Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Star Wars: Episode 7

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Future Films >> RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 Page: <<   < prev  46 47 [48] 49 50   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 21/11/2012 9:37:57 PM   
homersimpson_esq


Posts: 20116
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Springfield
The idea of Star Wars in Norwich is hilarious.

It reminds of that one off Armstrong and Miller sketch about the starship which comes across the archnemesis alien known as IAN NOLAN, who hails from the planet known as LITTLE DINSBURY.

_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.


Bristol Bad Film Club
A place where movie fans can come and behold some of the most awful films ever put to celluloid.

(in reply to Keyser Sozzled)
Post #: 1411
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 21/11/2012 10:17:04 PM   
matty_b


Posts: 14445
Joined: 19/10/2005
From: Outpost 31 calling McMurtle.
When people complain about too much CGI in the prequels, I'm pretty sure they don't mean the spaceships or volcanoes or meteor fields. I'm certain they mean stuff that has no logical or actual reason to be CG, like interiors and corridors that end up having that weird plasticy tone to them.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.


(in reply to homersimpson_esq)
Post #: 1412
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 21/11/2012 10:23:40 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7932
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

When people complain about too much CGI in the prequels, I'm pretty sure they don't mean the spaceships or volcanoes or meteor fields. I'm certain they mean stuff that has no logical or actual reason to be CG, like interiors and corridors that end up having that weird plasticy tone to them.


My point exactly, only articulated in a much better way.



_____________________________

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you."

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to matty_b)
Post #: 1413
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 21/11/2012 10:33:33 PM   
OPEN YOUR EYES

 

Posts: 4259
Joined: 5/2/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat


quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

When people complain about too much CGI in the prequels, I'm pretty sure they don't mean the spaceships or volcanoes or meteor fields. I'm certain they mean stuff that has no logical or actual reason to be CG, like interiors and corridors that end up having that weird plasticy tone to them.


My point exactly, only articulated in a much better way.




Yep totally agree.
I don't know how the actors could work in such a hollow environment.I mean CG monsters and Spaceships is one thing but also actual full-on interiors/sets.

(in reply to MonsterCat)
Post #: 1414
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 21/11/2012 10:46:13 PM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12120
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

When people complain about too much CGI in the prequels, I'm pretty sure they don't mean the spaceships or volcanoes or meteor fields. I'm certain they mean stuff that has no logical or actual reason to be CG, like interiors and corridors that end up having that weird plasticy tone to them.

And floating*, cooing robots instead of midwives.








*Might not have been floating, it's been a while since I've seen ROTS.

(in reply to matty_b)
Post #: 1415
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 12:52:36 AM   
KnightofZyryab


Posts: 5817
Joined: 26/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat


quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

When people complain about too much CGI in the prequels, I'm pretty sure they don't mean the spaceships or volcanoes or meteor fields. I'm certain they mean stuff that has no logical or actual reason to be CG, like interiors and corridors that end up having that weird plasticy tone to them.


My point exactly, only articulated in a much better way.




Yep totally agree.
I don't know how the actors could work in such a hollow environment.I mean CG monsters and Spaceships is one thing but also actual full-on interiors/sets.


Interesting thing that us the viewing public rarely consider is how actors handle acting and responding to things that are usually not there, not to mention with the cold green screen in the background. In this month's Empire Ian McKellen recounts how he actually cried because of the experience of acting alone with no other stimuli (ie, other actors) to motivate him. It must be incredibly difficult to perform when all you have in front of you is an inanimate environment.

_____________________________

Imminent viewings : The Place Beyond the Pines

Read my blog at: http://alcentrodelaberinto.blogspot.com/

(in reply to OPEN YOUR EYES)
Post #: 1416
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 11:50:57 AM   
jobloffski

 

Posts: 1886
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: elsewhere
It's practically impossible for an actor to give anything like their best without the person they are supposed to be speaking to in the film being there. I've only have very small amounts of experience in directing people to act (non professionals) and there is an absolute world of difference between what someone is able to do when trying to perform their lines alone and when they are able to hear and see the person they are responding too. Tone of voice of one person affects tone of voice of the other, body language likewise.

