The Editting discussion

All you guys is sooooooo smart! lol

 

I do not understand the claim that AOTC has no story (please don't reiterate it, I mean that I disagree with the claim). The discussion between the difference of plot and story is all very entertaining, but there's a problem with expecting AOTC's story to cover a fully cohesive beginning middle, end, and a nice arc wherein characters all change and realize something about themselves in the end...the problem is that AOTC is preceeded by TPM and succeeded by ANH, ESB and ROTJ. There's your story. Now, you might say that AOTC should still have an intact story on its own. It does. It tells the story of the circumstances within which the transition between Republic and Empire, Jedi and Sith, will be realized. If AOTC had no story, then we can go from TPM to episode III and everyone will be totally up to speed. I'm sure. AOTC is a about transition, and it shifts the bright cheery days of the TPM world into the dark EpIII world. Not sure how you can say there's no story....and don't call that a "plot point", either!

anyways, I thought this thread was about editing...so here's my comment on a moment that I thought was edited well....

Dooku talking to Obi-Wan in the cell: Right after Dooku said that qui gon would never have gone along with the senate if he had known the truth as he knows...and then Obi says, "the truth?"....there's a moment where you see Dooku and he looks as if he's just eaten something bad and is awaiting the resulting negative effects...barfing...I dunno....and then he pauses, readying himself to tell the "truth". To me, this moment is brilliant because it tells us that whatever he says next IS the truth (not a lie)...it's as if he was reluctant to say it; as if he knew it was bad baaad news and as if he was telling obi-wan something he shouldn't be revealing. I get all that from the little pause they have inserted there. Now, that moment, in filming, could have been anything caught on camera...it could have been any miscellaneous Lee expression, but the choice to slip it in right before he tells about Sidious was a good call, because it tells so much in that split second of film.

 

...my apologies if this a double post, but my edit doesn't seem to be showing up....

I might as well throw in another comment here while I'm at it...

Regarding the accusation of AOTC for having poor writing...sure the dialogue sucks at parts...sure it would have been nice for it to have been better. The dialogue is said to suck because its complteley unrealistic. It's romanticized in certain areas, and chopped up and un-realistically stacatto in other areas. The point is, its not real, and that's what people dont like about it. It occured to me that the same kind of criticism could have been said back in the early 20th century when all these weirdo art movements came out and artists were totally messing with reality. Picasso was fracturing reality, Matisse was screwing around with unrealistic colours, Van Gogh was making everything look like a cartoon done in crayon, Kandinsky and Pollock didn't even represent any ACTUAL real life objects. It was the departure from realism that had so many people hating these new artists. Their stuff just wasn't real - it was messed up reality. Critics would even dismiss these artosts as painters who couldn't even paint, who just used abstraction as an excuse to cover for a lack of talent. Well, today we call their weird unrealistic art revolutionary and ingenius, and we excuse it's lack of realism and understand more of what their goal was, and we know NOT to compare it to works of realism because it's legitamtley NOT SUPPOSED to be REALISTIC.

I don't think I need to belabour the obvious parallels with GL and Star Wars vs all the "realistic" movies that critics praise so highly. Basically, I'm too lazy to finish the post, but the idea is there. Whaddya think?

 

It doesn't change the fact that its bad, dialogue should not take people out of the movie, it should draw them in.

As was stated before, just because something is intentional, doesn't make it good.

It might be LUcas' artistic vision to have ep3 be played upside down, to symbolize that the lives of the heros are turned upside down. But its still a terrible idea, his vision or not.


"The discussion between the difference of plot and story is all very entertaining, but there's a problem with expecting AOTC's story to cover a fully cohesive beginning middle, end, and a nice arc wherein characters all change and realize something about themselves in the end"

I understand what you are saying, but if the characters do not change by the end of the film then the film is pointless. Yes its a middle chapter, but the middle has to do more then just cover the plot points to get us from part 1 to part 3. Otherwise it reduces the importance of the film to that of the opening crawl. "You need to know this, this and this."

