~or~ The plot is buried underneath and hidden behind so much character drama to the point that you wonder if there's a plot at all.  And in some cases there isn't.  If I think of what is resolved by the 3rd act, I immediately think of the change in Marty's family's life.  But while that is an awesome, emotionally fullfilling end of the movie... I propose it is not the plot.  It is not "The problem."  The problem is a simple one: Marty gets stuck back in time.  The movie presents other problems, but this is the only one it contracts with the audience that it will resolve.

Act 1:

As you might expect from a character driven story, the first act is much more focused on introducing each of the characters and hinting at what their problems are and what their arcs might be.  Eventually Marty is sent back in time, and I propose that this is when the plot of the movie is actually introduced.  What drives the movie until this point?  I'm not sure.  The characters are interesting... I guess we're all just patient.

Act 2:

When does Act 2 actually start?  I'm not sure.  Again, I think these things are more liquid than that.  There's no curtain drop, no intermission, no 3 year wait between Macro acts.  So the actual breaks are sometimes impossible to call.  But I can say that the defining moment of Act2: The Problem Gets worse is that Marty's siblings are starting to disappear from his family photo and he is given the information that he is going to cease to exist unless he can hook his parents up... again.  The problem is definitely worse: he's not just stuck back in time, but he'll fade away if he doesn't fix the 1955 first.

Act 3:

I'll admit, I'm going off of memory here, so someone who's seen the movies more recently should maybe chime in.  The third act is basically the Enchantment Under the Sea dance.  The problem continues to get worse, with little hope of resolve.  Until, just like that, George lays out Biff, Doc Brown gets the extension cords connected, and Marty headbutt starts the DMC and gets back to the Twin Lone Tree Mall.  And he even saved Doc.  And his parents are actually in love now.  And his siblings aren't lame.  But most importantly, Marty got back.  Back to the future.

Am I wrong?

C3PX said:

xhonzi said:

 

And C3PX, which Game Informer cover did you get?  The one with the little boy or with the young girl on it?

Neither. I got the murder of crows cover. The one with the creepy man wearing a bowler hat, sitting on a park bench, leaning on his cane, surrounded by crows. It took me a while to realize that it was my new issue of Game Informer, rather than just some random junk mail Halloween store catalog. 

 I realize there's no one left to continue this conversation with me... so allow myself to continue it with... myself.

I finally got caught up (ish) in my Game Informer pile and read the article in that (October's) issue.  It further confirmed my fear that it will be an "anti-Americana" down on "patriotism" kind of environment.  Showing vulgarly extreme "right wing" people killing and smashing everything without a miniature American flag on it.

I guess the first game (and second, by extension) was anti-Objectivism which I am mostly for.  But I really enjoyed what I thought was a serious musing on the subject and treated it with gravity and respect.  The anti-Americanism I've seen thus far in Infinite seems to me to just be mud slinging.  Maybe I'm off base, and I will continue to track its development and anxiously wait for it to prove me wrong... but I'm not holding my breath.

I said:

How much does sound quality, invisible music, video quality, video resolution, colour, screen size, etc... all play into our emotional response to things?  It probably doesn't affect our rational response, right?  But it can totally change our emotional response.

My zinger of a comment after all of this was: 3D.  There is a huge "rational" backlash against 3D.  And I remember watching Avatar last year, being a one that was very excited about it being in 3D, and getting about 2/3s of the way into it and forgetting that it was in 3D.  Not just that I had glasses on, but I had come so accustomed to the whole effect, that I didn't consciously even realize it was there.  Which begs the question: If you can't even tell it's there, what does it matter if it's there or not?

But my argument is this: We don't like things based on rationale.  We like things based on our emotional response.  Our emotional response is fickle, and we don't always accurately predict or know what we'll respond to, or what exactly is drawing us in.  There are lots of elements (Like music, like surround sound, like dbox chairs, like colour) that are very frequently not noticed by the logical part of the brain- they are not the focus of what we are watching... But they all sum up to the emotional response.

People say, "I liked Avatar, but I don't think the 3D had anything to do with it.  It would have been just as good in 2D." But I don't think they can really know.  They liked it because they had an emotional response to it.  What exactly led to this response is unknowable.

I imagine in the editing room that there were 2 or 3 more shots that were cut because they were "unnecessary."

Which brings me back to the question: How do you know when you have enough?

Get a squeaky one!

Wow, this is a very busy thread.  Though... I can't quite tell what it's on about?

Sluggo said:

Great article. 

And I liked their take on Temple of Doom.  I've never understood why people consider it a prequel.  A prequel ought to set up a story.  Merely having a movie take place before another movie isn't enough to make it a prequel.  By that logic, Casablanca was a prequel to Close Encounters.

I think your personal definition is too narrow.  A prequel is a sequel that takes place chronologically before the other movie.

Temple of Doom takes place prior to Raiders: Prequel.  QED.

Casablanca and Close Encounters aren't sequels, and therefore aren't prequels, but I think you knew this.

And, as to an earlier question: Godfather II?

Every NuBSG Opening said:

And they have a plan!

