437. CoralReef - 8/30/99 6:51:42
AM
I hope they handled the beginning of 13th Warrior right.
In trying to figure what the hell is wrong with movies these days
I've come to the conclusion that one problem is they are showing
things that should be explained in exposition later. For example,
in Elizabeth her early years should have been recounted later in
words, which could have made for both an a very effective
monologue, perhaps with short flashbacks, and saved that film
from a very awkward build up.
438. CoralReef - 8/30/99 6:57:11
AM
It's a shame it's not so good because the basic premise of a
middle-ages Arab encountering Vikings sounds very intriguing.
Even though his novels are often good pulpy
escapism, Michael Chrighton has a terrible book-to-movie record.
439. AceofSpades - 8/30/99 6:59:36
AM
Coral Reef:
Flashbacks and blatant exposition are a disfavored way to tell a
story. Sometimes it's simply necessary, though, if the result of
dramatizing "What has gone before" is long and boring.
I read a lot of scripts, though, and I HATE when important
information is revealed through talking and flashbacks. It's a
pretty unprofessional way to do it.
(I just re-read Kevin Smith's Superman Lives script, and it's one
of the most thoroughly unprofessional scripts I've ever read,
largely because of reliance on talky exposition and flashbacks.
It's at http://www.chez.com/braunsik/superman/superman_lives_script.txt.
But I guarantee you'll never get to the exposition and flashbacks,
because you'll give up by page ten for other reasons.)
Star Wars' opening scroll-up sure saved an awful lot of time in
setting up the story, though. The Adventures of Robin Hood also
cut right to that great opening scene by presenting background
info in written form.
440. AceofSpades - 8/30/99 7:01:28
AM
Sorry if that last post sounded a bit too know-it-all. I'm just
really fucking down on expostion/flashbacks right now owing to
the horrible Kevin Smith script.
Aaaaach. The movie studio was kind in claiming that they passed
on the script because it would only appeal to "hard core
comic book fans." It won't appeal to anybody because
it flat-out sucks.
448. AceofSpades - 8/30/99 7:30:16 AM
Coral:
I hope they handled the beginning of 13th Warrior right.
All exposition/flashback. Apparently the scenes were originally
filmed, but then cut and replaced with a brief bit of exposition/flashback.
(Apparently there was a LOT of reworking of the film, and
director John McTiernan isn't happy about any of it.)
I can't believe they even bothered making this movie, to tell you
the truth. It's not *bad*-- I must stress that. But who the hell
was dying for an Arab/Viking team-up, especially one fairly short
on action/adventure?
Michael Crichton is the luckiest man in the world. How does he do
it?
465. harper - 8/30/99 2:02:57 PM
Ace:
Read Beowulf to figure out what's going on. I actually wrote a
long review of The 13th Warrior, which I may post on this thread.
We apparently saw two different movies. BTW, Ibn Fahdlan was a
real person who DID hang out with the Vikings and wrote about it.