None of the SW films was meant to be a stand alone.
TPM by the logic you employ needs not an ending, or anything but character introduction, but it does have a beginning, middle and ending. Jarjar, Qui-gon, Obi-wan, Padme, and to some extent Anakin, all follow character arcs.

ESB is a middle chapter, and yet if ever there was an episode that transformed the characters and had a beginning middle and ending this is it. ANH was made to stand alone would that the sequels might never get made, but it still is open ended enough, Vader lives, the empire is still out there, there is an unresolved love triangle. And there is an indication of a huge backstory which proceeds it. yet ANH has in and of itself a beginning, middle and ending.

In an ongoing saga like this where each film is a chapter, yes each chapter must deliver the plot info to move through the larger story. But each chapter must in and of itself be a microcosm of that story, and must show character evolution. Otherwise its just a soap opera.

 

Coming a little late into this one...

"LEt me say this again, my girlfriend had to write a report just on symbols/metaphors/motifs and setting and how it tells the story."

Maybe she should address these issues, then...

"I don't know what a good movie is because I have not taken a film class. Well guess what must people here may never have taken one. That does not mean they don't know what a good movie makes."

Agreed. Since these films are intended for teeny-boopers, I fail to see how a college-level course should be mandatory for understanding the themes of the films. Besides, how many teens actually go to art museums anymore?

(Speaking of which, I need to take my 2-year-old to the Norton Simon musuem. I love that place. )

"Still on your "all films are created equal" kick, ani?"

Well, I'm not sure what "kick" is being referred to, but that wasn't the point of anidanami124's post.

"If I made happy gilmore but I used a lot of smoke it would automatically be mysterious?"

Sure, one would wonder "what happened to all the spectators?"

"The reason why ESB remains the best of the SW filsm has nothing to do with its Visuals, some might argue its the least visual of all the SW films"

Well, I would argue that the "visual difference" is more than simply the lack of visuals, though I know what you are trying to say. I loved Kershner's comments about focusing on Yoda's face when Luke departed, rather than showing the X-wing rocketing into space. That being said, the background "ambiance" of ESB - such as the overall color scheme, is very important to the tone of the story. Didn't Lucas and McCallum say Ep.III would look similar to ESB, or were they referring simply to dramatic tone?

"It's a visual medium...no one goes to a theatre to "read" a film or "listen" to the dialogue. You go to SEE a film." ?

So that whole list of plot points you brought up is pointless? I guess you'll love Ep.III: AVBE then.

BTW, surely you don't imply that sound effects aren't necessary too, right?

"I mean if you turned off the dialouge in lord of the rings, would you know what it was about? I mean seriously."

Does that make it a bad film? ?

How about Tango and Cash? That's a very visual film, and I don't need the dialogue to figure out what's going on. By your reasoning, this makes it better than Lord of the Rings!

You really need to rethink your criteria here.

"Besides, you don't necessarily need to tell a story to make a film."

Perhaps not, but Lucas does call himself a visual storyteller, so your hypothetical scenario doesn't apply here.

"A hundred years from now, people will still be watching these films. They will not be reading these threads."

No, they'll be rehashing the same arguments with each other, possibly on other forums. Unless, of course, you think people of the future will suddenly stop discussing films? ?

Besides, did you think all this debate was brand new? How many times have you seen the same topics/threads/debates brought up over and over again?

"None of the SW films was meant to be a stand alone."

Over the long haul, no. Nonetheless, ANH was simplified so that it could stand on its own, should sequels not be possible.

 

The dialogue is atrocious.Heck even if the dialogue wasn't bad just the numerous plot holes will drive you insane.


"Rebel Scumb do you know what the point of Maul and Dooku was."