Yeah, what was that plan again?  I already forgot.

I watched Silverado for the first time a couple months ago and now I'm listening to the "Western Historians" on the commentary.  Which reminded me of this question:

How many travelling shots are enough?  There are a couple scenes in the movie where one or more people are travelling cross country- the script might say:

Script (maybe) says:

EXT. Plains. Daytime.
The heroes ride their horses across the plains.

EXT. Silverado Main Street.  Evening
The heroes arrive in town.

INT. Silverado Saloon. Moments later
Hoss walks in.
HOSS: Give me a whiskey!

But then again, it might read more like this:

Script (possibly) says:

EXT. Plains.  Daytime
The heroes ride their horses across the plains.

INSERT
The horses noses breath heavily as they gallop across the plains.

EXT. Plains Daytime
The heroes ride their horses over a hill.

INSERT
Hoss and Buck and Peydon smile as they ride their horses.

EXT. Plains Daytime
The heroes ride toward the camera (and Silverado, apparently)

EXT. Plains Daytime
The heroes ride away from the camera (and Kansas City, I guess)

INSERT
Horse hooves pound the dirt

EXT. Plains Daytime
The heroes ride across the plains.  This time, the camera is on the side.

EXT. Meadow Daytime
The heroes stop across the crest of a hill and look at a beautiful meadow.

EXT. Plains Daytime
The heroes ride.  Some more.  I don't know, maybe shoot it through a reflection, or a POV shot, or maybe one of those where they ride towards the camera, and then it tracks them as they pass under it and they ride away from the camera, but they're upside down now.  Or maybe there's snow on the ground.  Wait, strike that!

EXT. Snowy Plains-Early Evening
The horses kick up some snow, as the heroes ride them.

INSERT
The heroes smile as they ride the horses over the snow.

EXT. Snowy Plains- Early Evening
Horse hoove-prints left in the snow.

Ext. Silverado, outside of town.
Establishing shot that heroes ride into.

EXT. Silverado Main Street.  Evening
The heroes arrive in town.

INT. Silverado Saloon. Moments later
Hoss walks in.
HOSS: Give me a whiskey!

This same thing happens in Star Wars.  Count how many approaches the Millennium Falcon makes to Yavin IV.

(Hint: It's 12).

Gaffer Tape said:

Spock spelled "principle" wrong.

Mm... I don't think so.  The "principle lesson" is a lesson on a principle. The "principal lesson" is the main one you should learn, and may or may not be about a principle.  Principally, and on principle, I believe Spock did intend "principal" and not "principle".

And then the DSIV blows up!

THE END.

If the Dark Jedi/Sith are the bad guys of the Clone Wars/PT, then why does no one apparently care that Vader and Palpatine are two extremely prominent/well known leaders/executors of the Gov't.

You might make a case that very few people in the OT know that Emperor Palpatine is a (Dark) force user, but Vader?

Does anyone else here read Marvel Comics?  Mild Spoilers for anyone who does not:

The Skrull Secret Invasion ends when "apparently on the mend, but still a rather bad guy" Normon Osborn gets a kill-shot on the right Skrull and sends them packing.  He's lauded as the hero that did what all of the Marvel superheroes (Ironman, S.H.I.E.L.D., the X-Men, etc.) couldn't, and he's given the keys to the kingdom for a while.  He abuses them from day one, and controls his PR very well... but eventually it all catches up with him.

Back to the PT.  What if the Dark Jedi/Sith are the conquerors of the Clone Wars?  What if they drive out the enemy horde, and then the Republic is willing to try things their way for a span?

Well, well, well...

If it's not ChainsawAsh... slumming in rewrite.

Now the Circle is complete.

[/snark]

Welcome to the threads, Ash.

You have, and I 100% agree with you.  Not only is Kenobi a liar, but he is a horrible hider of things:

Kenobi:

I know!  I'll hide the boy on his father's home planet, under his real surname, with his real (step)uncle!  No ONE will EVER find him then!  But, just in case someone does...  I'll be nearby to make sure that I can use Luke's grief about his dead (step) aunt and uncle to go and get revenge!  But if I'm going to hide out here, I'd better wear my official Jedi uniform and change my first name.  Yeah... that's the ticket!

Does that mean that you can see the sun through the "laser array" window?

Fear would keep them inline, I think.

Was a peaceful planet.

generalfrevious said:

Sevb32 said:

Gosh I can understand some of the bitterness in here, but some of you go way nuts overboard with the hyperbole, wishing ill on folks who don't do what you want. Have some civility, geez.

I just [said] he was a monster, not that he should die a horrible death.

But you were thinking it.  ;)

TheoOdo said:

xhonzi said:

Other than that, I like your take on the well-intentioned but gullible and weak willed nature of his character.

I have to say, I don't like the gullible or weak willed take on him. Vader was never a character who suggested a lack of intelligence to me, certainly not a lack of will power.

He has intelligence and will power, he just uses them for evil.

