Please don't get the idea that I'm defending those horrendous prequels. I was only able to watch part of first one, and then gave up. However, I think the 'banal' comick-booky language in the original Star Wars movie really did contribute to the overall feel. It was fun. Just like American Graffiti was fun. That was Lucas's previous big hit, and until Star Wars came along, my very favourite movie. He got the dialogue spot-on in that movie. That was my teenagerhood pretty well depicted, for sure.
That sort of thing isn't easy to do. If you want to write or even parody pulp dialogue, it is easy to cross the line from something that works and is fun to something that just seems too ridiculous. The prequels fell on the wrong side of that line, maybe in part because of what Lucas tried to do with the tone of the movies and the fact that the pulp-style dialogue didn't fit with it.
Yes, I think you've nailed it. The prequels were Lucas's attempt to write serious stuff. Serious big themes, etc. In a way, that was something I didn't enjoy in The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi as well. Somehow that freshness was lost, and it all started to get darker. It was fine, in a way, in those two Spielberg-assisted sequels, but I still prefer the original. It's the only one I saw in the cinema 7 times, and I tend to re-watch it now, on occasion, but don't usually watch the others any more.
Yeah, the Prequels demanded something better than light-hearted banter and cheesy lines, considering it was about the downfall of an age and the rise of a Sith Empire.
I think that's because it was written by an adult but from a child's perspective - which is one of the hardest things to write.
I agree. Maybe Lucas should have read The Iliad before writing those prequel films. When Anakin makes mention of sand he's a fully grown adult - I suppose Lucas was showing Anakin was nervous, I don't have that big a problem with the line. It's still a bad line, but I think it's intentionally bad. It's the sort of thing you end up saying on one of your first dates because it sounds in your head really romantic, but comes out just painfully cheesy and insincere.
I think the marketing angle grows out of the fact that, despite the bad writing, he couldn't stop reading the script. Just my take on it.
Yeah, but that came from the Parkinson interview that was posted by Jack Asher, not the stuff that's circulating around purportedly coming from that letter Guinness wrote to his friend. The letter only mentions how bad the dialogue was, and the fact that he couldn't remember the name of the director or his co-stars, and that he didn't enjoy filming in Tunisia. It totally dissed the film. However, there is a quality of being over the top in that letter that makes me think it was exaggerated and tongue in cheek. There is no way an actor of Alec Guinness's experience would not be able to remember his director's name or the names of his co-stars. I think the letter was a bit of an intentional joke, or at the very least an exaggeration that was meant to be funny. And in private, to his friend.
Oh well. I give up. If he really was that disgruntled, that's a shame. I can think of lots worse stuff than Star Wars. Being enamoured of something like that, when you're a kid, is pretty normal, really. He does seem to be more concerned about the cult status of the film than the film itself, though. I wonder what he'd have thought of Harry Potter. However, I still refuse to believe he couldn't remember George Lucas's name or that of Harrison Ford. That smacks of unprofessionalism, and he was a real professional.
He probably was the sort who didn't really care to remember people's names, especially if they were part of a movie he loathed with a passion.
One thing I've thought about: Twilight, Divergent, Harry Potter, Hunger games... These are all books for kids or teenagers or at the most YA. Apart from 50 shades, have adults lost the ability to go completely nuts over books? Can someone please give me any examples of similar successes for the adult audience? Or is it like me and a friend discussed recently, that when we grow up, we partly lose the ability to get completely absorbed by a book, the way we used to when we were younger? Or is it just writers who, after starting writing, are no longer able to read books the same way as others?
Catcher and Atlas are amongst my most memorable, visceral and intense reads, equally perched upon my brain's adore shelf as the Potter arc is though... like those three are all equal pegging regardless of the different textures and shapes they possess and bubble within, so i dunno why they have to be regarded as separate entities at all, they are freaking emphatic and dynamite examples of literature for me, for their own admirable reasons, that's just my own rapport with each though. Oh yeah I'm a gigantic King nut as well, King makes me ponder almost every day when I think about many of his tales, King is an extremely smart writer.
If so much about their writing is so bad (which I'd agree with), then maybe people should look at what was good.
As I noted in another thread (https://www.writingforums.org/threads/talk-by-heather-lazare.142245/) I finally got to ask someone who was an editor for the big five what the editors were able to see in Twilight, and why it was the subject of a bidding war that netted so much money, when so many consider it bad writing. Answer(s): 1. Target audience. 2. Twilight is very readable, despite what you might think about the technical ability. The reading experience is a lot more important than the technical writing. Were you turning pages, did you care about characters? Editors recognized that this book succeeded in these other ways, no matter what you think of the technical writing. 3. The editor who bought the book Twilight probably didn't think it was a badly written. Note: she said she has read books she didn't think were particularly well written but she was so engrossed in them she missed her subway stop. That's an attractive book.
And there you have it - just because you (not you personally,) don't like what you're reading, does not mean that it's written badly and has no audience. Simple. It's basic storytelling. If my son comes home from school and begins to tell me a story in his monotone moaning voice, I'll not listen to him. if he comes home and begins to tell me a story while spinning in circles, altering his voice, imitating his friends and doing a near perfect dramatic reconstructed demonstration of the events, I stop what I'm doing and give him my full attention. Even if his story bores the pants off everyone else! Books are no different.
