I remember everything I've ever read, I think. One thing that came to mind, as I popped in Star Wars Crapisode III this morning, is an essay by Harlan Ellison, describing why he refuses to use a computer or word processor to write with. When you commit words directly to paper, Ellison notes, there is a level of intent and deliberate thought involved which simply does not exist in a digital format. If you misspell a word, use the wrong word, or put ideas down in the wrong order on a typewriter, it takes a physical act to correct it. With a PC, you can just delete, cut, or paste the words in whatever order you like, trying different combinations on paper with little or no effort. The words you write simply don't
count in the same way, don't
matter as much, because they are ephemeral and malleable, easily twisted and manipulated. I understand Ellison's point, even if I don't absolutely agree with it. In my case, the finality of committing words to paper, combined with my inability to type quickly or accurately, cause me to hate manual typewriters with a passion that has lasted the 15 or so years since the last time I used one.
This idea carries forward directly to the difference between old-school and low-budget filmmaking, and the newest high-dollar and high-tech movie productions of today. When you have a short schedule and a limited budget, the writer and director have to make absolutely sure they get things right the first time. There is a demand to plot the script tightly, to work out every shot, and to get the best performance possible on each take; there is little time or money for a do-over later on. On the other hand, a big budget film has the luxury of "fixing it in post-production". If you aren't happy with a line or performance in a scene, you can simply go back and change it. If you screw up a shot, you can digitally enhance it with CGI, even insert or remove entire characters and backrounds if you like. If you screw up in nearly any way, you can just "fix it in post", so there is no incentive to get it right.
George Lucas is the #1 criminal when it comes to this sort of thing. Because of the demands of CGI, the Star Wars Prequels were shot almost exclusively on green-screen "sets", onto which backrounds were later added. In other words, the films were "created" almost entirely in post-production. So, without the incentive to get it right the first time, Lucas never really got it right at all. The films are patchwork monsters, with actors performing by themselves staring at a green wall without the organic give and take of real interactions, only to be later overshadowed anyways by 18,782,991 different digital doodads in the backround.
These aren't movies; they're video games without the interaction... and many video games surpass movies in emotional content, on account of being designed by new guys with low budgets and strict timetables, who only get one chance to get it right. Go figure, huh?