Marketing, Revenue, and Dividends

 

JediHPDrummer, I think many people are well aware of the things you keep repeating. Some of your analysis is quite interesting. But some of those deep, brilliant "metaphors" you keep hammering into us are really nothing more than conventions, bordering on cliches. The "idyllic green fields" on Naboo, for instance, have been used for countless romances. Sure, green fields and waterfalls could represent tranquility, purity, and beauty. But there is also such a thing as being plain and simplistic. How many times have you seen the guy and the girl laughing together in a field with a picnic basket and a blanket? I'm not really faulting people for liking it, but I don't understand the reasoning behind screaming to people that it was the only way it could possibly be filmed. Take ESB's romance, with Han and Leia gradually falling in love in the most cramped, dirty and dangerous of places. And I like their relationship better because it is ironic and different - it doesn't show us the typical romance or tiresome cliches. It's love born from the most impossible of places and cirumstances. And like Gone With the Wind (which I'm very sure was a model for the romance of Han and Leia) Rhet Butler and Scarlet O'Hara's turbulent relationship didn't develop in rich pastoral settings like Naboo but through the ugliness of the Civil War. And like Han and Leia, I think the viewer likes seeing love develop and tested through difficult situations and still come out on the other side. It's more powerful and, dramatically, more satisfying.

And although your Kamino analysis is interesting, Kamino could've been filmed in so many ways, giving us, again, even more metaphors. If Kamino were a rock planet, it would represent the rigidity of the Jedi and the crudeness of the enemy. Rocks are natural formations on every planet. They mirror the creation of the planet, and creations relates to birth, like the clones. Their erosion represents change and evolution...etc, etc.

If Kamino were a gas planet (like Bespin) it would represent the invisibility of the Sith and the clouds would represent the delicate, pure innocence of the good guys. And the clouds could also double as a symbol of mystery because it shrouds everything. The beautiful shreaks of flaming red and orange in the clouds foreshadow danger, that within these seemingly pure clouds lies the seed of anger and hatred that will grow and consume all...etc, etc.

There's no problem with analyzing a film. I analyze films myself. But I don't force my opinions on another viewer and patronize them as if to say "You just don't get it do you?"

And about film and how visuals only tell the story and dialogue is the music...That doesn't place any less importance on the dialogue. If the dialogue is the "music", then that means it still serves a purpose.

And not every film made out there is meant to be a visual tone poem. There are many films I would call artisic that don't rely on visuals but on the power of the written word and performances. If not films, look at theater, where a table, a chair, and a window is usually enough.

Dialogue is not something frivolous and unimportant, as if it could be discarded because it's a nuisance that's getting in the way of the visuals. When you think about it, Lawrence of Arabia needs its dialogue to be fully understood and apreciated. The script by Robert Bolt is literate and sharp, but if you took out the words entirely, Lawrence of Arabia would really amount to a series of lovely panorama shots. The "visuals tell the whole story" is just one method of making a good film. It is not the only way.

 

"That being said, the background "ambiance" of ESB - such as the overall color scheme, is very important to the tone of the story."

I agree 100%, I prefer the ESB visuals to the other films, but for the sake of arguement and knowing how trendy it is to bash the OT to build up the PT I figured I'd just attack the arguement from that route rather then trying prove that ESB is both best in story and visuals (which it is). What I should of said is its the least flashy of the saga.

And your point about seeing the light on Yoda's face rather then seeing the X-wing take off is bang on, now that GL can show the ship take off so easily he would never do something like this again, yet that yoda moment is in my opinion the most ominous moment of the saga.

"How about Tango and Cash? That's a very visual film, and I don't need the dialogue to figure out what's going on. By your reasoning, this makes it better than Lord of the Rings!

You really need to rethink your criteria here."

I knew there was a reason I liked you MeBeJedi

"A hundred years from now, people will still be watching these films. They will not be reading these threads."

There won't be humans 100 years from now, much less movies.


JohnWilliams00's post was too long to quote, but he's 100% right. Symbolisms and metaphors are great, but they need to sit on a strong foundation of story.

A film is like a house, you can have the nicest furniture in the world, the coolest paintings and sculptures, and a bitching tv and stereo set up, but if the foundation of the house is not properly laid, its all pretty pointless.

as JW00 said, Kaminio could just as easily have been made of rock, and Geonosis made of water, and there would be 101 symbolism that would apply to the situations in the film, which goes back to my original rebuttal that you can find symbolism in anything, even a stormtrooper hitting his head on a door.