It's a cliche, but it is absolutely true: acting is reacting. You need something to react to. If you have a bunch of individually delivered line readings assembled later you don't usually end up with anything that sounds remotely natural. It works better in animation because actors record their lines many different ways to give options when the pictures are created and the process is assisted by the nature of animation making larger than life characterisation easier to buy into, because it is animation.

If you have real live actors on the screen, you get the best if they are actually looking at, and listening to, each other (or if need be, a stand in) during the production process, no matter what levels of technological jiggery pokery ,are required to produce the final imagery of the film. And given the already hokey nature of fantasy material, the chemistry produced between actors becomes more important because the key to making the audience suspend disbelief is the actors being able to convince us that THEY, while acting, believe the story they are in is actually happening. It's why Jaws still works so much better than other, more ostensibly 'scary' movies.

Lucas has made a lot of amazing advancements in film making possible. But even he admits to not really being that interested in the performance side of things. He, over his career, has increasingly made the actors an element in an environment to be coloured in later, when in the most basic terms, the characters on the screen have to be seen to be, and feel like, the most important things on the screen for the illusion of film to stand a chance of being the best it can be. You can pretty up the image as much as you want, you can put little visual gags in the background for people to seek out, whatever.

But as early as the special editions of the star wars films, Lucas starting making the compositional(?) mistakes that only became writ larger in the prequels for example the addition to the background of a scene, large weird creatures being ridden by small weird looking weirdos, falling off said creatures, swinging round by the reins, making stupid noises, attracting attention to the background of the shot, instead of leaving it at the foreground of what was actually happening to the characters we are supposed to be along with the ride for.

The focus on creating environments for the action to take place in is a vital part of creating 'like nothing you have ever seen before' films. But when the creation of the majority of the image requires the actors to always be pretending something is there that is not, not allowed to move around much because that would compromise effects to be added later, and cobbling together lines from different takes, at different times, without allowing the mood of a performance between a number of characters to build by having them actually reacting to what is being done and said, and how things are done and said,that's not good for the actors, the acting, the film or the audience.

What is on the screen doesn't have to be real world real. But if the actors aren't able to even pretend they, when in character, 'believe' things are real (the only thing that makes any performance any good at all) the film become one with flaws you have to put up with in order to appreciate what is good about them. That's not a barrier to making films that make money, because spectacle sells, and people who hate films they have paid to see have still paid to see them.

But why not give the actors what is most necessary to acting, and that is the bare minimum of props, set and people to look at required for them to sell the illusion of what they are doing to themselves, in order to stand any chance of it being 'real' enough to make people 'forget' they are looking at people pretending to be the person they are playing?

< Message edited by jobloffski -- 22/11/2012 11:53:59 AM >


_____________________________

Yes, dreamers dream and doers do. But if dreamers DON'T dream, doers don't have anything TO do. Everything that is only here because people exist, only exists because someone thought of it., or in other words, dreamed it.

(in reply to KnightofZyryab)
Post #: 1417
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 11:55:23 AM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2193
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet

quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

Star Trek 09 and Prometheus didnt have any scenes on Kamino,Mustafar,Utapau, or Coruscant.Planetary enviroments that can only be acheived using cgi.


Because Vulcan and LV 223 are actual real planets that Star Trek 2009 and Prometheus actually visited for location shooting.

Fucking weak argument, and you know it.


Vulcan and LV223 can be filmed using real life locations because one is a desert planet and the other is a rock planet.These kind of locations can be visited in real life for location filming.

Filming inside actual active volcanoes tend to be out of the question hence the use of cg for Mustafar.

Try actually reading my post next time and watch your language Mr MOD.

_____________________________

'' Iv played Oskar Schindler, Michael Collins, Rob Roy Mcgregor, even ZEUS for gods sake! No one is going to believe me to be a green grocer! ''

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)
Post #: 1418
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 12:06:13 PM   
homersimpson_esq


Posts: 20116
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Springfield

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze


quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

Star Trek 09 and Prometheus didnt have any scenes on Kamino,Mustafar,Utapau, or Coruscant.Planetary enviroments that can only be acheived using cgi.


Because Vulcan and LV 223 are actual real planets that Star Trek 2009 and Prometheus actually visited for location shooting.

Fucking weak argument, and you know it.


Vulcan and LV223 can be filmed using real life locations because one is a desert planet and the other is a rock planet.These kind of locations can be visited in real life for location filming.

