- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Has film talk/study turned into script continuity analysis and less
Posted on 1/19/18 at 9:31 am
Posted on 1/19/18 at 9:31 am
Less with frame composition, theory, source, and allegory?
I feel over the last decade people have become more out spoken on their film opinion, but these more relate to the intricaies of the plot and less with the story as an artform.
I don't really have a point here, just an observation.
It is OK to geek out on breaking a story down to show you the film's model is flawed...but I'd rather geek out on what the film means and how it evokes the feeling and emotions it does...and how it does so effectively.
I feel over the last decade people have become more out spoken on their film opinion, but these more relate to the intricaies of the plot and less with the story as an artform.
I don't really have a point here, just an observation.
It is OK to geek out on breaking a story down to show you the film's model is flawed...but I'd rather geek out on what the film means and how it evokes the feeling and emotions it does...and how it does so effectively.
8
Posted on 1/19/18 at 9:48 am to Pectus
Critics went from writing to get the poster blurb to writing for the meme.
Posted on 1/19/18 at 9:48 am to Pectus
quote:
script continuity analysis
Partially because this is easier and more objectively verifiable.
For me - a film is the whole, not the sum of the parts. If the film is just bad, it can be completely "consistent" and still be a bad, unenjoyable experience.
Likewise, a film can be beautiful and just that - beautiful, and not necessarily a good or interesting story.
But everything doesn't have to be perfect for me to enjoy it - nothing is perfect. However, the more continuity flaws it has, the more you start to think about that and it interrupts your suspension of disbelief.
Let me take what I consider a prime example - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - I can't tell you why the movie works for me. Just can't.
The premise is a little bit silly - no explanation for this technology or why people would still live in the same area with the risk of "re-exposure" or that folks wouldn't be talking about it. However, it's done so sincerely, and with the acting so spot on - the movie is a chick/couples movie (something I don't ordinarily like) and has a number of flaws, but the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Likewise, a recent film that I should have loved (Blade Runner 2049) failed with me in a wide range of areas. I'm not saying it is a bad movie, but all the nice parts don't add up to a cohesive whole - and the flaws are so glaring (plus it had some pretty big shoes to fill, to be honest) that it ends up failing to live up to really high standards it set for itself (which is to the filmmaker's credit).
But all art is like that to a degree. Film is just a medium where you can put so many things in - there is just more to pick at. Lighting, sound, music, set direction, and that's before we've heard a spoken word or seen an actor.
Posted on 1/19/18 at 9:48 am to Pectus
I think "pop" sources of film (or any artistic) analysis have always been catered to the most easily digested rather than anything truly academic and in-depth. It's not like arthouse films were once mainstream but now reserved for a niche audience.
The internet has given everyone a voice, so of course a simpler form of criticism will dominate the conversation. You have to seek out your own group, which will no doubt be small and insignificant, but hopefully enjoyable for your interests.
The internet has given everyone a voice, so of course a simpler form of criticism will dominate the conversation. You have to seek out your own group, which will no doubt be small and insignificant, but hopefully enjoyable for your interests.
This post was edited on 1/19/18 at 9:49 am
Posted on 1/19/18 at 9:52 am to Pectus
Depends on where in film talk you hang out, but yes. And let me say this clearly: I don't give a shite about continuity and nitpicky details. Could not care less.
I mean, I do care if you have a massive dangling plot thread or something, or a character radically changes without cause: that's just poor writing. But this overanalysis of plot mechanics is failing to see the forest for the trees.
Not to open this can of worms, but its like Finn going to the casino. from a plot standpoint, no, it doesn't really do a whole lot (though it is important to the plot, as that's how the First Order foils the Rebellion's escape plan). However, it's tremendously THEMATICALLY important, as it is awakening in Finn (and the audience) as we see how the war affects regular people. Finn rejects his selfish goals and becomes "Rebel scum" through this shift in perspective. But if you're hyper obsessed with plot, you totally miss the themes.
I mean, I do care if you have a massive dangling plot thread or something, or a character radically changes without cause: that's just poor writing. But this overanalysis of plot mechanics is failing to see the forest for the trees.
Not to open this can of worms, but its like Finn going to the casino. from a plot standpoint, no, it doesn't really do a whole lot (though it is important to the plot, as that's how the First Order foils the Rebellion's escape plan). However, it's tremendously THEMATICALLY important, as it is awakening in Finn (and the audience) as we see how the war affects regular people. Finn rejects his selfish goals and becomes "Rebel scum" through this shift in perspective. But if you're hyper obsessed with plot, you totally miss the themes.
Posted on 1/19/18 at 9:55 am to Pectus
1) TV ate up a lot of film creativity recently, so we're seeing some less creative individuals make film. This isn't automatically a bad thing, but it shifts the tone and point of film. Mix this with theater prices, blockbuster investment needs, etc. and you get films that are more present-oriented (meaning that the brilliance of a film is more intensely connected to the "now" than the "always." ). Most films have become less mythic.