I owe so much to J K Rowling, she taught me to read. I am not exaggerating, I was not doing so great in school and as I found out at university that was because I have a specific learning disorder. Rowling got a 7 year old to read even when the letters were blurry and unfocused on the page, that is something that none of my teachers and those specifically written school books could do. I read it because everyone around me was talking about it and I wanted to fit in (well I was 7) . It sucked me into that magical world, it made me for the first time in my life emotionally invested in the characters, it was the first time that I read for pleasure. Marketability and the ability to immediately capture the reader is not just good for sales but it is vital in children's books. It is how we learn to read. There are different requirements for different ages you can't compare Harry Potter to literature for adults. Although adults might enjoy it is not written for them. A 10 year old is not pondering the efficiency of the fantasy criminal justice system. A good children's book is one who gets the dyslexic kid to read. Now I was the perfect demographic for Twilight and I read it for a similar reason, I was in a new school and country and wanted to fit in, (well I was 14) It was actually the first book I read in English which is not my first language. I did enjoy it but as I have moved houses New Moon was sent to the charity shop while Anna Karenina is still on my shelf. But my language skills weren't ready for the english translation of Tolstoy. I would say that although Twilight is not a book that I admire and go back to again and again like HP it did captivate me when I read it. Popularity isn't necessarily a mark of quality but the reason why what some believe to be bad writing is popular is not just because it's marketing or the general public are idiots. It might be that it just comes to taste or different demographics. When we talk about good and bad writing we cant forget that writing is an art, art needs to captivate and stir emotion in the reader. Yes technique is vital but good technique that fails to captivate is empty and meaningless.
I was going to comment on this dicussion, but @BayView basically said everything I was thinking. I've liked a dozen of his posts. Very well said. Also, anyone discussing what a "good" or "bad" book is...is totally missing the point of this thread.
This ^ is what I want people to say about my books (except it doesn't need to be "for the first time".
To all the Twilight bashers...those books weren't bad to me, not in the least. I read the first Twilight book in eighth grade and I was completely engrossed in it. I had read many, many books before Twilight, awesome books that I still love and re-read today. My appetite for reading started in fifth grade, I think, when I stumbled across a Series of Unfortunate Events book at Target. For some weird reason, I had never bought a book before but the cover drew me in and I got it (even though it was like the eleventh book in the series, haha!). I read that book in one day, even though it was way over 300 pages. Before then, the only books I had read that a teacher didn't make me read were a few Dahl books and Captain Underpants. After that, it was like a switch came on or something and I became a ravenous reader. Anyway, back to Twilizzle. My friends Selena and Deidre had already it and they were telling me I should read it soon because it was being made into a movie. I read Twilight before the first movie came out, before I saw any billboards or trailers or whatever, just because my friends recommended it and we had similar taste in books. I loved more than can I say. I literally can't even tell you what it is about those darn books, but they were (and kinda still are) like crack to me. I anxiously awaited the next book after reading the first, like a junkie who badly needed a fix. Yes, I had read books with much better prose, such as Shakespeare, Anne Rice, Zora Neale Hurston, Tamara Pierce, etc etc. I had read books with much more interesting characters than Bella, who I was and still am mildly annoyed by, but also a little protective of, like an older brother. (And don't get me started on Jacob...first of all, werewolves don't "do it" for me and I prefer not to read about them, but Meyer's werewolves were kinda different so I didn't mind as much. But Jacob Black is a homewrecker, plain and simple. No matter how chiseled and handsome he is, I just hate homewreckers. I mean, Bella's in a relationship, why would you want to be That Guy and try to break them up? But I digress.) So, I can't really tell you why I love it so much over "classical" works of literature, but it holds will always hold a special place in my heart. Part of the reason I loved the whole Twilight phenomenon is that all my friends who don't usually read books were reading Twilight, and we would sit around and talk about it for endless hours. We went to Twilight-themed parties at Barnes & Nobles and our local library and went to every premiere of the movies like the total geeks that we are. It was an amazing bonding experience and I just love how literature can bring people together of all walks of life. I'm only 21, but I think of that time as my "golden years", haha. (BTW, I'm a college student and I have a life, I promise!!!!) My point is, Twilight is a success (and more importantly, a "good book") because it brought people together and created bonds that will last for years and years to come, maybe even a lifetime. The same goes for Harry Potter books. I positively devoured those books. When the last Harry Potter book came out, my entire group of friends were reading it at our table during nutrition. Twilight and Harry Potter are also one of those rare books that made me cry. I was going through a lot of messed up crap in my teens, as most teens do, and those books (among other books I was reading back then, like the beautiful and eternal Perks of being a Wallflower) mirrored everything I was experiencing, and it was like therapy. So yeah. I agree with what a few of you have said before me, that a book is good if it serves it's purpose...and I think Twilight and HP achieved their purpose and beyond. As for Stephen King, I don't read books or watch movies that are too scary, I like stuff that's just a little scary, so I'm not really familiar with his work. Just sayin;. (Also, if you would like to see a picture of me hugging all my Twilight books...just ask, lol.)
I'm a little, well more than a little, cynical and everything below here is speculation based on experience. Rowling: Basically the Hero's Journey. King: Filling a niche, and with the the sheer volume he's going to have something good come out. Meyer: I believe Meyer to be to estrogen what Michael Bay is to testosterone. If any of these are your thing, I can understand why, but the only one I've really enjoyed is Rowling.