Filming inside actual active volcanoes tend to be out of the question hence the use of cg for Mustafar.

Try actually reading my post next time and watch your language Mr MOD.


Kamino is a watery planet - this planet is mostly water.
Mustafar is a fiery planet - lots of fiery bits you can shoot and superimpose actors on to.
Coruscant is a city planet. Shit, if only our planet had citi....oh wait.

My point remains. You can't argue CGI for one but not CGI for the other. Both justifiably use CGI and non-CGI elements. It's in the combination of the two where one successfully creates a believable environment.

Also, the forum allows for non-excessive swearing. Don't try and mod the mods, or I'll have to call the coastguard/

_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.


Bristol Bad Film Club
A place where movie fans can come and behold some of the most awful films ever put to celluloid.

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 1419
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 12:08:41 PM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2193
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet
quote:

ORIGINAL: Keyser Sozzled


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat


quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES

One thing I do hope for the next batch of the Star Wars merchandising-Film franchise is more realistic visualizations than that of total CGI created sets.
Watching the 'making of..' these three prequels I was staggered to find very,very little in the form of real environments.Everything,bar the actors,was blue/green screen.Obviously George was comfy sat on his fat ass looking happy as larry.



Yep. Total CGI overload.


Yes of course George should have done the sensible thing and constructed a REAL cloning facility in the middle of the ocean and filmed there.He should also have filmed the final ROTS lightsaber duel inside a REAL active volcano and cast REAL alien monsters for the arena battle in AOTC.

Oh wait, these things dont actually exist in real life do they?


Hahahahaha, that genuinely made me laugh. Oh wait, you were being serious? Jesus...

What a weird little argument. The attack on the Death Star is exactly the same, as is the attack on said Death Star. Also pretty sure Jabba's Palace isn't in Norwich (although...) He has done miniature work on "exotic" locations in the original trilogy. He simply went balls deep with CGI in the preqs and some of it (a lot of it actually) looks terrible.

And whats worse is I'm pretty sure you know it.



Ok you walked into this one..

First of all, the prequels used a variety of filming techniques and locations.They filmed in tunisia for Tatooine, and Italy and Spain were used for Naboo.Certain planet locations such as Kamino used a combination of hard set and digital background.The landing pad on Kamino where Kenobi and Fett battle in AOTC was a combination of a set for the landing pad and digital background for the ocean and storm.

John knoll (fx supervisor for the prequels) said in an interview for Empire that there was a LOT of minitaure work done on the prequels ( apparently there was more miniature work on ROTS than all the classic trilogy combined.).They were then supplemented with a lot of digital work.

Lucas pushed the envelope with fx technology on the prequels.However,some sad people criticize him for not staying in the past and using techniques several decades out of date.These are the kind of people who hate the films because they didnt look like the films made over 30 years ago.If you dislike the prequels, thats fine but get your facts right at least.

The original trilogy was limited to the amount of alien planetary enviroments due to the limit of technology at the time.It woud have been impossible to show enviroments such as Utapau,Mustafar,Coruscant,Kamino (etc) convincingly in the OT.This is just one aspect where the prequels were far superior to the OT.There was a lot more imagination on display.

As for the actors working with green screen..oh boo hoo! they had to actually do their jobs and ACT and use their imagination! And get paid tons of money to do it.Its a hard life.Christopher Lee has said it was the most purest form of acting working with green screen as like most actors do,escpecialy on stage,they are supposed to use their imagination.

And Keyser,its ok to disagree with someone on the boards but theres no need to make personal insults like you did in your last post.Grow up ok?

< Message edited by Cool Breeze -- 22/11/2012 12:13:39 PM >


_____________________________

'' Iv played Oskar Schindler, Michael Collins, Rob Roy Mcgregor, even ZEUS for gods sake! No one is going to believe me to be a green grocer! ''

(in reply to Keyser Sozzled)
Post #: 1420
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 12:17:21 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23659
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41N 93W
What I don't understand is how George was able to depict planets like Bespin and Dagobah, which have no real-world equivalents, in the OT. And without The Magic of Computer Generated Imagery(TM).

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 1421
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 12:18:03 PM   
homersimpson_esq


Posts: 20116
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Springfield
And that whole two sun thing on Tattooine. MAGIC.

_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.


Bristol Bad Film Club
A place where movie fans can come and behold some of the most awful films ever put to celluloid.

