xhonzi

I watch/read/listen to more than my fair share of moviemaking theory.  Be it  books, movie commentary, screenwriting podcasts, etc...

And there are several touchstones of the biz that I don't tend to agree with.  Perhaps I'm just naïve, but I think there's some bad tradition in there too.

The one that keeps coming up recently is "Efficiency".  Something along the lines of "Cut everything out of your story/screenplay unless it advances the plot."  Or "If you have two scenes that only advance the plot in one way, try to combine them so that you have one scene that advances the plot in two ways."

We watched a movie recently from which the writer/director said that he had to cut his favourite scene in the interest of efficiency.  He said it was extremely moving and that the actor just hit it out of the park... but that he really needed to cut those 3 minutes from the runtime and that this scene didn't really advance the plot so it had to go!  The interviewer agreed that it did indeed have to go.

What, really?  If it's a great scene, and it's well acted and it works on your emotions... why in the world would you cut it? 

They seem to be saying: "emotion is only good when it serves the plot."  Whereas I would say: "the only reason you need a plot is to help you create strong emotion."  If you have a bit of raw human emotion and you've somehow managed to get an audience to see it without unneccisarily driving the plot through it, then I say "Good for you!"

This actually part of my grand theory on why the second part of trilogies are often the best...  It's because they are free to go explore emotions, emotional content without worrying about starting or wrapping up a plot!  When part 3 rolls around, and it's all "back to business" that usually isn't nearly as interesting or "good" as the poetic meandering of part 2.  (But enough there, I have another thread for that.)

Those of you who have opinions: Do you agree or disagree?  Is efficiency an almighty story god to whom we must sacrifice the best parts of our story so that the rest of it may live?  Or are Hollywood screenwriters nuts?

And don't worry, there're Dr. Who references as well.

JarJar not included.

From:

http://www.themarysue.com/ikea-science-fiction/

Oh good.  Wait, should I make a new thread with a new suggestion to "fix" spoiler tags?  Or can we just count this one as such?

Spoiler:

:)

Why is that Part 3 of Anything is almost always a letdown at best and a complete disaster at worst???

Notable inclusions:
Pirates of the Caribbean 3
(to a degree) Return of the Jedi
Star Trek III
Back to the Future III
Jaws III
Matrix Revolutions
Superman 3
Spider-Man 3 (same movie as above)
X-Men 3
Alien3
Batman Forever
GodFather Part III
Terminator 3 (How could anything follow 2?  And, secretly, I like this one.  Don't tell.)
Half Life 2: Episode 3
Rocky III
Anne of Green Gables (This one is for my sister!)
Shrek 3

Notable exclusions:
The Last Crusade (Though it's not perfect)
Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban (Although the movie disappointed me (yes, I know I'm in an extreme minority here))
LotR:RotK (though it's still probably my least favourite of the trilogy)
GoldFinger (though not nearly as good, IMO, as FRWL)
Planet of the Apes 3 (Escape from)
Toy Story 3

General exception to the rule seems to be when Part 2 is a total bomb, then 3 has a chance at being all right.  See: Super Mario Bros 3, or Zelda: A Link to the Past, or Starship Troopers.  In fact, the better Part 2 is, the worse off Part 3 generally has it.  It also seems that when Part 3 is billed as "the end of the trilogy" that that makes it less likely to be good than if it's "Here's #3 and we're still making 'em!"

Star Trek is an odd example.  Is Star Trek III really part 2 of the Star Trek Trilogy and not part 3 of the Star Trek series?  Is that why Star Trek III isn't as bad as some and Star Trek IV isn't as good as it should be too?  Did they split the difference?

(NOTE: Not to be confused with: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Article-on-prequel-films-Note-Does-not-pertain-to-Godfather-II-which-isnt-a-prequel-its-a-sequel-with-extended-flashback-sequences-or-a-partial-prequel-to-some/post/451694/ or http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Sequel-Statistics-Chart-OR-Sequels-Suck-and-We-Have-the-InfoGraphic-to-Prove-it-OR-Anchorhead-was-right-Tell-your-sister-Anchorhead-was-RIIIIIGGHT-OR-Sequals-thx-Boost/topic/12383/page/1/)

Alright, so the list making is fun and all... but why do you think this is so common?  Or is it?  Have I made a mountain out of a mole-hill?

CP3S said:

Streamathon? Did we mean Steamathon?

 

 Maybe it's

Saturday

SATURDAY

SATURDAY!

xhonzi said:

<snip>

Which was just as well, because Amazon had the [BTTF] BD set for $25 yesterday and I ordered it.  So we can watch 2 and 3 a la mode (from the French, meaning "covered in ice cream").

Erp.  Target has the set for $19.99.  Is there something I don't know about this set?

Oh well, I just have to keep telling myself that I saved money because $19.99 with tax is like $60 or something.

But anyone else sitting on the fence waiting to upgrade to BTTF BD... go go go!