 

well Rebel Scum, I agree that there is less character development by the end of AOTC than in any other film (ROTJ being the one with the most, ESB the second, TPM/ANH tied). But I don't think it has a complete lack of character development.

Padme goes from being a work-oriented senator to realizing that she's a woman and that SHE HAS NEEDS!!! lol...she begins to focus more on herself, realizing that she has to do what makes her happy, and she seems to be deviating from the "lets serve the government" side of her.

The relationship between her and anakin also changes quite dramatically...it goes from "Oh, ani, you'll always be that little boy I knew on tatooine" to "I truly deeply love you, and before I die," yadda yadda yadda.

Anakin moves closer to the darkside - his attachment to his mother turns to hatred and he satiates that hatred with the tusken slaughter, and he betrays the jedi rules by marrying Padme - so he continues to lose his "innocence". Also, from episode I, it's clear that Anakin has become more agressive.

Character development also includes the way the audience feels about a character. AOTC establishes the collective opinion of Obi-Wan...by the end of TPM we don't really know what to think of him...he's a good padawan, he follows the rules, but thats about it...by the end of AOTC we see that he's a sort of quasi-tragic figure (I'm using the cult use of the term, rather than the literary use of it which applies only to Anakin). There's a measure of pathos towards him because we see how his padawan is drifting away from him and we see that he hasn't been able to train him to stick to the rules, and to let go of his anger. We begin to see some of Obi-Wan's failures in this area, and it foreshadows a greater right between master and padawan.

What's more, R2 learns to beep louder, and C3PO gets his head back!

Grantit, these character changes aren't as profound of the changes yet to come in EpIII or in any other film, but that doesn't make AOTC pointless, or story-less. If character development in your only concern, than AOTC is an essential movie because it sets up EpIII, which should be the ultimate character change.

 

"And your point about seeing the light on Yoda's face rather then seeing the X-wing take off is bang on, now that GL can show the ship take off so easily he would never do something like this again, yet that yoda moment is in my opinion the most ominous moment of the saga. "

you're assuming that george would simply opt for the more techy shot oppurtunity rather than the less techy shot which does more than evoke an "oh, cool" reaction from the audience. George being as visual as he is, I would bet that he would still focus on Yoda knowing that that visual accomplishes more than the visual of the x-wing. You're playing the angle that CG is hurting star wars too hard.

 

No, just that people tend be more creative when they don't have the money/technology to show everything. Artist thrive on adversity, and not being able to do something often leads to a more creative approach.

Lets put it this way, has Gl opted for this technique anywhere in the PT?

The craftiest shot I can think of in the PT is the reveal at the end of TPM where we find out that Palpatine is Sidious.


As for Anakin and Padme's development in AOTC I agree to an extent, but the problem is we don't really see the development. Padme is against a relationship with Anakin, shows no feelings towards him, then as they enter the arena, she pulls a 180 and says she loves him. We needed to see her actually have her views change and come to that choice.

Likewise with Anakin, his most changing moment is the death of his mother and the slaughter of the tuskens, the problem is as soon as they leave Geonosis this feels forgotten and if anything Anakin seems less evil then he did at the beginning of the movie.

Regarding Obi-wan, in TPM I agree he did not have much of an arc, but we saw him transition from learner to master, and in the end adopting some of Qui-gon's defiance which he use to hate. small change, but Obi-wan was unfortuantely a small character in TPM

in AOTC there is no change, he's a dilligent jedi who has a sarcastic costic response to everything. None of his loyalties come into question, he niether likes nor dislikes anyone more or less then he did at the beginning of the film.

 

Marketing, Revenue, and Dividends



Yeah cause you know how badly lucas needs money.

 

3 Billion Dollars Baby!!!!

 

Is it 3? I thought he had closer to 7. But I'm not his accountant or anything.

