New podcast analyzing every minute of Star Wars, individually(starwarsminute.com)
starwarsminute.com
New podcast analyzing every minute of Star Wars, individually
http://www.starwarsminute.com
6 comments
I have been doing a minute by minute podcast analysis of The Big Lebowski since last year and some of our episodes are almost two hours. http://gutterballs.tv
I'm doing the same movie frame-by-frame:
http://jacksongariety.com/journals/the-big-lebowski-project
:)
http://jacksongariety.com/journals/the-big-lebowski-project
:)
By "frame-by-frame", do you mean "shot-by-shot"?
How is frame any less correct?
In film, a 'frame' is a single photographic exposure. A movie typically consists of 24 or 30 frames per second.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_frame
By contrast, a "shot" is "a series of frames, that runs for an uninterrupted period of time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_(filmmaking)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_frame
By contrast, a "shot" is "a series of frames, that runs for an uninterrupted period of time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_(filmmaking)
Personally I took the phrase 'frame-by-frame' to be a figure of speech.
"A figure of speech is the use of a word or a phrase, which ascend from its literal interpretation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech
I think the comment author was just trying to emphasize they were trying to be thorough, a bit like when police say they will search an area with a fine-toothed comb. No reasonable person expects the police to use actual combs.
"A figure of speech is the use of a word or a phrase, which ascend from its literal interpretation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech
I think the comment author was just trying to emphasize they were trying to be thorough, a bit like when police say they will search an area with a fine-toothed comb. No reasonable person expects the police to use actual combs.
Frame is a technical term that has a precise meaning in this context.
Dude! You need to do all the frames. That would be truly epic.
The analysis of "Minute 8" is 16 minutes and 14 seconds.
In my opinion, they could have gone into "a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away" a bit more...
A dissertation could be written about "a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away." That phrase is also a hypnotic induction all by itself.
And as that sinks in, consider that someone told me that Star Wars' past is Dune's present.
My understanding is that Dune is Earth's future (http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Earth), so that doesn't really fit. :)
But the opening line of Star Wars is truly impressive in its economy and efficacy. It tells the viewer all that they need to know so that they have permission to accept the truly fantastic. No need to connect it to Earth or anything vaguely familiar, no reason to wonder if this "future" could really happen, because everything they're seeing has already happened. It even has a beautiful rhythm and cadence, despite never being spoken aloud.
That iconic phrase is one of many little touches that prevents Episode IV from slipping into the silly B-movie niche occupied by so much prior sci-fi.
But the opening line of Star Wars is truly impressive in its economy and efficacy. It tells the viewer all that they need to know so that they have permission to accept the truly fantastic. No need to connect it to Earth or anything vaguely familiar, no reason to wonder if this "future" could really happen, because everything they're seeing has already happened. It even has a beautiful rhythm and cadence, despite never being spoken aloud.
That iconic phrase is one of many little touches that prevents Episode IV from slipping into the silly B-movie niche occupied by so much prior sci-fi.
Correct; Dune is meant to take place in the far future of our galaxy. Star Wars is a "far away" galaxy and in the distant past.
The "long time ago / far away" disclaimer is brilliant in a number of ways, not the least of which is that it helps the viewer suspend disbelief. It's also an elegant way to future-proof the technology, clothing choices, etc., on display in the movie. If Star Wars had made a claim about being the future of our galaxy, it would age pretty badly (the way that the "futuristic" inventions in Star Trek tend not to age well; consumer technology tends to advance more quickly than projections thereof).
The "long time ago / far away" disclaimer is brilliant in a number of ways, not the least of which is that it helps the viewer suspend disbelief. It's also an elegant way to future-proof the technology, clothing choices, etc., on display in the movie. If Star Wars had made a claim about being the future of our galaxy, it would age pretty badly (the way that the "futuristic" inventions in Star Trek tend not to age well; consumer technology tends to advance more quickly than projections thereof).
I like to think that the light rays from that far away galaxy could just be arriving here any moment, treating all with a good enough telescope to a free showing of Star Wars from a really boring camera angle.
I like that idea. Similar to an episode of Star Trek, where the alien child's telescope allowed him to view earth live, yet in the past. Would this camera angle show who really shot first in the Cantina?
There is no first, second, etc. Han Solo shot, period.
Every minute of Star Wars gets 15 minutes of fame.
...just in case reading HN doesn't waste enough of your time.
I like this idea, but it would work better for films that actually have some substance.
Then maybe an acutal filmmakers perspective on why the prequels are bad might be the right thing for you. In case you haven't seen it before:
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episo...
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episo...
In fact, that's exactly what I was thinking of when I claimed that the Star Wars films have no substance.