Frank Darabont defends TPM!!!!

Seems to me that a lot of adults and movie critics criticized the OT for the things adults and film critics criticize the PT for, while the kids loved every bit of it.


I think people need to understand that younger people (that can mean young at heart, too) always liked Star Wars, and adults and others have always criticized it for bad acting and dialogue. That's the way it was in '77, and that's the way it is now.

 

"George made the OT like they were silent films as well, and yet the general concensus is that the acting and writing is passable, and in some cases very memorable. The general concensus on the prequels, however, is that the acting is, for the most part, dull and wooden, and that the writing is atrocious. George made the OT like they were silent films as well, and yet the general concensus is that the acting and writing is passable, and in some cases very memorable. The general concensus on the prequels, however, is that the acting is, for the most part, dull and wooden, and that the writing is atrocious. "

I for one believe that writing for the PT has been great. Need I remind you that "laser brain" "fuzzball" "stuck up half witted scruffy looking nerf herder" were all used in the same SCENE in an OT movie. Some people cringe at that, others like the corny feel. Who's to say "I hate sand" won't become a cultural phenomenon? Just give it some time.

 

I expected more from this guy. This whole "young at heart" the "kid in you" concept is meaningless. People liked the OT because they were entertained. It had nothing to do with some nebulous inner child. People thought they were good movies. That's how it is. I see no proof of an inner child. UNtil some sound theory is presented, it's just not very persuasive.

 

And just why does a film have to have an "inner child" anyway?

My second fave trilogy is the Hannibal Lector collection. No inner child found there. Just three classic films.

 

Lecter saga is a classic! Although I really wish they went deeper into the lore of the Dragon and "the Transformation"! I wanted to know what Dollarhyde was tryign to achieve! but the book doesn't get into it either, so blame it on Harris.

I think this inner child thing is whatever. If a people like a movie, they like it. Age is irrelevant. Don't movies like The Lion King, Shrek, The Prince of Egypt and Toy Story show this? Movies made for kids, yet loved by adults as well.

 

In a hundred years, all of the dialogue from all of the American movies from these last thirty-forty years will sound the same. Read books from the Victorian Era or the Italian Renaissance. Check out how the dialogue was in '30s, '40s and '50s films. What stands out is the quality of the story, the beauty of the pictorials, the music and in some cases, the acting. Though I have to admit, some actors who are now considered classic film stars were status quo for their day, IMHO.

We judge the dialogue of contemporary films by the milieu of our own conversations and lifestyles... something doesn't ring true, then the director is criticized. George Lucas never hits like a bullett. He is a white guy, with an acute intellect and a childish side to him. Someday, the Rosebud of his life will make itself apparent. In the meantime, we have to see that there is this artistic kind of hope for innocence, in the midst of a clash of change. It's weird... he does what he does well. His movies aren't urban connectors... they are just kind of heartfelt, and his reclusiveness is apparent in the prequels. I don't mind it, though.

 

Nice way of putting it Kurtzman. A great example of this is Citizen Kane. I don't think people really hail it for the writing; it's considered a classic for the cinematography, editing, and sound.

Talk to anybody, and chances are that they'll all say that they don't go into Star Wars for the writing/dialogue, they go in for the visuals. GL's a visual guy. Just look at AOTC. The colors were vibrant and strong. I hope we see the same thing for EpIII.

Cometgreen, who just knows someone will missinterpret "visuals" for "visual effects"

 

Cometgreen,

I didn't mean that the Star Wars dialogue shouldn't be considered or that the SW films are all about the visuals. What I was trying to put across was that Star Wars, Pulp Fiction, Back To The Future, etc... these all sound very different in our own contemporary terms, but in a hundred years, it is all going to be looked back upon and it will sound like... well, the late 20th Century, to be honest.

Just like ALL Victorian England-era text reads Victorian, and the degree to which the stories are good, great, poor or average changes nothing about the general style of dialogue from that era, but comes down to the construct of the story. So it shall be the same with our era, in the eyes of future generations. Look at how we already view the written & delivered dialogue style of the classic Hollywood era.