 

You guys are ignorant for talking about Lucas just making these movies for money. I really cant beleive it, Lucas is a pure artist, This is taking almost 15 years of his life. Knowing george who is into Joseph Campbell and Romantisicm, i really dont think Money is his priority. You guys are ignorant, you guys just want to be rebels, Think back and look at what you said about someone who Adopts 3 children by himself. I'm sure money is an issue but not to the extent of how your talking about. I guess if roman polanski didnt have enough money to make the pianist, could he? If Peter Jackson didnt have money could he make LOTR, and make duracell commercials? For the love of god people, of course money is an issue. But u make lucas sound like a greedy buisness man. He uses the FX top tell a story, and he gets emotionally into it, i mean ask your ignorant self that you would take 15 years of your life to make a series of movies that everyone loved. He could of went straight back to the THX movies if he wanted, but lucas is learning also, in the interview The Mythology of star wars, lucas says these new films are like a spiritual journey for himself too. He reseaches so much stuff.
Okay
First of All, if Kamino were Rock, it wouldnt make sense.

Rock is not about creation or anything like that. And it hasnt been in any mythological story or anything.

Rock really symbolizes is strentgh and vitality.

The Color structure wouldnt help either.

It needed to be Rainy, Blue, White.

Water Creates things, water has been for over 5000 years, its a Rebirth. When a baby is in her mom's belly, he is in water. "My WATER BROKE" not my ROCK BROKE. It doesnt make sense. They are creating babies and children. They are not going to be born out of a rock.

When the psych mind sees colors like red, blue and white, our minds feel things just like different chords of music hits us emotionally different.

Kamino is Blue because it's a water planet and its very cold. It's Raining(Water), its stormy, its cloudy(motif throughout the whole movie). Lucas is using Pathetic Fallacy to express the characters situation.
And Rock wouldnt go good with a jedi wearing brown. He was an outcast in the society, brown and blue dont go together. Setting is VERY Important. So your saying pretty much that Kamino's enviroment is pointless, the rain, the storm, the clouds, the colors are pointless. They dont mean anything do they?

Dont give me that Grassy field crap or anything. Watch any Kurosawa film, watch any Asian Cinema and you'll see how much what you say CLICHE they use. You use enviroments, costumes, colors, setting, shots to tell a story, sometimes it relates of how the character is feeling. It's called pathetic fallacy, this is ene more so in asian cinema where they use technocolor still to express the color.

Its obvious what Green and Grass(Plants) show us, Its a growth, grass grows, Water clenses, gives us a rebirth, not rocks.

I will be back and iam going to do a full complete analysis of Episode 2. I'm going to talk about everything from costume, enviroment, colors, character development, pathetic fallacy, symbols, motifs, music, shots, editing, everything that has to do with the movie.

Edit: Again, you say it could of been rock, it could of been this. But ITS NOT, its kamino, and you have to ask yourself why he chose that setting. Again, your saying that setting doesnt matter or colors or shot stucture or long shots or mise en scene. I dont know what your trying to say.

 

Hey, we're not disrespecting Lucas because of his billions. We're disrespecting those who feel that a man who has dedicated nearly 30 years of his life to one film saga is in it only for the money.

That, of course, is utterly ludicrous. Bashers have very little to play with so they use the old "Lucas is greedy" comment to pad their arguments.

 

"By your reasoning, this makes it better than Lord of the Rings! You really need to rethink your criteria here."

"I knew there was a reason I liked you MeBeJedi"

Well, let me at least say that I love Tango & Cash, and wasn't trying to demean it in any way.

"There won't be humans 100 years from now, much less movies."

I love you too, R-S.

"But ITS NOT, its kamino, and you have to ask yourself why he chose that setting."

Uhm, because he has yet to show a water planet?

A few years before TPM, I recall reading a book on the making of Star Wars, and Lucas talked about how water was the toughest effect to create digitally. Not long after, he shows us the Gungan city. In addition to this, he wanted an entire civilization that could have developed without Naboobians knowing about it. Don't fool yourself into thinking every effect in his movie has an underlying psychological or metaphorical basis.

Sometimes, George just likes the way it looks.

Case in point...

However, George did keep the mask Ralph [McQuarrie] had given the evil villain, Darth Vader. Ralph created the mask because he felt Vader would need something with which to breathe when moving between spaceships. George didn't care about this so much (after all, this was fantasy, not fact); he just liked the mask's sinister appearance. - ILM: The Art of Special Effects

Seems all the "symbolism" and "metaphor" of the suit came after the fact.

