Discussion in 'Star Wars: Episode VII and Beyond (Archive)' started by Serpico Jones, Nov 20, 2012.
Grand Canyon & Mumford were both good.
But it has been a long while.
It really depends on what is happening.
If Disney is hiring these guys amongst others because they are going to do a Marvel and have 1+ SW films out per year, it might make sense.
Kasdan is in some ways the more surprising choice and it would seem like Disney wants to make sure they get the tone right...but then the other hiring suggests that's not the case
Oh it will...least from me! LOL (My apologies in advance)
It's just that when it's official it's, well...official. It's definitely for sure 100% happening. I agree, that if the Hollywood reporter is telling it than it's more than likely to be true, and I guess it's just in my nature to be a doubting Thomas, but until it's official there is a chance that it might not be (however slight)
Since this thread has turned into a film class, I have a question for the teachers...
What is good film exposition and what is bad film exposition?
Also is INCEPTION a movie with good or bad exposition?
EDIT: and Kasdan great choice(see still on topic )
1. Inception had splosions.
2. Splosions upset people.
3. Inception is a very bad film.
Generally it is considered bad to have a scene that only conveys exposition. PT is rife with scenes like that. Anytime exposition is being conveyed the scene must also be pushing the story forward.
Scroll down to the section: EXPOSITION EXPOSITION EXPOSITION
And of course there is always game of thrones sexpostion which is entertaining and has received criticism.
refering to the scene where the two chicks are going at it and Littlefinger is explaining things?
Exactly. The criticism was mainly that it was a cheap trick.
Generally you want to avoid naked exposition. In the case of Inception it was unavoidable and necessary for the third act heist to work without being confusing. And he handles it well, I think because its interesting exposition. As with anything, there are always exceptions.
Inception exposition always bothered me, it's the one thing that keeps it outta top Nolan flicks for me, because, literally, the only reason purpose that Juno's character has in the movie and makes it all the way to the end is so DiCaprio can drop exposition bombs on her the entire time.
Terminator is a good example of how to deliver exposition - in the middle of a car chase when Reese is yelling about robots from the future while being shot at.
In television, you will frequently get a 'brainy' character who ends up giving the monster/case/plot-of-the-week exposition. Often, you'll get characters mocking this character (see Giles and Wesley in Joss Whedon's works) somewhat, which undercuts the fact that it's another shameless exposition scene, but they are often there to tell you what is going on. Giles and Wesley are frequently there to read Watchers' Council research, ancient texts or a prophecy about the beastie about to be faced. Angel was also used as shadowy mystery guy there to deliver the exposition information to Buffy or Giles when he was first introduced.
Likewise, the Doctor is brainy exposition guy on Doctor Who who knows more about what is going on than everyone else, while the companion's job is to be the voice of the audience asking what is going on (occasionally, you'll get a companion like Zoe or Romana who are know-it-alls and this dynamic is undercut--likewise, you'll sometimes have companions like Jamie or Leela who don't know an airplane from a flying beastie or that eating without utensils is frowned upon by Victorians).
Villains also are often given the 'mwahaha' evil plan speech where they tell you what they're going to do. Palpatine has one of those.
But yeah, exposition scenes are pretty frequent in television and film, but they can certainly be done entertainingly if written well and naturally by an appropriate person. Yelling it out during an action scene also works.
The fish-out-of-water protagonist that needs to be explained things (and by proxy, the audience) is a classic technique used by writers to get away with info dumps.
Yep, he/her is walking in our shoes. We're discovering things along with them.
I do expect 7 to be more expository than the others. SW was that more than ESB or RoTJ. Those films just got on with it. I expect this film to be the simplest one: heroes return, everything is set up.
I hope that it's not expository (obviously)
Maybe it can be like ANH. But is ANH expository? I can't really look at it with an un-biased eye anymore.
Obi-Wan explaining about the Force, Jedi and lightsabers in ANH is probably one of the more prominent examples of explaining exposition to the audience, as Luke is just as clueless as we are at that point.
Tarkin also 'mwahaha' speeches about the Death Star's capabilities.
And then there's Darth Vader's "No, I am your father." And then the whole exposition about the fact that Leia is Luke's sister and they were separated to keep them from Anakin, who was seduced by the Dark Side and became Vader, etc... That's Obi-Wan again.
Well, it's expository and introductory. There's the explanation of the Force as NileQT87 mentioned. The lightsaber. Then you have the introductions of all the main characters. Then you have the trench run briefing. I bet that script must have read like bonkers to some of the actors.
SW just did exposition in such a great and economical way. There's not really a bit of fat on that film.
Ah yes Obi explaining the Force to fish-out-of-water Luke. Well the ST has an advantage that ANH didn't in that everyone, even casual viewers, have already been introduced to the Star Wars universe. So expository scenes that include things like explaining the force, for example, are unnecessary.
Tarkin death star stuff would be necessary exposition in that "hey we invented this new thing that people need to hear about" as opposed to the force which has been common knowledge for the inhabitants of the SW universe.
Well, I think we're all in agreement that exposition is sometimes necessary. SW doesn't have a whit of unneccesary expo that I can think of. Everything moves or are nice little character moments.
Haven't seen anyone post this yet:
Sorry, but there is a lengthy thread on this.
It's a fine line and really depends on the person as to what's good and what's not. Someone already pointed out GoT's sexposition, which is always a good way to get exposition across (gossip).
I personally think that the exposition in Inception isn't that bad.
First example I can think of of a lot of exposition done very well is the entire prologue of Lord of the Rings. That's a LOT of information and backstory to get across.
As for bad exposition, I give you the entire horrible M. Night Shyamalan Last Airbender movie.
I really only link to this review because it includes some of the worst parts that I can remember.
Like this one:
Here's some key examples, though:
A famous bad example of bad exposition would be the architect scene in Matrix reloaded.
This has already been reported I believe
1. I don't know how that was avoidable.
2. The exposition was combined with the imagery of the Architect's monitors, which was analyzing all of Neo's reactions. Personally, I found that to be an effective visual distraction. Also, the scene did a decent job of establishing the Architect's character, and his contrast with the Oracle.
1. Film bad, no rehash original story. Also, splosions.
2. 99% of reputable scientists agree, anyone who disagrees ain't for real.
3. Therefore, exposition bad.