PD TMNT what's relatable?

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by TheSkeletonMan939

I'm with Commenter 42. You can have a great story for your film, but it's all moot if you can't communicate it effectively to your audience.

I enjoyed Pirates of the Caribbean 3. Most people, I understand, did not. That I believe is because the film's plot is very thick, with layers and layers of information and subplots. Very detailed and thought-out. Good story? Yes, I suppose. But the pacing was a little too fast (even for a 2-and-a-half hour film!) and if you left the room for a few minutes you could easily become lost, and it's that much harder to enjoy the film.

I'm totally with you there, Skeleton. I understand a lot of people like to follow a story with minimum effort, but I absolutely love a story that has that much going on. I followed it with only a little trouble the first time (mainly keeping track of Calypso), and love it more each time.

And 42, I hate Shakespeare. I don't care how many people tell me he's amazing, he may be historical and trendsetting, but HE DOES NOT ENTERTAIN ME. Just, ugh. "Literature" does not always equal "worthy." I hated most of the "classics" I read in my lit classes.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

And 42, I hate Shakespeare. I don't care how many people tell me he's amazing, he may be historical and trendsetting, but HE DOES NOT ENTERTAIN ME. Just, ugh. "Literature" does not always equal "worthy." I hated most of the "classics" I read in my lit classes.

Okay - not exactly my point

Besides, what's to hate? Who do you read? (Not that I only read Shakespeare, but still curious).

[sethmartin]

Who did I relate to? Well, if I had to pick, I guess I would say I related to Vern the most because I thought Megan Fox was hot and I wanted nothing to do with Eric Sacks

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

Okay - not exactly my point

Besides, what's to hate? Who do you read? (Not that I only read Shakespeare, but still curious).

I honestly don't remember many of them, they all blurred together. Great Gatsby, Scarlet Letter, Of Mice and Men (THAT one I remember in brutal detail), Poe (although I do like the Raven), Grapes of Wrath, Last of the Mohicans, etc...

Most of it either bored me or was depressing. Total bleak everything-is-meaningless is not my cup of tea.

Now, caveat: I haven't read ANY "literature" since high school and testing out of college lit, so it's all kind of muddled together. The overall experience of American Literature, however, was bleak and depressing for me. Or just overhyped.

Yes, I have "shallow" taste. I'm on a TMNT forum, what do you expect?

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

I completely disagree. Reason? Shakespeare.

Proof it's how the story is told, not the quality of the writing.

It's lost some of it's luster since I saw it in IMAX, for sure - but remember, at the time EVERYONE argued the fight scenes was too frenetic and spastic. It's all relative.
Still beats the impossibly boring Pacific RIM.

Shakespeare? That's your argument? He's not only good at telling the story, but the stories are very memorable in their own right, even if some of them were ripped off of earlier works (Romeo & Juliet = Tristan & Isolde) or ripped from history or mythology. (Julius Caesar and King Lear, respectively.) Iconic plots, told well. It's the quality of the WRITING! (Because no matter how technically skilled a writer is, a crap story will never be more than a crap story.)

Originally Posted by TheSkeletonMan939

I'm with Commenter 42. You can have a great story for your film, but it's all moot if you can't communicate it effectively to your audience.

I enjoyed Pirates of the Caribbean 3. Most people, I understand, did not. That I believe is because the film's plot is very thick, with layers and layers of information and subplots. Very detailed and thought-out. Good story? Yes, I suppose. But the pacing was a little too fast (even for a 2-and-a-half hour film!) and if you left the room for a few minutes you could easily become lost, and it's that much harder to enjoy the film.

Film is still storytelling, though. Doesn't matter how well you communicate it, if it's crap, the audience will still see that. Dress up garbage with as much ribbon and lace as you like, but it'll still be garbage! And communicating junk will just bore the audience, no matter how visually stunning it is.

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

I'm totally with you there, Skeleton. I understand a lot of people like to follow a story with minimum effort, but I absolutely love a story that has that much going on. I followed it with only a little trouble the first time (mainly keeping track of Calypso), and love it more each time.

And 42, I hate Shakespeare. I don't care how many people tell me he's amazing, he may be historical and trendsetting, but HE DOES NOT ENTERTAIN ME. Just, ugh. "Literature" does not always equal "worthy." I hated most of the "classics" I read in my lit classes.