Sometimes, a difference of opinion doesn't mean the other person is ignorant, just that they know more than you do.

 

>>>>>people tend be more creative when they don't have the money/technology to show everything. Artists thrive on adversity, and not being able to do something often leads to a more creative approach.

I disagree. A good artist will thrive in whatever situation she or he is in, regardless of the amount of options at hand. And a good artist is not one to ignore a simpler and more effective approach in favour of a flashier option that has been recently opened. Likewise, there is no saying that a flashier approach is any less effective than the effective simple approach (as a general statement). Either way, the artist has to use their tools effectivley and with a masterful degree of control, regardless of how rudimentary or advanced they are.

>>>>Lets put it this way, has Gl opted for this technique anywhere in the PT?

Sure. I'll give you an example:

"the reveal at the end of TPM where we find out that Palpatine is Sidious."

LOL, ok, I cheated. There are tons more, just look at the "five great scenes directed by GL" thread. The exact format of focusing on one character's face like Palps in TPM and Yoda in ESB doesn't come up very often because the oppurtunity for it is not common. But there are many shots that are efficent and effective and quite meaningful. If they were not done with digital effects, they'd probably be just as effective, however done differently - but definitley not necessarily any better or worse. I'd wager there aren't anymore of these shots in the OT than there are in the PT - its not about available materials and options, but about oppurtunity.


>>>As for Anakin and Padme's development in AOTC I agree to an extent, but the problem is we don't really see the development. Padme is against a relationship with Anakin, shows no feelings towards him, then as they enter the arena, she pulls a 180 and says she loves him. We needed to see her actually have her views change and come to that choice.

Aye, and thats why we needed that Padme's family scene. But just beause it's not shown doesn't mean it isn't there....it's interpolated by the audience....just like most of the clone war battles are...we dont actually see them, but we get a very real sense of them (I'm assuming we will, with episode III providing an end-cap to them).

>>>>>Likewise with Anakin, his most changing moment is the death of his mother and the slaughter of the tuskens, the problem is as soon as they leave Geonosis this feels forgotten and if anything Anakin seems less evil then he did at the beginning of the movie.

I get what you mean, and I wonder if any reminders could have been put in there along the way without distracting from the battle sequence or creating unnecessary dramatic detours in an already complicated battle sequence. Short of animating a black hailo around Anakin's head, I can't think of what else George could have done. And since the battle is so soon after the slaughter, having a dialogue moment to remind the audience of the gravity of his "crimes" might seem a bit superfluous.

>>>>in AOTC there is no change, he's a dilligent jedi who has a sarcastic costic response to everything. None of his loyalties come into question, he niether likes nor dislikes anyone more or less then he did at the beginning of the film.

yes, but his failures are more apparant. Anakin is not the straight-arrow model jedi that Obi and Qui Gon were hoping him to be. So you see Obi-Wan more of an instructor who has slipped up as result of having a pretty tough task on his hands. It's almost as if he didn't have the ambition to train Anakin, but only did it to satisfy Qui-Gon's request....and in so doing, did a botched job.

 

jediHP, that was an interesting post. But then again, I always love it when people slam the hardcore bashers, especially when they pull the "it's all for money" bs.

regarding the use of visuals. Many designers consider words and language as a crutch, and that visuals are our primary sense of information (and the most important in the animal kingdom, might I add...I should know...I'm a part-time elephant) because humans were able to see things long before they could speak. We are visual creatures - so Lucas and film critics like him can just as easily slam a non-visually intense movie for their LACK of good visuals and over-dependance upon dialogue. They could call a movie flat because of it's lack of the use of visuals as storytelling devices...the problem is that NEEDING VISUALS has gotten negative connotations throughout the years. Books with pictures are always looked down upon in the acadamia world. We tend to think words and dialogue is where it's all at. I'm sure Lucas and others would disagree vehemently.

 

Rock is not about creation or anything like that. And it hasnt been in any mythological story or anything.

It was to the Greeks; in fact, according to their mythology, the whole human race as we know it today was born of rock.