(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 1422
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 12:19:38 PM   
shool


Posts: 9979
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

Star Wars (1977) is Star Wars for me. Not Episode IV or A New Hope. It is the one where Greedo shoots first. And to give it 3 out of 5, well I think even the most ardent critic of Star Wars has to agree that it was and still is 'unmissable' if we use Empire's terminology, which by very definition would qualify it as 5 stars.

Of course film is subjective, but many things in life is subjective. However, if we have 1 million people and 999,999 agree that a film, book or piece of music is good and 1 person doesn't, then it means your taste is questionable according to the norm.

Your opinion may be that Lucas cannot write or direct. I cite evidence American Graffiti and Star Wars. Two accepted classic films. Two 5 star movies by quite a few critics. And they were box office hits also. To have one hit as a director is pretty good, to have two, well that means you are pretty good.

Is Tarantino a better director than Lucas? Who knows. Tarantino is loved by critics who write for movie magazines, yet when it comes to the public, who makes the most money? Lucas obviously.

And to be honest, if people slate Lucas for the prequels, which is another common criticism, then Tarantino should hold his head in shame for the dreadful Death Proof. One of the worst movies I have ever seen in the pictures. Up there with The Blair Witch Project... which caused a mini riot in Glasgow... objects were thrown at the screen in disgust! (Not by me, I hasten to add!).

BTW I do not know everything about Star Wars, but when people come on and just be contrary for the sake of it without an argument, it just looks childish.

For example, if Lucas wasn't such a great director, then why do we remember the opening scene of Star Wars? The ships flying over our heads is pretty iconic. Good direction, surely? Classic even?

And we have the Binary Sunset as it is called. Someone once called it the best moment of teenage yearning in the history of cinema. And no, it wasn't Corporal Hicks or even Ripley!

As for dialogue, well what makes good dialogue?

I can still remember classic lines from Star Wars:

"Once I was but the learner; now I am the Master!"

"Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope!"

"The Force will be with you... always".

But a brilliant script is not just about dialogue. What about the iconic characters Lucas created?

Darth Vader is perhaps the most iconic and memorable movie villain of all time. Surely that alone would seal Lucas's greatness?

I could go on, but the footy is on! Seriously, as others have said, Lucas is an easy target. But cast your minds back to when Star Wars changed the world... Lucas was the darling of the media and the public. But things and times change I suppose.

However, I believe that in 100 years George Lucas will be remembered as an all time great scriptwriter and director.



Yup agree heartedly with all of this.

Its just a shame he seemed to lose alot of this magic when filming the prequels.

I'm still really hoping that Disney pull a great continuation to the franchise out of the bag. I really hope Star Wars gets re-elevated back to its original glory.


_____________________________

Invisio Text for Spoilers
[ color=#F1F1F1 ] Spoiler text [ /color ] , remove spaces between square brackets

"No one knows what it means, but it's provocative... It gets the people going!"

(in reply to Private Hudson)
Post #: 1423
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 12:19:42 PM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2193
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet

quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze


quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

Star Trek 09 and Prometheus didnt have any scenes on Kamino,Mustafar,Utapau, or Coruscant.Planetary enviroments that can only be acheived using cgi.


Because Vulcan and LV 223 are actual real planets that Star Trek 2009 and Prometheus actually visited for location shooting.

Fucking weak argument, and you know it.


Vulcan and LV223 can be filmed using real life locations because one is a desert planet and the other is a rock planet.These kind of locations can be visited in real life for location filming.

Filming inside actual active volcanoes tend to be out of the question hence the use of cg for Mustafar.

Try actually reading my post next time and watch your language Mr MOD.


Kamino is a watery planet - this planet is mostly water.
Mustafar is a fiery planet - lots of fiery bits you can shoot and superimpose actors on to.
Coruscant is a city planet. Shit, if only our planet had citi....oh wait.

My point remains. You can't argue CGI for one but not CGI for the other. Both justifiably use CGI and non-CGI elements. It's in the combination of the two where one successfully creates a believable environment.