The question the prequels need to answer is why a once good man would do this. I may just be repeating myself here, but when you live a state of chaos there is a natural tendency to seek out order - if the chaos is great, you may sometimes even seek out a rigid, confining order - not just outside yourself, but inside yourself also. Just as the outside world of the galaxy would have been wrecked with conflict, so Anakin's inner-world would have been boiling over with fear, anger and desire.

A Jedi's life is all about facing such conflicts, but finding inner-peace through discipline. Facing outer horrors but maintaining inner sanctity. The war Anakin found himself in, however, was too much for him and he sought an easy way out of the suffering, an easy way to silence his troubling emotions. In the pursuit of this, he made himself "more machine than man" and transformed himself into the kind of monster he'd been fighting all along - "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster" and all that.

The disorder of the galaxy caused him pain and he was desperate to be free of it. To this end, he tried to rid himself of that which personally caused him pain - his very humanity - and that which was the origin of the pain to begin with - the disorder of the galaxy.

There's even a hint of this being the case in Return of the Jedi. When Luke asks Vader to come away with him, Vader says that "Obi-Wan once thought as you do". It may be that Obi-Wan had once entreated Anakin, then suffering emotionally, to simply give up on the galaxy - to seek out the life of a hermit so as to maintain spiritual sanctity, even at the expense of participation in the material world. The alternative was, after all, the Dark Side.

I'm rambling now, but this is all stuff that will eventually be included in my alternate prequel outlines which I'm slowly working on in the Script Writing and Re-Writing forum.

Good points, Odo.

http://gizmodo.com/361769/death-star-hotel-in-azerbaijan-is-no-moon

Has everyone seen this already?  Mighty ridiculous.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

xhonzi said:

Just for arguments sake, would you agree that most of those are external factors, and somewhat are not the choice of the character in question... therefore making him a tragic victim rather than a powerful villain?

Right. And that's what was said in the OT... Vader was "seduced" by the dark side of the force.

That's the key word, I think.  Seduced.  Whenever I think of how Anakin's fall should have played out, I keep coming back to "he should have been Seduced by the Power of the Dark Side of the Force".  And I would say that seduction is probably the most choice based of the different things you listed.  When you are seduced, you usually receive different consequences than the ones you considered when making your choice... but it's less cheating than "oh noes!  My robotic arm's AI overrode my own free choice and I never wanted to do those things!"  Or, "I died, and a dark spirit resurrected me and now I'm EVIIIILLLL!"

Like Bilbo was seduced and ultimately addicted to and changed by the Ring (and Gollum too).  It didn't have to be completely a choice.

I agree.  It had to be something that would last for 20-30 years... and fleeting emotions and broken promises have a tendency to not work.  Something that starts out as a choice, and then addicts or otherwise binds the person to it... that's what was required.

xhonzi said:

None of those (which I have seen/read) really present a fallen hero, right?  Maybe some normal people gone bad...  which is also a good thing, but still in something of a different class than what we'd expect from Star Wars.  Or am I wrong?

I don't think the OT ever painted Anakin as a hero.  Obiwan called him the "best starfighter in the galaxy, and a good friend."  So he was a nice guy with first class skills.  He didn't have to be "the chosen one", he could have just been one of the guys.  And I never thought of his portrayal in the PT as being consistent with "a good friend". I always thought a better Anakin character would have been a nice, mild-mannered, kind, well-intentioned and highly skilled young man who unfortunately was also a little gullible and ended up being seduced by and ultimately controlled and changed by dark forces.  That way, it would be scarier because it would show that anyone could end up on the dark side, if you're not careful.

One of the main purposes, in my opinion, of Anakin's fall to the dark side from an OT perspective is to give the threat that Luke might fall some real weight.  Luke is a hero, but he is not above being tempted into the dark side.  If Anakin is not a hero, then Luke is not as at much risk.

Other than that, I like your take on the well-intentioned but gullible and weak willed nature of his character.

I don't know.  In theory, film has jitter, generation loss, undesirable grain (at least it was undesirable until someone developed a way to avoid/get rid of it) and is locked (almost exclusively) at 24 hz/fps.  And if you do an average amount of post processing- anything you shot on film is scanned... and then if you project from film, it's printed back to film from the digital.

Digital should never have vertical tearing or motion blur (more than film) like you said.  I tend to think you might have been on a witchhunt or talking yourself into seeing things that weren't there.  But I'll concede that it's possible that the equipment was crap, not properly configured, performing some odd pulldown, or other unfavourable whatevers. 

Over the past 10 years, as digital has improved drastically (and film hasn't), I see film apologists ditching all of the logical or 'fact' based arguments and sticking with more esoteric "it feels warmer, looks more natural" kind of arguments that can never be vetted fully... it just comes down to opinion at that point in time.

And then there's this odd thing.  The limitations of film are what we associate with film.  You get rid of those limitations, and everything starts looking like telenovela.  I think in a couple of years, these associations will weaken and the peoples (that's us) will be less affected by high fps or deep focus, etc.  Today we see those things and think "day time television".  Tomorrow we'll just see the film.  Really clearly.

Wahoo*!  I'm a llama again!