I take it you never read any of the "fun" ones in school. Personally, the only "classics" I enjoyed were Lord of the Flies, Animal Farm, Metamorphosis, and Alas, Babylon. At least until my Junior year in high school, when we had an entire YEAR of horror and dark side of man themes! Original Grimm fairy tales, character arch-types, mythology, tragedy and gothic literature galore! I loved being able to read Dracula, Frankenstein, and Picture of Dorian Grey as actual reading assignments!

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

Okay - not exactly my point

Besides, what's to hate? Who do you read? (Not that I only read Shakespeare, but still curious).

Me too. Already listed some of the ones I read, though there were plenty of others I also read, but detested.

[plastroncafe]

Shakespeare isn't meant to be read, it's meant to be performed.
And if you hate it, it's likely because you've seen craptastic performances of it.

Which again speaks to the director of a given work being the lynchpin that makes a performance work.
Bad director = bad film.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

Shakespeare? That's your argument? He's not only good at telling the story, but the stories are very memorable in their own right, even if some of them were ripped off of earlier works (Romeo & Juliet = Tristan & Isolde) or ripped from history or mythology. (Julius Caesar and King Lear, respectively.) Iconic plots, told well. It's the quality of the WRITING! (Because no matter how technically skilled a writer is, a crap story will never be more than a crap story.

Oye, I must not have been clear - Shakespeare is an incredible writer - That's my point, but it depends entirely on the director and performance of the play to give it life. The point is the writing can be of the highest quality, and the performance can still suck - on the other hand, you can improvise a scene, and still bring down the house. (we can argue the semantics of whether improve is actually a form or writing at a later date.)

In most instances, middling scripts, in the right hands, can come to life, as evidenced in the Star Wars Trilogy. In the wrong hands, you get the Prequels.

"You can write this stuff, but you sure as hell can't say it".

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Shakespeare isn't meant to be read, it's meant to be performed.
And if you hate it, it's likely because you've seen craptastic performances of it.

Which again speaks to the director of a given work being the lynchpin that makes a performance work.
Bad director = bad film.

^^ more concisely this.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

I honestly don't remember many of them, they all blurred together. Great Gatsby, Scarlet Letter, Of Mice and Men (THAT one I remember in brutal detail), Poe (although I do like the Raven), Grapes of Wrath, Last of the Mohicans, etc...

Most of it either bored me or was depressing. Total bleak everything-is-meaningless is not my cup of tea.

Now, caveat: I haven't read ANY "literature" since high school and testing out of college lit, so it's all kind of muddled together. The overall experience of American Literature, however, was bleak and depressing for me. Or just overhyped.

Yes, I have "shallow" taste. I'm on a TMNT forum, what do you expect?

I think you just need to look at more contemporary authors. It can be hard to relate to work from another era when you're young.

I hated Gatsby when I read it - which was to say, at 15, I read 10 pages then cribbed from Coles notes.

I didn't realize it was what it was until years later. I chalk it up to youthful ignorance. I find re-reading the classics as you age, changes their meaning. Frankenstein and Dracula were boring monster lit in my teens - hardly exciting. In my late twenties, they were full of mysticism, where there might be grains of truth beneath the myth. A decade later, I read them as social commentary. It's funny how perspective changes.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

I'll give you that, certainly, but my feeling is that it all STARTS with the story. That's the base that MUST have some solid foundations and support before anything else can stand or fall. And I agree that Shakespeare is meant to be performed, simply because that was the format it was written in to begin with. As are ALL screenplays or scripts. They are written for PERFORMERS, not readers. Big difference there. It's all in the intended audience. If he'd written them in prose form, we'd probably see a much different perspective on his works. Actually, I'd kind of like to see a version of that done for contrast. A rewrite of MacBeth, for example, in standard literary format. Would be interesting to see how it differs, and in how it would translate back to the screen or stage.

Also, Lucas had a much larger and more complex story originally. I mean, Luke was originally supposed to have the role that Kenobi did, and Solo was the main character in Luke's place! But yes, I get your point about the dialog. That wasn't exactly the strong point of the script by any means. With a few memorable exceptions. Then again, the direction also called for Luke to hold the darn light-saber up to his face and look into the blade end while he was examining it....

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

I'll give you that, certainly, but my feeling is that it all STARTS with the story...

I'm not dismissing writing on the whole, or suggesting it isn't important, because that would be dumb. I think the Shakespeare example holds though, as we are discussing movies not books.

Of course, without writing, there is no book. But a movie can still be made. We know this because Tommy Wiseau knows this...

Yes, it starts with a story, but the quality of the story is less important than the manner of it's telling.

[Leo656]

...It's spelled "Beavis".