Much to learn, you still have.

To clarify an earlier point, you're still talking as if adding fog to a scene flips some imaginary switch between "My dog could solve this mystery" and "Holy crap, call Sherlock Holmes!", as if rain toggles between "Meh" and "Goodbye cruel world," and as if adding flame can convert an audience from "This fight sucks" to "HACK THE BONE! HACK THE BONE!"



To put it another way, if a film needs to lean so far on its visuals to provide what the script isn't already providing, the results are ultimately hollow, like a shiny new paint job on a car with a busted engine.

To bring this to a more concrete level, I recently edited an indie feature, one shot on such a low budget that most of the cast and crew worked for negligible pay. When, as a director, the people under you are mostly volunteers, you're bound to end up with a mixed bag (you get what you pay for, after all), and that's exactly what happened to us.

Some cast members showed respectable talent, while others faltered, even when a good portion of the final product depended on them.

The director's initial solution to the problem was to try and hide the weaker performances behind a grab bag of quote-unquote style; negative flashes, jump cuts, freeze frames, solarizations, and anything else he thought would distract the audience enough that they wouldn't notice the film's shortcomings.

My solution?and the one we eventually settled on?was to cull the weaker scenes from the stronger ones, cut around weaker, non-essential lines, trim fat wherever we found it, and in all other ways do all we could to draw out what strength was already there.

There were a few scenes, featuring lines we couldn't afford to lose and deliveries we couldn't stand to hear, that we ended up ADRing, but we ended up with a much better film than we started with, and we did it without having to throw out volumes of excessive eye candy like so many band-aids.

 

Think back and look at what you said about someone who Adopts 3 children by himself.


Adopting 3 children is only altruistic if someone happens to be both "married" and "fertile" or otherwise has had no prior inclination to adopt.

Otherwise, the guy is like the rest of us as far as children are concerned, wouldn't you think?

 

I dont ever remember in greek mythology where a rock meant rebirth. I mean Sisyphus pushed a rock up a hill in hades, only to see it roll down once close to the top.And the punishment was interpreted as mans endless struggle to his material desires.

Rocks usually means stablity.

Thats not really the point though, the point is lucas used WATER as a setting in Kamino. Again, i'll explain, it means rebirth, a baby is born out of water. MY WATER BROKE!!

Well, i'll be back for the full analysis of AOTC.

 

I dont ever remember in greek mythology where a rock meant rebirth.

When the gods flood the world, leaving only a single husband and wife alive, the couple (Deucalion and Pyhrra by name) creates a new race of men and women by scattering rocks over their shoulders.

Water can mean anything, Drummer. It can mean change, it can mean cleanliness, death, cold, loneliness, or any other concept you could possibly link to it.

One thing you learn as you continue to study film, and draw these kinds of meanings, is that if you try hard enough, you can draw parallels between any two things. You also learn that if the symbolism is abstract enough that it could mean anything, it usually means nothing.

 

The exact format of focusing on one character's face like Palps in TPM and Yoda in ESB doesn't come up very often because the oppurtunity for it is not common. But there are many shots that are efficent and effective and quite meaningful.

There are shots that are effective and meaningful but they're few and far between and often they're negated by other things in the same scene.

In the meetings with Palpatine and Amidala in his apartment, for instance, Ian did some truely classic shots but unfortunately they were canceled out by an unrealistically monotone and soulless character in queen Amidala.

Ian didn't always do a great job either but I consider that more of a directoral problem than anything.

As for the opportunities for the characters to express themselves not being common, I disagree. A little can go a long way with characters. A few minutes here a few minutes there, a little more earnestness here and there and the overall tone of a film can change dramatically. Two characters in AOTC that definitely could've been more time in the sun are Yoda and Palpatine. IMO these two characters are given a paltry amount of time considering how important they are. Palpatine especially is a problem for me because he's such a juicy character. Why the hell is Lucas holding back on Palpatine? And then, of course, there's considerable lack of depth in these same characters absent any dialogue that has a nanogram of emotional impetus behind it. Nothing in the prequels even comes close to what we got in ESB with Yoda and ROTJ with Palpatine. Even worse for AOTC in the case of yoda was the decision to go all digital. In the end going digital for such a character is always a technical decision. There's nothing artistic about such a decision. A real film artist is more concerned with the emotional conveyance of a character, not what it looks like.

