Spielberg and AOTC

"No, the dialouge is the supplement in films. In fact dialouge is really only supposed to be a part of the action. Unless of course you think that every book written on the subject of filmmaking or screenwriting is wrong."

go watch "whos afraid of virginia wolf" or "twelve angry men" or "dr strangelove" or about A MILLION OTHER MOVIES and tell me the dialogue is the supplement.

man, sometimes i think people just type stuff here to exercise their fingers.

"may the force be with you" is dialogue...

every line you quote from movies is dialogue... jeesh

 

Blade Runner is 1000x better than Minority Report.

 

The thing that makes film unique is its ability to tell stories visually, through editing and camerawork, etc. Telling stories through dialogue can be done in books and radio. Plays are best stage for actors. There have been great films like the ones mentioned, but in my opinion the most powerful film experiences are the ones with great visual storytelling first and foremost.

 

Blade Runner is most definitely a great film, but it too is flawed. I didn't like the original version, and prefer the shorter Director's Cut (who doesn't?).

Being in the UK, I've yet to see Minority Report, but I must say it looks really good. I hope it isn't just a popcorn film, as although the action looks good, it sounds like a film with potential to be deeper than than the average blockbuster.

 

minority report isn't even popcorn film. Well technically it is, but if you actually try to eat during it you might puke.

 

"go watch "whos afraid of virginia wolf" or "twelve angry men" or "dr strangelove" or about A MILLION OTHER MOVIES and tell me the dialogue is the supplement.

man, sometimes i think people just type stuff here to exercise their fingers.

"may the force be with you" is dialogue...

every line you quote from movies is dialogue... jeesh "


Yes movies have dialouge. But it's still a secondary element in film. Even in dialouge heavy movies like Pulp Ficiton it's the characters action that moves the film foreward. Vincent and Jules conversation about big mac's and foot massages is little more than witty banter without the cold blooded murder of 3 college students.

But once that scene plays out the famous verbal exchange ceases to become mere words and becomes part fo the action. It doesn't really have anything to do with the plot itself. It's just the kind of bland (albeit amusing) conversation that two jaded hit men might have before todays job.

Before accusing people of 'excersising their fingers' you might want back up your point of view with more than just 'people talk in movies therefore diaolouge is all important.' Every, every film school professor, film critic, and filmmaking/screenwriting textbook will tell you that action and imagery are the two key elements in flim. Dialouge is secondary. While these sources can sometimes be a bit pretentious they DO at least have credentials beyond 'guy with keyboord and internet connection'.

 

"Yes movies have dialouge. But it's still a secondary element in film. Even in dialouge heavy movies like Pulp Ficiton it's the characters action that moves the film foreward. Vincent and Jules conversation about big mac's and foot massages is little more than witty banter without the cold blooded murder of 3 college students. "

But dialogue elucidates characters and plot points, so it's not the "least important" aspect as Duckman tried to paint it to be. It may not always be THE most important point, but for some filmmakers it can. I'm not sure if you're generalizing or what, but I just watched CASABLANCA again and the dialogue in that movie--other than every line being legendary--is crucial to the overall tone and momentum of that story. You couldn't watch that with the sound off. Yes, the greatest filmmaker of all time, David Lean, towards the end of his life, bemoaned that audiences "watch movies with their ears, not their eyes". And in his case, the visuals were mesmerizing and awe inspiring (ironically, he paid equal attention to script). Yet, there is also no denying the careers of other great filmmakers who choose to convey their emotions and stories through dialogue, as has already been pointed out. I would take those examples over anyone who taught a screenwriting course. (I do not consider Syd Field the grand arbiter of what constitutes a great film)

"Every, every film school professor, film critic, and filmmaking/screenwriting textbook will tell you that action and imagery are the two key elements in flim"

For me to comment on this, you'd have to provide names and examples.

 

You mean when I wrote that Lucas deserves a place alongside Welles and Kubrick in terms of technical innovation and alongside Walt Disney and George Melies when it comes to visual imagination?

No, I mean your other scathing criticisms of his abilities in other areas.

 

So he's beyond criticism? Especially in his writing skills which are barely adequate of late, a point that has been reiterated by more than I?

The Johnstown Flood was a trickle compared to how much you gush.

 

This discussion seems to be way too overgeneralized. The film medium offers the director a variety of tools that he or she can choose to emphasize or de-emphasize based on what is called for just as a painter may emphasize a certain color over another in a painting. That does not mean that a particular element is any less important in the overall context of the medium just as no one color is less important in the painting medium just because a painter chooses not to focus on it in a specific work.

 

Very well put, Imeperial Guard. The filmmaker's palette is expansive, something people who generally devalue "dialogue" misses.