Also, the forum allows for non-excessive swearing. Don't try and mod the mods, or I'll have to call the coastguard/


Kamino:Oh so George should have gone out into the middle of the ocean and built a water city?Yeah thats practical
.
Mustafar:A volcano planet.Shooting inside an actual exploding volcano tends to be hazardous.And they did actually use footage of exploding volcanos as a reference

Coruscant: Yes we have cities.However our planet is not one giant city.The Coruscant scenes in the prequels are breathtaking due to a combination of digital and miniature work.The speeder chase in AOTC is a great example of this.

As i said before , the prequels used a combination of filming techniques and locations.To say it was ALL cgi is wrong.

And as a mod shouldnt you set an example and not use swearing at all?

_____________________________

'' Iv played Oskar Schindler, Michael Collins, Rob Roy Mcgregor, even ZEUS for gods sake! No one is going to believe me to be a green grocer! ''

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)
Post #: 1424
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 12:23:06 PM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2193
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

What I don't understand is how George was able to depict planets like Bespin and Dagobah, which have no real-world equivalents, in the OT. And without The Magic of Computer Generated Imagery(TM).


Bespin is set on a planet of clouds,with one big city.Done well but Coruscant was much more expansive and done equally well if not more so using a combination of cg and miniature work.

Dagobah is a swamp planet.We have swamps here on earth so i dont get how you could think this doesnt have a real world equivalent.

_____________________________

'' Iv played Oskar Schindler, Michael Collins, Rob Roy Mcgregor, even ZEUS for gods sake! No one is going to believe me to be a green grocer! ''

(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 1425
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 12:23:43 PM   
shool


Posts: 9979
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
And as a mod shouldnt you set an example and not use swearing at all?


No.

Mods should keep the rules which allows non excessive swearing.
Why should mods have a different rule to regular posters?

All posters are equal, although some are more equal than others.

_____________________________

Invisio Text for Spoilers
[ color=#F1F1F1 ] Spoiler text [ /color ] , remove spaces between square brackets

"No one knows what it means, but it's provocative... It gets the people going!"

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 1426
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 12:24:24 PM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2193
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet
quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

And that whole two sun thing on Tattooine. MAGIC.


And for Tatooine,they filmed in Tunisia for the prequels.As has been said already,different techniques and locations were used for eps 1-3.It was not ALL cgi as the haters keep saying.

< Message edited by Cool Breeze -- 22/11/2012 12:25:30 PM >


_____________________________

'' Iv played Oskar Schindler, Michael Collins, Rob Roy Mcgregor, even ZEUS for gods sake! No one is going to believe me to be a green grocer! ''

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)
Post #: 1427
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 12:25:44 PM   
shool


Posts: 9979
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.
Can we get back off prequel talk again please.

This thread is about the future film not going over the Prequel criticisms all over again. There is an existing Star Wars favourite films thread for that.

_____________________________

Invisio Text for Spoilers
[ color=#F1F1F1 ] Spoiler text [ /color ] , remove spaces between square brackets

"No one knows what it means, but it's provocative... It gets the people going!"

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 1428
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 12:29:45 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23659
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41N 93W
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze


quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

What I don't understand is how George was able to depict planets like Bespin and Dagobah, which have no real-world equivalents, in the OT. And without The Magic of Computer Generated Imagery(TM).


Bespin is set on a planet of clouds,with one big city.Done well but Coruscant was much more expansive and done equally well if not more so using a combination of cg and miniature work.

Dagobah is a swamp planet.We have swamps here on earth so i dont get how you could think this doesnt have a real world equivalent.


To be honest, Kamino looked very much like Bespin but with some more rain. So I'd say that you would have been able to pull it off with all practical sets and a few rain machines (CGI rain, maybe).

And Dagobah wasn't actually filmed in a swamp because that would be stupid. It was filmed in a soundstage in London. (surprisingly quite a useful method of depicting worlds that don't exist in real life.) http://image.retrojunk.com/7bc_48bb58ad9f.jpg

< Message edited by Olaf -- 22/11/2012 12:30:13 PM >


_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 1429
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 12:43:53 PM   
homersimpson_esq


Posts: 20116
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Springfield

quote:

ORIGINAL: shool

All posters are equal, although some are more equal than others.




_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.


Bristol Bad Film Club
A place where movie fans can come and behold some of the most awful films ever put to celluloid.

(in reply to shool)
Post #: 1430
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 12:46:22 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23659
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41N 93W
Black type good, green type better.

