Margo Channing

Extreme polarisation in modern film reception, aka TLJ didn't suck that badly

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

Really? I always thought that was a genius move on Lucas' part. It made him seem like he's only one little facet in the course of history. The film treated him as if he's not all that important and it made the universe bigger.

 

I think this point-of-view, while interesting, would hold more water were Ben's death to be completely random, which it isn't. There's clear build-up to it, and some aftermath. Upon my first rewatch I was actually suprised to find that the film called-back to Ben's demise a bit more frequently than I recalled.

 

I really think George Lucas was thinking "well, its a kids' movie, and kids have a low capacity for tragedy, so I'll numb it down with action." Again, just like Walt Disney would do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't make good cinema for the three principals to sit around on the Falcon saying "Shit. Ben's dead". "Yeah I know, babes". "That just sucks, man".

"Right on, bro. Mind if I do a J?"

You have to move the action on, as quickly as possible.

Also, it serves to remind both the audience, and the characters, that they are still in trouble.

It was a good move, on Lucas' part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Richard said:

It wouldn't make good cinema for the three principals to sit around on the Falcon saying "Shit. Ben's dead". "Yeah I know, babes". "That just sucks, man".

"Right on, bro. Mind if I do a J?"

You have to move the action on, as quickly as possible.

Also, it serves to remind both the audience, and the characters, that they are still in trouble.

It was a good move, on Lucas' part.

 

It's the LOTR effect. Some people think movies need to depict characters lost in mournful thought after each and every moment of significance. I would never have become a movie fan if that was the norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Margo Channing said:

It's the LOTR effect

 

Its not. Its called good drama. The Lord of the Rings didn't invent drama. Why should we gloss over elements of tragedy?

 

Even in Batman Begins, we spend a good five minutes with Bruce wallowing in his grief. That's good drama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Its not. Its called good drama. The Lord of the Rings didn't invent drama. Why should we gloss over elements of tragedy?

 

No but it sure popularised this idea that characters need to linger on and on for ages over significant moments in movies whose biggest focus should be action and movement.

 

My biggest gripe in this area was OOTP when Harry spends the entire book angsting over the death of Cedric, a character I gave no fucks about, but in HBP, I don't remember him even once reflecting on Sirius, and the guy was the damn title character three books ago!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

It popularized big blockbusters being profound and dramatic, rather than escapist and jouvenile, yes.

 

No, The Godfather did that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Didn't The Godfather predate the blockbuster era?

 

No? It was, for a time, the highest grossing film ever made. Along with Gone With the Wind and Jaws, it is actually one of the first true "blockbusters".

 

4 minutes ago, mstrox said:

Mobster films are a genre

 

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We still get plenty of escapist stuff. Just look at Marvel.

 

So, in between more serious works, you can have the occasional palette cleanser, as well...

 

35 minutes ago, John said:

Along with Gone With the Wind and Jaws, it is actually one of the first true "blockbusters".

 

Yeah, but the convention in media studies is to refer to Jaws as the first blockbuster. There were certainly large-scale, high-concept, effects-ridden films with big grosses prior, but they are more of the stepping stones to Jaws (from a commercial standpoint) than they are, in and of themselves, "blockbusters" by the most strict definition.

 

38 minutes ago, mstrox said:

Mobster films are a genre

 

The term is crime drama. And while it is an established genre, the term genre film is used colloquially and more specifically to describe action films, fantasy/science-fiction films and horror movies. Y'know, the kinds of movies that we always bicker should have won Best Picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

 

Really? I always thought that was a genius move on Lucas' part. It made old Ben seem like he's only one little facet in the course of history. The film treated him as if he's not all that important and it made the universe of Star Wars bigger.

 

 

Absolutely correct, and a very astute observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chen G. said:

One of the main drawbacks I find in that film from a dramatic standpoint is the way in which Ben's death is nestled between two action setpieces, so the film doesn't grant the characters and the audience any time to mourn him.

 

Well, Luke is sad afterwards on the Falcon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

So, in between more serious works, you can have the occasional palette cleanser, as well...

 

Yeah, but the convention in media studies is to refer to Jaws as the first blockbuster. There were certainly large-scale, high-concept, effects-ridden films with big grosses prior, but they are more of the stepping stones to Jaws (from a commercial standpoint) than they are, in and of themselves, "blockbusters" by the most strict definition.

 

The term is crime drama. And while it is an established genre, the term genre film is used colloquially and more specifically to describe action films, fantasy/science-fiction films and horror movies. Y'know, the kinds of movies that we always bicker should have won Best Picture.

 

What are you? Some kinda half-assed film studies professor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

The term is crime drama.

 

No, that's definitely not what I said.

 

Mobster/gangster was probably the primary "genre film" of the early 20th century in America - similar to what westerns became in the mid 20th century, what sci-fi/fantasy became in the late 20th century, and what blockhead superheroes became in the early 21st century.

 

Very few gangster movies, historical or modern, are well made enough to fall into a hoity toity category called "crime drama."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now