 

Especially in his writing skills which are barely adequate of late...

As of late? You can't honestly tell me there are vast differences between the orignal scripts and the new films.

I'm not saying that Lucas is above criticism, but he certainly doesn't deserve the petty nit-picking he constantly gets from self-proclaimed "experts".

----------

On the topic of dialogue, as we TV photographers say in the news biz, "Without us, it's just radio."

 

"As of late? You can't honestly tell me there are vast differences between the orignal scripts and the new films"

This isn't the place for this, so I'll make this quick: Can you honestly tell me the script for CLONES is better or equal to the script for AMERICAN GRAFFITI?

"I'm not saying that Lucas is above criticism, but he certainly doesn't deserve the petty nit-picking he constantly gets from self-proclaimed "experts". "

If you mean a "self proclaimed expert" as being someone who watches movies and can express his thoughts and opinions, then, well, every filmmaker in history has gone through that. Actually, every ARTIST has gone through that. Remember: The Pope critiqued Michelangelo when he was painting the Sistine Chapel. Part of the deal you make when you become an artist is that you have to show your work to a public (unless you're one of these closet artists who makes movies for his mother), and they are allowed to speak their mind. This has nothing to do with "deserves"; it's just part of the deal. As much as it sucks.

 

Can you honestly tell me the script for CLONES is better or equal to the script for AMERICAN GRAFFITI?

Those are two different films. It is more fair to compare the writing of the original Star Wars films with the new ones than it is to compare films from two radically different genres.

Besides, the dialoge in American Graffiti served a completely different purpose than it does in the Star Wars films. American Graffiti is perhaps Lucas' only "pop" film in that it has more traditional Hollywood film elements than anything you'll find in Star Wars, and part of that is the fact that dialoge played a very large part in Grafitti with the visuals getting the backseat while in Star Wars the role of visuals and dialogue is reversed.

You also have to recognize that Star Wars is written the way it is for a very specific purpose: Lucas is mimicking the stilted and melodramatic dialogue that is found in classic black and white Saturday morning seriels. The dialogue isn't written the way it is because Lucas doesn't know what he's doing but because he wants it that way. Good or bad, that's what he decided.

At any rate, I think Spielberg would put too much emphasis on dialogue and characterizations and phony action sequences and not enough on the visuals.

 

"I think Spielberg would put too much emphasis on dialogue and characterizations "

Yes, we need to keep directors who focus too heavily on dialogue and characterization away from STAR WARS because it would do nothing but damage them.
(eyes rolling into back of my head)

 

Now, let's not let things get out of hand people.
[image=http://www.westsidefencing.com/images/coaches/monkeys.jpg]

 

O.K., now you're just getting pissy.

I never said that emphasis on dialogue and characterizations is a bad thing, but for Episode III to maintain that Star Wars feel, you can't put too much emphasis on those things. It is my belief that Spielberg would have a hard time with this as it's not his movie making style. I've argued that Spielberg's films are all about the characters with the environments feeling rather hollow while Lucas and Star Wars put equal emphasis on visuals and dialogue with visuals often getting greater emphasis.

All I'm saying is that Spielberg would not be able to make Star Wars because it simply wouldn't fit his style. That's all.

 

Well the two books I own on the subject are by syd field and micheal rabigier(may have spelled it wrong...I can't find the book at the moment.) I've also read this sort of thing thumbing through countless books in stores, but I don't carry around a notebook jotting down every name I see, so this will have to do for an example. And I know that they are not "the grand arbiters of what constitutes a great film" but they can' be totally in the dark either.

And my point was not that dialouge is completely useless but that it has to be behavioral in nature. Thus dialouge heavy movies that work are ultimatley telling the story through action. Those that don't end up looking and sounding like an episode of 7th heaven(your not going to tell me THAT show is an example of cinematic bliss.)

You can fudge this a little bit on the stage, with dramatic monolouges and what not, but in movies it usually doesn't work.

 

As much as everyone here loves Star Wars, it is really stretching credibility if you attempt to make the argument that Lucas is a superior director to Spielberg.

As a director Spielberg is leagues beyond Lucas.

Nevertheless, Lucas is a visionary who has done much for the art of filmaking (sfx,sound, reinventing the blockbuster with Star Wars).

The truth is that one the things that AOTC is being blasted for, weak acting, would certainly be rectified under Spielberg. In fact, Steven would have been even better for The Phantom Menace. Why? No one directs children better than he does. Just look at E.T., A.I., Empire of the Sun, or any scenes involving children in any of his other films. He does wonders with them.