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)
Post #: 1431
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 12:54:05 PM   
KnightofZyryab


Posts: 5817
Joined: 26/12/2005
The one thing about using real cities for planets like Coruscant or Bespin is that they're too easily recognisable these days - consider TDKR and Gotham City's switch from Chicago to New York. Unless you isolate a whole swathe of a city for transformation the environment wouldn't look distinct in the Star Wars universe.

_____________________________

Imminent viewings : The Place Beyond the Pines

Read my blog at: http://alcentrodelaberinto.blogspot.com/

(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 1432
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 1:02:32 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8042
Joined: 31/7/2008
quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofZyryab

The one thing about using real cities for planets like Coruscant or Bespin is that they're too easily recognisable these days - consider TDKR and Gotham City's switch from Chicago to New York. Unless you isolate a whole swathe of a city for transformation the environment wouldn't look distinct in the Star Wars universe.


Just film in Asia. I doubt many people in the West would instantly recognise Shanghai or Jakarta.

(in reply to KnightofZyryab)
Post #: 1433
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 1:42:42 PM   
Vadersville


Posts: 3041
Joined: 30/9/2005
[image]http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/254836_10151106713001765_553587400_n.jpg[/image]

< Message edited by Vadersville -- 22/11/2012 1:43:12 PM >


_____________________________

Confusion is a way of life, not a state of mind

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 1434
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 1:57:59 PM   
jobloffski

 

Posts: 1886
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: elsewhere
Christ, they could film in front of paintings that are quite obviously paintings, for all I give a shit, as long as what the characters are doing is done well enough. That's the real crux of the argument. There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER that, for example, the combatants had to be doing the equivalent of fighting while flying on hoverboards around a volcanic environment that would not even have allowed them to breathe, let alone anything else because of the temperature the air would have been at.

A volcanic environment created in CGI for wide shots, with lighting to correspond with the broader colours of the environment for fighting on physical sets in tighter shots of varying closeness and distance from the faces of the characters, with the fighting shown in CGI in wide shots to show how precariously they are placed in the environment where one false move means death...Better than aving someone hstanding on a flying droid's head, controlling it's path using the force, with the robot given a reaction shot of surprise, after which the hover board like scene has people flying around, fighting aggressively while being filmed in positions that don't really allow them to move their feet. Knowing when to leave the showing off to one side and just concentrating on the point of the moment, not GL's best suit,

The point of arguing against over use of CGI is because, as in the example I refer to, ILLUSION OF REALITY is ruined. Nobody is saying you shouldn't use CGI to create things that don't exist. But the moment the films are lingering too long on letting us see things that don't exist, being rendered more lovingly, dynamically and colourfully than the characters that are in the same shot the illusion of connection to the plight of the characters is dead and buried.


All films are fake. The trick is using film making technique to make us willing to overcome and suspend our knowledge of this. And the more fantastical the context, the greater the care needed to make the characters the most interesting things on screen (with background detail for later admiration of films after the first view). Additionally, if in practically every shot you are going to try show the viewer something they have never seen before, the grounding of the film in the form of the central cast of characters is even more important, because the the look of the new environment, new creatures, machines, sounds and jiggery pokery will act as a constant distraction from the characters, particularly if we are shown a lingering shot of something without being shown it as being something one of the characters is looking at (and therefore being shown it via the experience of the characters as part of their story). Sweeping shot of the lava on Mustafar, without the shot being motivated by character seeing the same thing and realising how dangerous the location is = disengagement from character (and therefore story, mood and tone) for the sake of a money shot visual.

This is very very basic stuff regarding how to tell a story using narrative based film. And you can be pretty sure that these (hardly out there or rare) criticisms of the style and approach to making the prequels will be factored into the process applied to the sequels. Through the prism of being a fan of a series, we can find things to enjoy and ignore things that rankle, but the prequels are considered an embarrassment to the art of film making, by people without a 'personal/emotional stake/ingrained love', for very tangible reasons, the broadest of all being the level of time, care and attention that went into the creation of the things surrounding the characters compared the the creation of, writing and, and crafting of the performance of the characters themselves.

Hope that's not too off topic, given it's looking at 'previously discussed points' but also looking forward to how the new ones will be approached. Bottom line though, obviously: good story, told as well as possible, job's a good 'un!






