Succession. The dialogue kills it.
The Hollywood Chris's.
Re: Massively Overrated Stuff
131We're headed for social anarchy when people start pissing on bookstores.
Re: Massively Overrated Stuff
133I agree and I actually enjoyed it. Every time someone has made something with elevated, witty repartee type dialogue that's too wordy to be natural it's aged horribly. The 90's are littered with examples: Clerks, Vanilla Sky, Dawson's Creek.
Re: Massively Overrated Stuff
134Haven't seen the show, but . . .
One of the first pieces of wisdom that should be imparted to anyone writing a screenplay or teleplay, is that all dialog takes up a lot more space when uttered in the context of a movie or show than it does on the page. Many people have mentioned this. It keeps getting mentioned for a reason. It's why it's easier to pull off certain passages within a book than it would be in dramatic, audio-visual form. I think you can have heady conversations in anything, but it takes skilled actors (and directing) to pull off dialog that's more involved. Like, the monolog by Ingrid Thulin in Winter Light--give that to any old actor and good luck getting comparable results. I feel nervous just thinking about it.losthighway wrote:Every time someone has made something with elevated, witty repartee type dialogue that's too wordy to be natural it's aged horribly.
Re: Massively Overrated Stuff
137There would be no Succession without Gilmore Girls.losthighway wrote: Thu Apr 25, 2024 7:11 amI agree and I actually enjoyed it. Every time someone has made something with elevated, witty repartee type dialogue that's too wordy to be natural it's aged horribly. The 90's are littered with examples: Clerks, Vanilla Sky, Dawson's Creek.
We're headed for social anarchy when people start pissing on bookstores.
Re: Massively Overrated Stuff
138Somehow I enjoyed Succession even when I did not understand what they were talking about. That's like 50-60 percent of the time.
Re: Massively Overrated Stuff
139The idea that there is to every distinct language some core property that is conceivable and comprehensible, while also being impossible to convey in a different form, through translation.
I have yet to find an example of some word or expression whose meaning cannot be conveyed to satisfaction in some other language, even if no one-to-one mapping exists. The process isn't that different from explaining the same word within the language itself, using other words. The way meaning emerges in individual languages seems to be more a case of building up semantic networks, wherein things come to make sense in different ways, while still the "sense" being made is more or less the same - there is no new information being revealed.
Where the full meaning of some word or expression appears to be inexhaustible, this could equally hold if you were to try to pin it down exactly in the original language as well. We then cross over into external factors influencing the impression of words, such as emotional connections one may have established through living with this language, cultural aspects intuitive to some but not others - although not only is the contribution of "culture" also often basically explainable through other means, but the significance of a particular "culture" might vary between speakers, even native ones (e.g. some languages are spoken in many different places).
This is at the level of words. I certainly believe languages individually have distinction and "soul" that cannot really be transferred, but this is in their concrete and bodily manifestations. How it sounds and how it feels, the natural rhythms, how speakers react to one another. In non-natives who speak a language well, this proficiency to me shows up as a kind of noticeable comfort, where they have made their body come to rest in this new environment, so that to them it doesn't feel strained or alien. Since this will be due to extensive interaction with others, the elements of that interaction will to some degree make up how they themselves embody this language. This can even have effect on the pitch and volume of voice (for example in one clip I saw of a white Zimbabwean speaking Shona, his voice was markedly lower in pitch than when speaking English).
Writing makes this a bit more complicated of course. Although practically in most cases I treat writing as an analogue for speech (I read with a 'narrator voice'), I'm definitely a proponent of viewing them as distinct forms of communication. Writing is severed from that bodily presence mentioned, which opens other possibilities for it. I don't know at all what the common experience of reading is to someone who's deaf from birth, for instance.
I have yet to find an example of some word or expression whose meaning cannot be conveyed to satisfaction in some other language, even if no one-to-one mapping exists. The process isn't that different from explaining the same word within the language itself, using other words. The way meaning emerges in individual languages seems to be more a case of building up semantic networks, wherein things come to make sense in different ways, while still the "sense" being made is more or less the same - there is no new information being revealed.
Where the full meaning of some word or expression appears to be inexhaustible, this could equally hold if you were to try to pin it down exactly in the original language as well. We then cross over into external factors influencing the impression of words, such as emotional connections one may have established through living with this language, cultural aspects intuitive to some but not others - although not only is the contribution of "culture" also often basically explainable through other means, but the significance of a particular "culture" might vary between speakers, even native ones (e.g. some languages are spoken in many different places).
This is at the level of words. I certainly believe languages individually have distinction and "soul" that cannot really be transferred, but this is in their concrete and bodily manifestations. How it sounds and how it feels, the natural rhythms, how speakers react to one another. In non-natives who speak a language well, this proficiency to me shows up as a kind of noticeable comfort, where they have made their body come to rest in this new environment, so that to them it doesn't feel strained or alien. Since this will be due to extensive interaction with others, the elements of that interaction will to some degree make up how they themselves embody this language. This can even have effect on the pitch and volume of voice (for example in one clip I saw of a white Zimbabwean speaking Shona, his voice was markedly lower in pitch than when speaking English).
Writing makes this a bit more complicated of course. Although practically in most cases I treat writing as an analogue for speech (I read with a 'narrator voice'), I'm definitely a proponent of viewing them as distinct forms of communication. Writing is severed from that bodily presence mentioned, which opens other possibilities for it. I don't know at all what the common experience of reading is to someone who's deaf from birth, for instance.
born to give
Re: Massively Overrated Stuff
140Kendal Roy... Rishi Sunak... You'll never unsee it
clocker bob may 30, 2006 wrote:I think the possibility of interbreeding between an earthly species and an extraterrestrial species is as believable as any other explanation for the existence of George W. Bush.