2) Audiences have a harder and harder time reading intentions, that whether or not we spot it, are primary when discussing film and allow us to naturally spot theory, allegory, source, etc This is also harder to talk about. This comes from distrustful sources (making a film to make a film, rather than making a film to "say something,"), unclear motivations, or straight up bias.
2) Audiences have a harder and harder time reading intentions, that whether or not we spot it, are primary when discussing film and allow us to naturally spot theory, allegory, source, etc This is also harder to talk about. This comes from distrustful sources (making a film to make a film, rather than making a film to "say something,"), unclear motivations, or straight up bias.
Posted on 1/19/18 at 9:56 am to Baloo
I think TLJ is a great example - the thematic elements in the movie are why i overall enjoyed the movie despite its ample faults.
Posted on 1/19/18 at 9:59 am to Baloo
quote:
Not to open this can of worms,
quote:
but its like Finn going to the casino. from a plot standpoint, no, it doesn't really do a whole lot (though it is important to the plot, as that's how the First Order foils the Rebellion's escape plan). However, it's tremendously THEMATICALLY important, as it is awakening in Finn (and the audience) as we see how the war affects regular people. Finn rejects his selfish goals and becomes "Rebel scum" through this shift in perspective. But if you're hyper obsessed with plot, you totally miss the themes.
Spot on. And I actually liked Finn's story in TLJ. I don't think the casino part is ragged on because of Finn specifically though, and it has more problems that that part. I think people see that and instinctively see better and more efficient ways to handle it automatically. This makes them hyper-obsessed with the plot, because the sequence itself was not elegant, nor that particular storyline. The plot was put at the forefront of the sequence because it tied in so directly with "needing to get the code breaker."
This post was edited on 1/19/18 at 10:23 am
Posted on 1/19/18 at 10:13 am to Pectus
The problem is too many film makers, and audiences, feel the need to inject some sort of political or social message instead of just telling a good story.
Posted on 1/19/18 at 12:38 pm to Pectus
story is the most American aspect of film
and cinematography and hell, even acting, have gotten so good that it's much harder to critique these days
and cinematography and hell, even acting, have gotten so good that it's much harder to critique these days
Posted on 1/19/18 at 4:00 pm to Pectus
Plot holes are easy to ignore so long as they aren't glaring or distracting from the story itself. The foundation of the story as a whole is the plot. This one of the ways TLJ fails. The audience can tolerate plot armor or somehow crossing vast distances in impossible times but when the characters in the story begin to make decisions that are so out of character just for the sake of moving the plot forward, the story suffers. For example) Why doesn't the Purple Dern tell anyone her plans? It serves no purpose other than to set up the next scene that the writers want to make. Its a device to move the plot into the predetermined set piece (crashing the ship for a dramatic sacrifice). It's jarring because any rational person wouldn't behave in that manner, therefore the suspension of belief is broken.
tl;dr A painting can be good even if there are smudges or but too many smudges and it becomes distracting causing the painting to no longer be good.
Posted on 1/19/18 at 4:38 pm to Baloo
quote:
Not to open this can of worms, but its like Finn going to the casino. from a plot standpoint, no, it doesn't really do a whole lot (though it is important to the plot, as that's how the First Order foils the Rebellion's escape plan). However, it's tremendously THEMATICALLY important, as it is awakening in Finn (and the audience) as we see how the war affects regular people. Finn rejects his selfish goals and becomes "Rebel scum" through this shift in perspective. But if you're hyper obsessed with plot, you totally miss the themes.
If a man keeps trying to ride a tricycle and keeps falling down, I’m not going to care if he was just trying to get close enough to show me his shoe color.
In other words, if you obviously suck at the simple tasks of a job, I’m not going to invest my time critiquing your vision for that job.
Rian Johnson would have to at least be competent in the basics before one could acknowledge his masterful intentions.
This post was edited on 1/19/18 at 4:42 pm
Posted on 1/19/18 at 4:48 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
Rian Johnson would have to at least be competent in the basics
have you seen Looper or Brick?
Posted on 1/19/18 at 4:54 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
have you seen Looper or Brick?
Yea, how does that relate to his vision for TLJ?
There is no core competency to TLJ whatsoever. The plot’s all over, the characters’ choices are forced and don’t make sense, and the overall character development is choppy. It’s a Michael Bay movie in space masquerading itself as high art.
I love Michael Bay movies, but I don’t know many people who sit around and ponder their deeper meaning.
This post was edited on 1/19/18 at 4:55 pm
Posted on 1/19/18 at 5:11 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
It’s a Michael Bay movie in space masquerading itself as high art.
very fair description and one that's sure to cause max jimmie rustle
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News