You are viewing the older version of this Weblog. I have left this version available for those of you who do not have Javascript enabled in your web browser.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
June 21, 2005
I agree with Neal...
One of my favorite postcyberpunk / place any genre label here authors, Neal Stephenson (and here), has just written an interesting article for the New York Times entitled “Turn On, Tune In, Veg Out“. It’s about how our current age of media-accessibility is allowing filmmakers to leave out crucial story-building elements from final film productions…
The first “Star Wars” movie 28 years ago was distinguished by healthy interplay between veg and geek scenes. In the climactic sequence, where rebel fighters attacked the Death Star, we repeatedly cut away from the dogfights and strafing runs – the purest kind of vegging-out material – to hushed command bunkers where people stood around pondering computer displays, geeking out on the strategic progress of the battle.Read the entire article here (you may need to sign in — it’s free).
All such content – as well as the long, beautiful, uncluttered shots of desert, sky, jungle and mountain that filled the early episodes – was banished in the first of the prequels (“Episode I: The Phantom Menace,” 1999). In the 16 years that separated it from the initial trilogy, a new universe of ancillary media had come into existence. These had made it possible to take the geek material offline so that the movies could consist of pure, uncut veg-out content, steeped in day-care-center ambience. These newer films don’t even pretend to tell the whole story; they are akin to PowerPoint presentations that summarize the main bullet points from a much more comprehensive body of work developed by and for a geek subculture.
“Concentrate on the moment. Feel, don’t think. Trust your instincts,” says a Jedi to the young Anakin in Episode I, immediately before a pod race in which Anakin is likely to get killed. It is distinctly odd counsel coming from a member of the Jedi order, the geekiest people in the universe: they have beards and ponytails, they dress in army blankets, they are expert fighter pilots, they build their own laser swords from scratch.
(Link via Rebecca Blood.)
Posted at 1:27 pm
Trackback:Trackback Link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
Comments (6):
I haven’t read his whole article yet, but in the excerpt Stephenson posits an interesting connection between these new ancillary media and a phenomenon of the last 20 years that I refer to as the “televisionization” of movies.
Jerry Bruckheimer, who I believe has three sixes branded just under his hairline, has made a small fortune by hiring commercial and music-video directors who pander to ever-shortening attention spans by taking a lot of the artistry out of films and replacing it with quick cuts and pyrotechnics that force audiences to hang on for the ride instead of actually interacting with the movie they’re watching. (Jump-cut editing also allows hacks like Michael Bay to hide their shortcomings as both filmmakers and storytellers, the way a magician employs misdirection to put one over on the audience.)
Ancillary media, however, makes it possible for a certain subculture of film fans to immerse themselves more fully in the universe of, say, The Matrix or Star Wars, filling in whatever gaps the filmmakers may have left open. (E.g, Star Wars Episode 2.5, which provided die-hard fans with intel and backstory about General Grievous, for example, while the rest of us were left in the dark.)
What’s sad about that is that a filmmaker may now spend $150 million to make a movie that ultimately doesn’t tell you the whole story you paid to see (or at least fails to tell it well). Based on this trend, a moviegoer’s interaction with the story and the storyteller is less likely to take place in the theater and more likely to occur online with a web administrator posting fan fiction. And that includes only those who are willing to put in the extra time and effort required to pursue such interaction. Everybody else will just have to be content with the barrage of images and snappy dialogue that just cost them $12 and two hours of their lives.
Jerry Bruckheimer, who I believe has three sixes branded just under his hairline, has made a small fortune by hiring commercial and music-video directors who pander to ever-shortening attention spans by taking a lot of the artistry out of films and replacing it with quick cuts and pyrotechnics that force audiences to hang on for the ride instead of actually interacting with the movie they’re watching. (Jump-cut editing also allows hacks like Michael Bay to hide their shortcomings as both filmmakers and storytellers, the way a magician employs misdirection to put one over on the audience.)
Ancillary media, however, makes it possible for a certain subculture of film fans to immerse themselves more fully in the universe of, say, The Matrix or Star Wars, filling in whatever gaps the filmmakers may have left open. (E.g, Star Wars Episode 2.5, which provided die-hard fans with intel and backstory about General Grievous, for example, while the rest of us were left in the dark.)
What’s sad about that is that a filmmaker may now spend $150 million to make a movie that ultimately doesn’t tell you the whole story you paid to see (or at least fails to tell it well). Based on this trend, a moviegoer’s interaction with the story and the storyteller is less likely to take place in the theater and more likely to occur online with a web administrator posting fan fiction. And that includes only those who are willing to put in the extra time and effort required to pursue such interaction. Everybody else will just have to be content with the barrage of images and snappy dialogue that just cost them $12 and two hours of their lives.
Shepcat () (URL) - June 21, 2005 at 3:24 pm
Ahem… But a few explosions are always pretty cool. 
No, you are right, Shep… Neal says much of the same thing. This phenomenon began to take a turn on itself when they started making movies out of video game concepts (instead of the other way around). Very strange.
What’s more is that years in the future, we won’t just be able to go rent (or buy) a movie — we’ll have to purchase the entire media catalog. No thanks! (This is already evident in the fact that we like to watch all of the “extras” on DVDs.)
No, you are right, Shep… Neal says much of the same thing. This phenomenon began to take a turn on itself when they started making movies out of video game concepts (instead of the other way around). Very strange.
What’s more is that years in the future, we won’t just be able to go rent (or buy) a movie — we’ll have to purchase the entire media catalog. No thanks! (This is already evident in the fact that we like to watch all of the “extras” on DVDs.)
timsamoff () (URL) - June 21, 2005 at 3:30 pm
I personally can’t stand the “extras” on a DVD. It detracts, to me, from the movie as it is portrayed. Also, if there is enough interest in a particular plot within a movie and enough people are interested in it another sequel will come out that will explain this interest. I don’t mind sequels as long as they aren’t a rehash of the same thing (the only exception to this is the recent Batman which was well done). I guess I’m a 50/50 on the “veg to geek” spectrum. Just having fun. :)
dh () - June 21, 2005 at 4:26 pm
My problem lies in the fact that some filmmakers are starting to do such a bad job developing their films that the “extras” become integral in understanding the films in their entirety.
It’s fine not to like the “extras” (I’ll admit that I usually really like them — especially when there are historical elements in the films), but when they’re necessary? That’s just wrong. Filmmakers should not rely on ancillary media to tell their stories.
It’s fine not to like the “extras” (I’ll admit that I usually really like them — especially when there are historical elements in the films), but when they’re necessary? That’s just wrong. Filmmakers should not rely on ancillary media to tell their stories.
timsamoff () (URL) - June 21, 2005 at 6:16 pm
Yeah, I could see that being a major benefit to obtain a historical reference and info. My memory was jogged when I watched Sense and Sensability extras from the DVD were very beneficial. :) Maybe I need to look at the extras more. :)
dh () - June 22, 2005 at 08:33 am
I love extras, dude. I wish filmmakers would release thier movies (like the Aviator or In Good Company which come to mind cause i just got them) with the deleted scenes back in them. Anyhow, this article is pretty cool and it is sad that filmmakers are becoming lazy and compensating with obligitory “action” scenes. Don’t get me wrong, i love explosions (and violence in general), car chases, etc but watchers invest in characters. Batman Begins should testify to that.
dennisthemenace () - June 22, 2005 at 10:44 am