Aye, and thats why we needed that Padme's family scene. But just beause it's not shown doesn't mean it isn't there....it's interpolated by the audience....just like most of the clone war battles are...we dont actually see them, but we get a very real sense of them (I'm assuming we will, with episode III providing an end-cap to them).

Interpolated by the audience? ? I don't think so. If the audience wants to it can interpolate Padme's entire life span. So what? Interpolation as far as character depth is concerned has its limits. Unlike visual effects they really do need to be seen or otherwise reflected in dialogue in order to be processed through the senses and the gut. Interpolation only works if it's queud in some fashion or seen directly. And the clone battles don't hold up as a comparison because the so-called interpolated portions are more of the same thing in a sequence that is ongoing and on top of that they're action scenes. And action scenes by nature don't usually convey too much in the way of characters and story anyway.

On it's own merit it is possible to interpolate things about Padme's youth in AOTC but it isn't very substantial. All we get is something about her swimming out to an island with her friends. It doesn't begin to give us a real sense of her as a daughter, sister, childhood friend, etc.

NEEDING VISUALS has gotten negative connotations throughout the years. Books with pictures are always looked down upon in the acadamia world. We tend to think words and dialogue is where it's all at. I'm sure Lucas and others would disagree vehemently.

And to that I would say emphatically that they are wrong.

 

MeBeJedi:

---

A few years before TPM, I recall reading a book on the making of Star Wars, and Lucas talked about how water was the toughest effect to create digitally. Not long after, he shows us the Gungan city. In addition to this, he wanted an entire civilization that could have developed without Naboobians knowing about it. Don't fool yourself into thinking every effect in his movie has an underlying psychological or metaphorical basis.

Sometimes, George just likes the way it looks.

Case in point...

However, George did keep the mask Ralph [McQuarrie] had given the evil villain, Darth Vader. Ralph created the mask because he felt Vader would need something with which to breathe when moving between spaceships. George didn't care about this so much (after all, this was fantasy, not fact); he just liked the mask's sinister appearance. - ILM: The Art of Special Effects

Seems all the "symbolism" and "metaphor" of the suit came after the fact.[hr][/blockquote]

Nice examples MBJ. :) I think Lucas does think of some of these things, but not everything. One should also credit the designers and concept artists for their ideas too. And this is not taking anything away from what you see in the films, JediHPDrummer, but here's an excerpt of an [link=http://www.teenink.com/Past/2000/September/Interviews/GeorgeLucas.html]interview[/link] done with George Lucas during the making of AOTC ;):

[hr][b][color=blue]JA[/color][/b]: [b][i]People devote their lives to reading, analyzing and explaining Shakespeare; some of what they come up with must have him spinning or laughing in his grave. You're kind of in the same position - people like to interpret your films.

What's it like to have your work so much a part of the public consciousness? What is the most ridiculous thing you've ever heard someone take from the "Star Wars" movies?[/i][/b]

[b][color=blue]Lucas[/color][/b]: There are a lot of ridiculous things that people read into the "Star Wars" films that really aren't there, and it has more to do with the viewer, I think, than anything else.

It's an interesting perspective that I've come to because I've created something that people analyze and talk about and speculate on and assume, "He means this or he means that."

And I can see that people do it with all literary works, all film, all the arts, really. There is an academic world of analysis that sort of thinks about thinking and then wonders if they should be thinking about thinking and debate about whether thinking is something more than you're thinking about.

And it's the same thing with art. Art is something you experience. Trying to analyze what a person is doing is, for the most part, not a really useful exercise. You have to have a one-on-one experience with art, and whatever that is, is okay.

People have taken away very silly and crazy things, but in the end it's okay if that's what they see; it's more a reflection of their own personality than the film itself.[hr]

So my "Kamino = Rock" idea is still valid! [face_silly]