As for action scenes, I think he can handle those just fine, thank you. See the Indy trilogy, Jurrasic Park, or the battle sequences in Saving Private Ryan if you need convincing.

Since Lucas would keep control of the story arc, script, and almost everything else I can only come to the conclusion that a Spielberg directed Star Wars episode would indeed turn out better. In essence you would have AOTC with better acting and more imaginative directing. Nothing else would change because Lucas wouldn't let it.

Of course, this is Lucas' baby, and if he refuses he is certainly within his right. In fact, Spielberg has expressed interest in directing Star Wars many times and has been shot down.

 

might as well shove this in this thread:

It's pretty clear that Spielberg has been very inspired by the star wars trilogy. Mostly, ROTJ. When I watched it last two scenes stuck out for me: when C3P0 and R2D2 are in jabba's little droid work-room and the robots are being torn apart it reminded me an awful lot of A.I. Everything about the scene looked like it was the pedigree of the part in AI where the droids are being destroyed for the public's pleasure. The atmosphere, the method of pulling the humanoid droids by the limbs until they stretched out of their sockets leaving a torso hanging.

and also, when Luke is down in the pit under Jabba fighting that enormous creature who picks up the little runt pig-man in his jaws, throws his head back and glides him into his mouth, followed by a nice crunching sound. "Welcome, to 'Jurassic Park' " - you know the scene with the t-rex and the goat?

So, just to add in those cool little scenes that Spielberg must have been inspired by enough to use them in his own films. So it's no wonder he's so adamant about trying to produce a star wars film of his own.

 

Here are some snippets from SKYWALKING by Dale Pollock which may or may not delineate the different approaches of Mssrs. Lucas and Spielberg. Make what you will of them:

"Spielberg moves his camera instinctively, designing elaborate shots and angles and filming the action as it happens. Lucas makes his films in the editing room and imageines his cuts even as he shoots. Spielberg likes to film numerous takes of a scene, spending whatever it required [Note: this book was published in the late 80s, when Spielberg was notorious for going over budget]...Lucas's penny pinching is legendary."

SPIELBERG: "George's biggest thing with movies is logic. He would say, "That's going to be hard to swallow", and he was right.

"Lucas principally acted as a brake to Spielberg's vivid imagination"

SPIELBERG: I would trust George with any movie I ever direct to reedit in any way he sees fit. He knows the secret of what an editor can do to a movie, how he can enhance a film.


On a quick glance, that's what I've weaned out. They're just two different filmmakers who respect each other. Spielberg would make a fine STAR WARS movie (to say he can't direct an action scene is silly. JAWS remains one of the most intense movies of all time, despite its technical limitations. And go back to DUEL before that if you want. The D-Day invasion in RYAN is now a classic and has inspired countless imitations); but Lucas is also a fine director. Again, he needs help with the writing, not the directing.

 

"when C3P0 and R2D2 are in jabba's little droid work-room and the robots are being torn apart it reminded me an awful lot of A.I. "

Umm...the Flesh Fair in A.I. was actually conceived by Kubrick, and probably as inspired by Isaac Asimov as anything (in fact, aren't the SW droids inspired by Asimov's "I. Robot"?)


"when Luke is down in the pit under Jabba fighting that enormous creature who picks up the little runt pig-man in his jaws, throws his head back and glides him into his mouth, followed by a nice crunching sound. "Welcome, to 'Jurassic Park' " - you know the scene with the t-rex and the goat? "

That shot's been in every monster movie since KING KONG. Try looking at BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS, VALLEY OF THE GWANGI, or any Ray Harryhausen movie. ROTJ got a lot of the Sarlacc (?) from those movies.

 

In reply to the entire discussion trailing around dialogue and effects, I agree that the pallet and tools a filmmaker can use are varied and can be used in a variety of different methods for different results. However, to those who say that Lucas? bad dialogue in film is an atrocity that can be rectified, one must understand that the choice of pallet and source of material ends up in the final product. In Lucas? case, Attack of the Clones and Star Wars reflects the source material he combined in his pallet to create the characters and dialogue, ?crappy Saturday sci-fi?.
But the genius behind cheese based garbage like the comic strips of the 30?s or the radio programs of the 40?s is that the visuals and the vistas that encompass the story relate to the audience the story is directed at: Children.
I think anyone here could agree that part of being an influential filmmaker is realizing what audience you?re catering to, what format or aspect of society you?re trying to comment or capture is the essence of the message behind your story. In Lucas? case, the over-the-top visceral storytelling often ridiculed among the circles of Kubrick watchers or Philip K. Dick scribes stands in as the pallet, the aspect of culture he?s readily portraying. When you?re a kid and you watch a cartoon or open a comic book the first thing you notice isn?t the ?intricate and well paced dialogue?, it?s the cool colors and the action. Had Star Wars been filmed and introduced back during the era when this type of storytelling wasn?t the rebuke of the nostalgia enthusiast, it would have been considered the greatest thing among the minds of youths.