< Message edited by jobloffski -- 22/11/2012 2:40:22 PM >


_____________________________

Yes, dreamers dream and doers do. But if dreamers DON'T dream, doers don't have anything TO do. Everything that is only here because people exist, only exists because someone thought of it., or in other words, dreamed it.

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 1435
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 2:35:50 PM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2193
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze


quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

What I don't understand is how George was able to depict planets like Bespin and Dagobah, which have no real-world equivalents, in the OT. And without The Magic of Computer Generated Imagery(TM).


Bespin is set on a planet of clouds,with one big city.Done well but Coruscant was much more expansive and done equally well if not more so using a combination of cg and miniature work.

Dagobah is a swamp planet.We have swamps here on earth so i dont get how you could think this doesnt have a real world equivalent.


To be honest, Kamino looked very much like Bespin but with some more rain. So I'd say that you would have been able to pull it off with all practical sets and a few rain machines (CGI rain, maybe).

And Dagobah wasn't actually filmed in a swamp because that would be stupid. It was filmed in a soundstage in London. (surprisingly quite a useful method of depicting worlds that don't exist in real life.) http://image.retrojunk.com/7bc_48bb58ad9f.jpg


Kamino was a water planet.With one floating city.

Bespin was a cloud planet.With a floating city.

And as i said before they actually DID use practical sets ( The landing pad, Jangos apatment ) along with digital backgrounds ( the establishing shots of Tipoca city, the cloning facility ).Yes Dagobah was filmed on a soundstage but that was relatively easy considering it had a real world basis in its design and we only saw a small part of that planet.Enviroments such as Utapau in ROTS where we see a large scale battle were much larger in scope hence the need for digital.

_____________________________

'' Iv played Oskar Schindler, Michael Collins, Rob Roy Mcgregor, even ZEUS for gods sake! No one is going to believe me to be a green grocer! ''

(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 1436
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 2:37:15 PM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2193
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet

quote:

ORIGINAL: jobloffski

Christ, they could film in front of paintings that are quite obviously paintings, for all I give a shit, as long as what the characters are doing is done well enough. That's the real crux of the argument. There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER that, for example, the combatants had to be doing the equivalent of fighting while flying on hoverboards around a volcanic environment that would not even have allowed them to breathe, let alone anything else because of the temperature the air would have been at.

A volcanic environment created in CGI for wide shots, with lighting to correspond with the broader colours of the environment for fighting on physical sets in tighter shots of varying closeness and distance from the faces of the characters, with the fighting shown in CGI in wide shots to show how precariously they are placed in the environment where one false move means death...Better than aving someone hstanding on a flying droid's head, controlling it's path using the force, with the robot given a reaction shot of surprise, after which the hover board like scene has people flying around, fighting aggressively while being filmed in positions that don't really allow them to move their feet. Knowing when to leave the showing off to one side and just concentrating on the point of the moment, not GL's best suit,

The point of arguing against over use of CGI is because, as in the example I refer to, ILLUSION OF REALITY is ruined. Nobody is saying you shouldn't use CGI to create things that don't exist. But the moment the films are lingering too long on letting us see things that don't exist, being rendered more lovingly, dynamically and colourfully than the characters that are in the same shot the illusion of connection to the plight of the characters is dead and buried.


All films are fake. The trick is using film making technique to make us willing to overcome and suspend our knowledge of this. And the more fantastical the context, the greater the care needed to make the characters the most interesting things on screen (with background detail for later admiration of films after the first view). Additionally, if in practically every shot you are going to try show the viewer something they have never seen before, the grounding of the film in the form of the central cast of characters is even more important, because the new creatures, machines, sounds and jiggery pokery will act as a constant distraction from the characters, particularly if we are shown a lingering shot of something without being shown it as being something one of the characters is looking at (and therefore being shown it via the experience of the characters as part of their story). Sweeping shot of the lava on Mustafar, without the shot being motivated by character seeing the same thing and realising how dangerous the location is = disengagement from character (and therefore story, mood and tone) for the sake of a money shot visual.

This is very very basic stuff regarding how to tell a story using narrative based film. And you can be pretty sure that these (hardly out there or rare) criticisms of the style and approach to making the prequels will be factored into the process applied to the sequels. Through the prism of being a fan of a series, we can find things to enjoy and ignore things that rankle, but the prequels are considered an embarrassment to the art of film making, by people without a 'personal/emotional stake/ingrained love', for very tangible reasons, the broadest of all being the level of time, care and attention that went into the creation of the things surrounding the characters compared the the creation of, writing and, and crafting of the performance of the characters themselves.

