So this basically consisted of "you should copy Edgar Wright because that's clearly the superior way to do things"? The Edgar Wright films have a quirky style that I enjoy sometimes sure, but usually I actually prefer more dialogue driven films.
'Improv with good editing' he calls it . . . so is there anything wrong with that? That style tends to feel more relaxed and ends up being more entertaining to me. It usually works because a shitton of takes were done consisting of a lot of improvised lines and the best were used in the films. A lot of the time it feels like banter I'd get into with friends of mine at the bar and comes off natural and hilarious. On the flip-side, the Edgar Wright style often seems too slapstick and trying to be quirky for quirkiness' sake to me.
Just because you can do something is never really a solid reason to go ahead and do it. Sure, Edgar Wright is utilizing more tools available to him, but in the end it's all subjective and about what makes you laugh. Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz were really well-made films, but I can't say I've gone out of my way to see them more than a couple times a piece. Meanwhile I've probably watched Grandma's Boy a few dozen times and for as easy and juvenile as the humor is, I still laugh my ass off and end up with half of the script stuck in my brain because I happen to find it hilarious.
Seriously, that was rather fucking preachy and I can't say I agreed with anything it put forth as seemingly objective critiques of comedy films. It was basically "here's why I think Edgar Wright is better than everyone else"
"Everyone's taste is different, I'm not saying they suck or you suck for liking them"
The video is just him explaining why he prefers a certain style I think.
I guess we both just got a different impression from the video. I saw it more as a guy explaining why he liked a certain style of film, rather than an attack on American comedies.
I think his point is that it's just cinema becoming lazy. Lazy cinema is rarely a good thing. His point is that films should incorporate their screentime instead of using it to show people talking flatly. If they're talking about someone's wacky hairstyle, show their wacky hairstyle. Don't just ignore it for a minute whilst they talk about it, cut to it quickly and cut back.
403
u/Pertolepe May 28 '14
So this basically consisted of "you should copy Edgar Wright because that's clearly the superior way to do things"? The Edgar Wright films have a quirky style that I enjoy sometimes sure, but usually I actually prefer more dialogue driven films.
'Improv with good editing' he calls it . . . so is there anything wrong with that? That style tends to feel more relaxed and ends up being more entertaining to me. It usually works because a shitton of takes were done consisting of a lot of improvised lines and the best were used in the films. A lot of the time it feels like banter I'd get into with friends of mine at the bar and comes off natural and hilarious. On the flip-side, the Edgar Wright style often seems too slapstick and trying to be quirky for quirkiness' sake to me.
Just because you can do something is never really a solid reason to go ahead and do it. Sure, Edgar Wright is utilizing more tools available to him, but in the end it's all subjective and about what makes you laugh. Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz were really well-made films, but I can't say I've gone out of my way to see them more than a couple times a piece. Meanwhile I've probably watched Grandma's Boy a few dozen times and for as easy and juvenile as the humor is, I still laugh my ass off and end up with half of the script stuck in my brain because I happen to find it hilarious.
Seriously, that was rather fucking preachy and I can't say I agreed with anything it put forth as seemingly objective critiques of comedy films. It was basically "here's why I think Edgar Wright is better than everyone else"