I think E3 is beneath Valve (or that Valve thinks so).  They'll start having Valvcon or Streamathon where they can announce their new stuff.  Maybe it can just be called HalfLife3ocon and they'll announce just that one game, but they'll announce it perennially.  Just like Diablo III.

doubleKO said:

TV's Frink said:

xhonzi said:

WRONG PHOTO!

And isn't the meme 'WRONG PICTURE!' ???

 Ah, who can tell?  We seriously need a thread to keep track of those things.  Maybe I'll go suggest one in the new thread thread.

Oldfan said:

I wouldn't hold your breath for that home-made conversion you're hoping for. I've already seen one done for the OT and it looked awful. Home-made conversions are terrible, hell the major studios can barely get it done well.

 

While I also wouldn't advise holding your breath, I wouldn't give up on the homebrew stuff either.  Chances are it will be better than what Lucasfilm does, or at least it will be close.  And that's your only chance of getting something other than the latest special edition anyhow.

How do the storebought White Castle burgers compare to the drive-thru's?  I've never had either...

zombie84 said:

He tries to pass it off to Lucas now, but I don't buy that for a second, Spielberg knew exactly what he was doing and he took that dark, spooky, gorey aspect of the film and ran with it. Maybe Lucas pushed it that direction in the first place, but Spielberg perfected it. He was into that kind of thing at the time--he had just finished Poltergeist, remember.

On the Indy DVDs (the 4th "Making of Disc" or the 2nd ToD Disc) there's a part where Spielbergo talks about how uncomfortable he was with the "dark" direction that Lucas (and the Hyucks) took it and that he more or less let Lucas play the "trust me [Indy grin][/Indy grin]" card on him.  But then while they were filming it, he decided to "counter" or "offset" the darkness with slapstick action.  They specifically show the scene where the big thuggee swings his hammer, loses it, and it plunks straight down onto a skinny guy over in the corner.

Hillarious.

My problem with ToD isn't so much that it's dark, but that it is goofy like that.  So, if it is Steven's wish, I will lay the good parts of ToD at Lucas' (original Lucas) and the bad parts at his.  That kind of humour seemed to sneak into Lucas' repertoire though, and we've had "cartoon rabbit steps in the poopy" jokes ever since.

EDIT: Looks like I'm repeating myself: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/New-Theory-Steven-Spielberg-Ruined-Star-Wars/topic/12412/

I'm mad about Harrison Ford http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/8546869/Harrison-Ford-criticises-soulless-action-films.html jumping on the "it looks like a video game" bandwagon.

I think all of the people who say that mean the same thing, but that it's not a very good reference.  Bad/cheap CG is bad/cheap CG whether it's in a game, a movie, or an animated gif.  

I think a lot of Hollywood types have a chip on their shoulders that video games have cut into their business and a frank lot of them are better than their movies.

I really enjoyed seeing Zack Snyder confront one of his interviewers regarding Sucker Punch:

Lady: Blah blah blah.  Looks like a video game.
(Zack takes a moment to look a the young woman conducting the interview)
Zack: Have you ever played a video game?
Lady: Erm.... not really.
Zack: Then what do you mean by that comment, "Looks like a video game"?
Lady: Erm.... ha ha hah...
(Both laugh).
Zack: Because that's kind of a ridiculous thing to say...

Something like that.

Wii U anyone:

doubleofive said:

I imagine multiplayer will be Reach gameplay on old maps. Perhaps they'll be the option for a more classic rule set.

Just read an article that confirmed that the campaign will be running the new engine I guess Halo 4 will run literally on top of the original Halo engine, and you have the option to turn off the new engine at any time. It will be Halo 1 physics and map-wise.

Johnny Ringo said:

Fives, by the sound of it you're getting confused...or maybe it's just your wording? 

I think he said Halo 4 when he meant Halo Anniversary.  HaloA will be able to switch back and forth between "new" graphics and "old", not Halo4.

Though I did see a Reachlike assassination in the preview video, so that further begs the "vehicle hijack, jetpack, dual wield, etc" question.

Even for new graphics, does anyone else think they look kind of basic?

^Looks like an aeroplane...  WITHOUT WINGS!

Yay, I'm a character!  Hope you pronounce 'xhonzi' differently than I do, or you will have the most boring Star Wars name ever.  It's barely fit for a cat in a sci-fi tale.

WRONG PHOTO!

What's the matter, are you a lamb:

Cheep cheep cheep.

If you have to keep the scene, I think you can just cut to the reaction shot of Chewie (or something) when Han passes to the other side of Jabba.  Sure, it comes across as a continuity errror... but I think it beats all of the alternatives.

Thanks for the kind words.  I need to write a few more posts.

Mulligan?  As in the golf term for a "do-over"?  I was just trying to be clever.

The idea for this was good, but we never got the right argument going.

Hows about:

An Immovable Object VS The Unstobbable Force

Go!

Space Mountain is the best rollercoaster at DisneyLand because it's the only coaster

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCEEEEEEEEEEEE!

I'm guessing this is already on the list, but I can't say I've ever seen it here on a list.

Spoiler tags?

Thanks.