Humor, not gags Criticism of PT
#1
Posted 13 July 2005 - 03:45 PM
#3
Posted 14 July 2005 - 12:43 PM
This post has been edited by Karig: 14 July 2005 - 12:44 PM
#6
Posted 19 July 2005 - 02:39 PM
Ohhhh...I definitely hear you there...Bad puns too...
"This is such a drag!"
"I'm quite beside myself."
"DIE, JEDI DOGS! Oh--what did I say?"
I'm surprised GL didn't have C3PO say "I seem to be getting carried away." AAAAAHHHH! MAKE IT STOP!!!
Another site has a smilie bashing its head against a brick wall over and over. I want to use it here so bad...
#7
Posted 30 July 2005 - 10:22 PM
Question is - where does humor end and gags begin?
I assume that gags begin with Jar Jar (the absolute worst gag in the long, sad history of bad gags).
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an obi-wan to go.
#9
Posted 12 August 2005 - 10:22 AM
A gag's sole purpose is to get a laugh, usually diverging from the main flow of the story to do so. In a comedy, that's fine, because the point is to make people laugh, and story is second. In a story like Star Wars, action and story are most important, if the funny moment doesn't help the story, it's a gag (and it usually isn't funny).
So when Yoda walks in and nonchalantly slams the Royal Guard, that's humor: it's revealing his character as a powerful Jedi, and that sets up the fight between Yoda and the Emperor.
Obviously Jar-Jar's antics are 90% gags: they show him to be a fool, and that doesn't motivate the story because he doesn't stop being a fool.
But there are plenty of other examples: the entire extended music sequence in Jabba's palace might be considered a gag, as it really doesn't add any more to the scene or the story than the old one, but it strives to get a reaction all its own: a gag.
The Creative Orgasm - You have to see it for yourself.
#10
Posted 12 August 2005 - 12:04 PM
"And the Evil that was vanquished shall rise anew. Wrapped in the guise of man shall he walk amongst the innocent and Terror shall consume they that dwell upon the Earth. The skies will rain fire. The seas shall become as blood. The righteous shall fall before the wicked! And all creation shall tremble before the burning standards of Hell!" - Mephisto
Kurgan X showed me this web comic done with Legos. It pokes fun at all six Star Wars films and I found it to be extremely entertaining.
<a href="http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/cast/starwars.html" target="_blank">http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/cast/starwars.html</a>
#11
Posted 15 August 2005 - 10:00 PM
It's not as painful as putting up with Jar Jar but it's still pretty bad.
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an obi-wan to go.
#12
Posted 15 August 2005 - 11:42 PM
You and me both, pal.
I cringe whenever I see all of that .
#14
Posted 17 August 2005 - 02:23 PM
It's *more* painful than putting up with Jar Jar because, while Jar Jar is Lucas's creation to ruin as he likes, Gimli is Tolkien's; he wrote Gimli a certain way but Jackson and his screenwriters decided it would be funny, or something, to turn the dwarf into an incompetent, moronic, comical sidekick. (But then what can we expect when the director of MEET THE FEEBLES inexplicably got his paws on the Lord of the Rings?)
#15
Posted 17 August 2005 - 06:02 PM
I dunno ... I've seen both Phantom Menace and Jackson's LOTR trilogy, and I didn't mind Gimli so much, even with the dwarf-tossing jokes and the rest -- probably because he really was a good warrior and did pull his weight in battle and wasn't JUST comedy relief. Gimli wasn't just a clown; he actually looked as if he belonged on a battlefield. And even when Gimli was acting foolishly, as during the drinking contest in (I think) Return of the King, he never struck me as out-and-out stupid. And then there were nice moments showing Gimli's bravery -- as when Aragorn is about to enter the Valley of the Dead in the middle of the night, and tries to go alone, and Gimli says to Aragorn, "Face it, laddie -- we're going with you." So I liked Gimli, on balance. (Of course, my seeing Jackson's trilogy before reading Tolkien's trilogy might have something to do with it. )
But Jar Jar -- good God, he was painful. Compare Gimli on the battlefield with Jar Jar on the battlefield. At least Gimli wasn't constantly getting his tongue ensnared in machinery or flailing around being chased by inanimate objects or winning battles utterly by accident via Rube-Goldberg-like coincidences or generally acting like a spazz. Even his VOCABULARY sounds spastic somehow. Say what you will about Jackson's departures from Tolkien, but Gimli never, never, NEVER, in his worst moments, sinks to the level of indignity that Jar Jar manages to hit just by talking.
This post has been edited by Karig: 17 August 2005 - 06:05 PM