Hope that's not too off topic, given it's looking at 'previously discussed points' but also looking forward to how the new ones will be approached. Bottom line though, obviously: good story, told as well as possible, job's a good 'un!







I disagree.

_____________________________

'' Iv played Oskar Schindler, Michael Collins, Rob Roy Mcgregor, even ZEUS for gods sake! No one is going to believe me to be a green grocer! ''

(in reply to jobloffski)
Post #: 1437
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 2:37:55 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23659
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41N 93W
That's some good debatin's.

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 1438
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 2:38:25 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4188
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot
[image]insert generic but appropriate applause gif here[/image]

< Message edited by DancingClown -- 22/11/2012 2:39:16 PM >


_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to jobloffski)
Post #: 1439
RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 - 22/11/2012 2:40:05 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4188
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze


quote:

ORIGINAL: jobloffski

Christ, they could film in front of paintings that are quite obviously paintings, for all I give a shit, as long as what the characters are doing is done well enough. That's the real crux of the argument. There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER that, for example, the combatants had to be doing the equivalent of fighting while flying on hoverboards around a volcanic environment that would not even have allowed them to breathe, let alone anything else because of the temperature the air would have been at.

A volcanic environment created in CGI for wide shots, with lighting to correspond with the broader colours of the environment for fighting on physical sets in tighter shots of varying closeness and distance from the faces of the characters, with the fighting shown in CGI in wide shots to show how precariously they are placed in the environment where one false move means death...Better than aving someone hstanding on a flying droid's head, controlling it's path using the force, with the robot given a reaction shot of surprise, after which the hover board like scene has people flying around, fighting aggressively while being filmed in positions that don't really allow them to move their feet. Knowing when to leave the showing off to one side and just concentrating on the point of the moment, not GL's best suit,

The point of arguing against over use of CGI is because, as in the example I refer to, ILLUSION OF REALITY is ruined. Nobody is saying you shouldn't use CGI to create things that don't exist. But the moment the films are lingering too long on letting us see things that don't exist, being rendered more lovingly, dynamically and colourfully than the characters that are in the same shot the illusion of connection to the plight of the characters is dead and buried.


All films are fake. The trick is using film making technique to make us willing to overcome and suspend our knowledge of this. And the more fantastical the context, the greater the care needed to make the characters the most interesting things on screen (with background detail for later admiration of films after the first view). Additionally, if in practically every shot you are going to try show the viewer something they have never seen before, the grounding of the film in the form of the central cast of characters is even more important, because the new creatures, machines, sounds and jiggery pokery will act as a constant distraction from the characters, particularly if we are shown a lingering shot of something without being shown it as being something one of the characters is looking at (and therefore being shown it via the experience of the characters as part of their story). Sweeping shot of the lava on Mustafar, without the shot being motivated by character seeing the same thing and realising how dangerous the location is = disengagement from character (and therefore story, mood and tone) for the sake of a money shot visual.

This is very very basic stuff regarding how to tell a story using narrative based film. And you can be pretty sure that these (hardly out there or rare) criticisms of the style and approach to making the prequels will be factored into the process applied to the sequels. Through the prism of being a fan of a series, we can find things to enjoy and ignore things that rankle, but the prequels are considered an embarrassment to the art of film making, by people without a 'personal/emotional stake/ingrained love', for very tangible reasons, the broadest of all being the level of time, care and attention that went into the creation of the things surrounding the characters compared the the creation of, writing and, and crafting of the performance of the characters themselves.

Hope that's not too off topic, given it's looking at 'previously discussed points' but also looking forward to how the new ones will be approached. Bottom line though, obviously: good story, told as well as possible, job's a good 'un!







I disagree.


Then you are a fool.

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 1440
Page:   <<   < prev  46 47 [48] 49 50   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Future Films >> RE: Star Wars: Episode 7 Page: <<   < prev  46 47 [48] 49 50   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Movie News|Empire Blog|Movie Reviews|Future Films|Features|Video Interviews|Image Gallery|Competitions|Forum|Magazine|Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.139