tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23438334.post114321518223191152..comments2024-03-27T11:18:53.456-07:00Comments on Temple of the Seven Golden Camels: On Film and Dialogue, Part Twomark kennedyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11953166248647413142noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23438334.post-70839699898619029292011-10-13T07:25:15.231-07:002011-10-13T07:25:15.231-07:00For me "Titanic" has been one of the bes...For me "Titanic" has been one of the best movies and I think that the dialogue was incredible I don't know why people think the opposite.levitra cialishttp://www.levitracialis.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23438334.post-1158380386963177142006-09-15T21:19:00.000-07:002006-09-15T21:19:00.000-07:00Thinking of Warner Brothers, and memories of watch...Thinking of Warner Brothers, and memories of watching the cartoons religiously growing up, my favorites were the Coote and Road Runner, and not the ones where he talked. I loved the use of the signs that said things like "Yikes!" Their actions said far more than any dialoge could have. Even without the sign, you knew what Mr Coyote was thinking when he realised that he was not on solid ground, and about to fall to the canyon floor oh so far before.<BR/><BR/>Side note, I liked "Webster" when I was a little kid. Can't say I would pay money to see it again on DVD.Andreashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13584746273156316675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23438334.post-1143520307885249422006-03-27T20:31:00.000-08:002006-03-27T20:31:00.000-08:00jenny....I feel your pain.When I was working at Wa...jenny....I feel your pain.<BR/><BR/>When I was working at Warners on a Feature (before Camelot got made) I was working on a version of "King Tut" with the Kroyers. There was a mute character in the movie. I didn't hear this in person, but someone told me an executive said "I don't like characters who don't talk. How will we know what he's thinking?"<BR/><BR/> And someone retorted "Well it worked okay for Dumbo" and the exec replied "Oh, I never really liked Dumbo".<BR/><BR/> Yikes.mark kennedyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11953166248647413142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23438334.post-1143489442577010302006-03-27T11:57:00.000-08:002006-03-27T11:57:00.000-08:00Back when I worked at my first job, which was supp...Back when I worked at my first job, which was supposed to be inspired by the greatest WB characters ever, I was frustrated immediately with all the yakyakyakking. <I>That</I> was the "comedy". I said again and again that the whole deal with a great personality like Bugs was that <I>he</I> takes a "line" like "Oh, yeeeeah?" or "Uh-huh" and it's frickin' genius! Mel Blanc's performance, plus the drawing and animation=gold. Now that I think of it, of course Blanc came out of radio--and even though radio by its nature has to fill the ears, when you listen to great old comedy of that era on radio it's not at all the talkfest that <B>any</B> TV comedy always is. If anything, the sheer importance of the dialogue makes every word count in a way you didn't need in cinema. Anyway, back to Bugs, etc.--not only the dialogue, but the <I>response</I> to the dialogue--SO imporant: a look, a pose...I never could understand why that approach wasn't even considered for modern TV cartoons. It seemed to me it'd be at least possible to <I>try</I> and apply the great lessons of the 30s-50s...but then, I wasn't a writer/producer, so what did I know?<BR/>):PJenny Lerewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06668171465801333811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23438334.post-1143222869898169972006-03-24T09:54:00.000-08:002006-03-24T09:54:00.000-08:00Absolutely -- maybe a good term for what we should...Absolutely -- maybe a good term for what we should go for is "active" dialogue. Make the dialogue DO something, for your characters, for your story, and the dialogue becomes action and not scenery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23438334.post-1143220008891573092006-03-24T09:06:00.000-08:002006-03-24T09:06:00.000-08:00Yes, but their dialogue isn't just "lines" - there...Yes, but their dialogue isn't just "lines" - there's a subtext to it that reveals character and advances their relationship, which is the heart of the story. So I would say that what they're saying IS what's happeneing. Their disagreements make up the heart of the movie and drive the events.<BR/><BR/> I think you're saying the same thing, though, right?mark kennedyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11953166248647413142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23438334.post-1143217608590251692006-03-24T08:26:00.000-08:002006-03-24T08:26:00.000-08:00People might not say, "Remember when..." with refe...People might not say, "Remember when..." with reference to dialogue -- instead, we just quote lines directly. Not just catchphrases, either. In my family, it's not uncommon for us to banter back and forth quoting a particularly juicy interaction between characters. Woody & Buzz are a fantastic example of this, I think their repartee is as compelling as any of the things they "Do" in the movies, since the dialogue established the friction between the two characters. That the two of them must ultimately work together (in more "action"-related scenes)gets part of its interest from the petty arguments and sarcasm earlier on, just like any mismatched cop comedy would, if it's good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com