redxavier posted:You're assuming that what we see on screen in the final film is the definitive version of what the director wanted, and you're assuming the intent of the director has remained constant throughout the writing, filming and editing stages of development.
MisterVader posted:redxavier posted:You're assuming that what we see on screen in the final film is the definitive version of what the director wanted That's what everyone should assume.
redxavier posted:You're assuming that what we see on screen in the final film is the definitive version of what the director wanted
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon posted:MisterVader posted:redxavier posted:You're assuming that what we see on screen in the final film is the definitive version of what the director wanted That's what everyone should assume. See, that's what a lot of us have done with the OOT, but ever since 1997 people have been saying that's the WRONG approach.
Zak-Zahar posted:Redxavier, I'd hate to narrow the topic down to "Star Wars being like Serials" only. That's just not the case. Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers yes, but also the Hidden Fortress (in Episode IV, for telling the story from the point of view of two insignificant characters in the grand design of things, aka the droids), Campbell's theories (which, by the way, he knew when working on Episode IV, as explained time and time again during the commentary of Episode IV when talking about mythological motifs and so on. There is also the specific allusion to Campbell in this commentary where Lucas specifically explains that the original draft was in part inspired of Campbell) et cetera.
Zak-Zahar posted:We're not talking about the serials' influence over the movies. We're talking about what you consider "bad acting" in the movies and what I consider, based on George Lucas' commentaries, to be the part of the original intent in making the movies. Beyond that, we're talking about what we expect from a Star Wars movie. That's in fact the real topic here, I think.
Zak-Zahar posted:You are switching the tables around. You are not providing any shred of evidence at your interpretation of the acting beyond "it obviously sucks". Well it does not "obviously" if you don't have an argument to back it up. I'm still waiting for the actual arguments, my friend.
Mister Vader posted:That's what everyone should assume. It makes good analysis possible. How would we know when something is supposed to be a certain way and when it was unintentional? Intent is irrelevant. You assume it was meant to be the way it is, and then make judgments solely from the work itself.