• ?Did you catch last week?s episode? Wow! Obi-Wan and Jango fought on the Kamino platform, rockets were flying everywhere, and Jango decked Obi-Wan, but Obi smashed his jetpack! He got away though??

But to assume that Lucas isn?t one to dabble in the art of direction and experiment with his craft would be a haughty assumption, and Attack of the Clones easily shows this. While I would agree that Lucas isn?t one to take on daring and dynamic angles or shots like Spielberg, he knows what he?s doing when he establishes a shot. The intro into the Gladiator Arena is a breathtaking shot, with the camera sweeping upward to engulf the large body of Geonosian spectators and the enormity of the arena. Revolutionary? No, but in that singular moment, you feel the direness behind their situation, and you?re taken back by the grand scale of the location.
Next year I?ll be attending film school, and I look forward to learning more about the craft of directing and screenwriting, so my comments aren?t made in the supplication of ?knowledge? that some here seem to posses. However, I watch movies, and I enjoy them, and I think that in trying to capture the feeling of cheesy sci-fi and expand upon the imagery a film can offer, Lucas stands as one of the most effective of his art.

Now, let me say that I?ve seen Minority Report, and although I know a lot of people here thought it was a poorly done movie, I greatly enjoyed it. I?m one of the ?lesser? fans of A.I., I feel that the modern telling of Pinocchio was poorly handled under Spielberg?s hand and that he remains to be a director who has a lack for dark storytelling. Yet, Minority Report did it for me, it restored my faith in Spielberg and assured me that the man can still make a greatly enthralling and powerful story and fit it into the guise of a simplistic movie. The humor was fantastic, the acting top-notch and the gadgetry and vision of the future well-thought out. I especially enjoyed the fact that Spielberg didn?t fall prey to the all to often occurrence of showing the audience a post apocalyptic future where everything is wrong and no one is happy. The future of Minority Report seemed to be almost blind to its own self-irony, because quite frankly, a good number of those gadgets (the magic puke wand or dancing cereal box) looked like they belonged on an episode of Futurama.
But that?s why I loved it! Spielberg proved that futurism

 

"or any Ray Harryhausen movie. ROTJ got a lot of the Sarlacc (?) from those movies."

And I believe, so did the end of AOTC.

 

Just one last word on the visuals vs. dialogue debate. I'm a member of Francis Coppola's Zoeterope website, and in my time there I've discovered the general consensus among screenwriters is to keep dialogue to a minimum, especially if it's not your forte. Perhaps part of the problem with the prequels is that, even though they're highly visual movies, the dialogue is more important than in the original trilogy because of the political aspect of the plot. So since Lucas can't cut back on the dialogue, maybe he should seek a co-writer's help (which he did for AOTC). Personally, I can forgive the bad dialogue in the prequels so far (although AOTC was an improvement on TPM, IMO) but that's because I can appreciate purely visual storytelling.
The five areas that I think a film needs to succeed in to be called a classic are: story, characters, visuals, dialogue and acting. For me, the story and visuals of AOTC were 100% successful, in that I didn't lose interest for a second. The characters were about 75% successful. I found them all interesting, even though they weren't as developed as they could have been (mainly thanks to Lucas's over-editing). Acting and dialogue were probably 50% successful. Only Hayden and Natalie felt really awkward in some scenes, and the dialogue did let them down often. But overall, the film was a success.

Getting back to Spielberg, I'm not horrifed by the idea of him directing Episode III, but I still think it could easily go wrong. As I said before, I believe Spielberg hasn't directed a completely satisfying popcorn film since Jurassic Park. It doesn't matter how dark or disturbing the story of Episode III will be, it should still be in the tradition of Saturday matinee serials, like all the other films. Can Spielberg still make a film like that? The fact that he turned down the chance to make both Harry Potter and Spider-Man would possibly indicate that he can't (or just doesn't find it fulfilling anymore).
Finally, here's another quote from Spielberg in Empire magazine that I find interesting:

"I thought George did his best action direction on Episode II. It's the best choreography of action sequences that George has ever done in his career. I've always believed that Jim Cameron is the best action director in several decades, but when I saw Episode II, I said, 'George has done as good a job with his action scenes as Cameron did with True Lies and T2.' I thought George really graduated this time."

So even Spielberg seems to think that Lucas's direction makes Star Wars more exciting than he could