[Technogeek29]

Well when it comes to movies having the right actors helps a ton in a terrible movie. I generally find actors I like but hate the movie they feature in. for the longest I wasn't sold on Heath Ledger playing the Joker and disregarded what any said contrary to the wise. Until I bought it on Blu-Ray last year I thought is was a terrible direction. That said I still don't like the Dark knight or the Dark Knight Rises.

[Commenter 42]

As to the OP's question - I think they were hoping to relate to a group of people - that don't exist. I don't think many kids would recognize a boombox today. I also wonder how many kids are into pop and pizza, when everyone's so damned health conscious. I guess some people have slid down hills? I don't think the dialogue spawned any catchphrases, and the most quotable moment was the guy's beat-boxing.

So no, nothing.

[Candy Kappa]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

. Also, Lucas had a much larger and more complex story originally. I mean, Luke was originally supposed to have the role that Kenobi did, and Solo was the main character in Luke's place! But yes, I get your point about the dialog. That wasn't exactly the strong point of the script by any means. With a few memorable exceptions. Then again, the direction also called for Luke to hold the darn light-saber up to his face and look into the blade end while he was examining it....

The comic The Star Wars is based off the original draft, and it's a great "what if.." scenario where we can see how bad the movie(s) would have been had Lucas had full control back then and gone with the idea that came to his mind.

The original draft is terribly hilarious. I'm so glad we did not get Annikin Starkiller as out main protagonist.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by Leo656

...It's spelled "Beavis".

Eh, it got the point across just the same.
(spectacularly so, in fact. I'm kind of chuffed.)

[Amaranthus]

I can relate to Mikey's raging boner for Megan Fox.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by Candy Kappa

The comic The Star Wars is based off the original draft, and it's a great "what if.." scenario where we can see how bad the movie(s) would have been had Lucas had full control back then and gone with the idea that came to his mind.

The original draft is terribly hilarious. I'm so glad we did not get Annikin Starkiller as out main protagonist.

Yes, yes it is. I've heard about the Lucas draft comic, but haven't read it. I'm wary to even try, honestly. The last SW comic I read was the Luke and Mara Jade wedding TPB, and I was happy with that. I prefer the novels, mostly.

[Foombamaroom]

o.o This thread is all over the f*cking place (Just like the plot of the Transformers movies, HA.).
From gender issues to shaky cam to... I just.

But on the shaky cam thing, TF 1 I couldn't see what the hell was going on because it looked like Bay was still trying to adjust to shooting the CGI. TF 2 had the best action in my opinion because I could see what was going on. I don't know why people say the Optimus vs. 3 Decepticons fight was boring... I thought it was entertaining. I'd take that over the action sequences we got in 3 and 4. Watch 3 and 4 again. In every action sequence, they cut to the humans ALL THE TIME.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Foombamaroom

o.o This thread is all over the f*cking place (Just like the plot of the Transformers movies, HA.).
From gender issues to shaky cam to... I just.

But on the shaky cam thing, TF 1 I couldn't see what the hell was going on because it looked like Bay was still trying to adjust to shooting the CGI. TF 2 had the best action in my opinion because I could see what was going on. I don't know why people say the Optimus vs. 3 Decepticons fight was boring... I thought it was entertaining. I'd take that over the action sequences we got in 3 and 4. Watch 3 and 4 again. In every action sequence, they cut to the humans ALL THE TIME.

1&2 had the most compelling action. Meh, TF1 had a bit of shakey cam, but watching it back from a blu-ray - it's pretty minimal, and clear. I can make out what's happening, even without my glasses.

2 got all the bad press for the twins, but it had some of the best action of the series. (cue the obligatory outrage, again)

But movies like MOS or Battle LA - and parts of TMNT2014...all blurry out of focus shakey cam - with a few beauty shots tossed in. whip pans and zooms obscuring the action.

[Foombamaroom]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

1&2 had the most compelling action. Meh, TF1 had a bit of shakey cam, but watching it back from a blu-ray - it's pretty minimal, and clear. I can make out what's happening, even without my glasses.

2 got all the bad press for the twins, but it had some of the best action of the series. (cue the obligatory outrage, again)

But movies like MOS or Battle LA - and parts of TMNT2014...all blurry out of focus shakey cam - with a few beauty shots tossed in. whip pans and zooms obscuring the action.

I thought the Splinter vs. Shredder fight was probably the best out of the action sequences.

The Turtles vs. Shredder fight, on the other hand... Why did he SPIN THE CAMERA SO MUCH? And it was in one shot, so that makes it worse.