quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

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.

I disagree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

The chances of this thread staying on topic are not good with all these idiots around using bad language and calling people names.

Im outta here, good luck with this one mods.

quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

The chances of this thread staying on topic are not good with all these idiots around using bad language and calling people names.

Im outta here, good luck with this one mods.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LEEJGM

quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

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.

Chicagos on a Saturday night in Norwich is very much like that cantina in Mos Eisley...


Anyway, regarding the score, I think Williams will commit to it. It is probably his most iconic work out of all of the masterpieces he has written. However, as good as the scores have been, I think they'd be easy to imitate and expand by many decent composers if the need arises. The main themes didn't differ in the prequels too much with most of it being business as usual (Duel of the Fates and Battle of Heroes were welcome additions of course). I can't see the new trilogy's score being much different.

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.


TREK WARS

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

Homer, if you don't make Mr MOD your next title, there's something wrong with you.

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.


TREK WARS

quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

I won't know how anything would be a trap unless Ackbar tells me. (After Lando, obviously.)

Wedge has to return. He was the only non-main character in all three OT films, so it'd be nice to have him back again. Also, the whole "he's Ewan McGregor's uncle" is neat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

I'm desperately trying to think of Star Wars horse puns. The best I can do is the ice-planet of Hoof. Which is quite clearly crap.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

That's some good debatin's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sotto Voce

Okay, I'll tryo throwing out a sensible question; Any OT characters you'd like to see pop up in the sequels (apart from the main ones)? I'd like to see Bossk, the reptile-like bounty hunter. Think they might be tempted to resurrect Boba Fett?

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sotto Voce

Okay, I'll tryo throwing out a sensible question; Any OT characters you'd like to see pop up in the sequels (apart from the main ones)? I'd like to see Bossk, the reptile-like bounty hunter. Think they might be tempted to resurrect Boba Fett?

Wicket has to be in it. My 5-year-old nieces think he's great.

Single Virgin Mod Candidate 2013

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives
To paraphrase the great man himself:

Vad3r won't go anywhere near this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

Will it be in 3D?

quote:

Should it be in 3D?

quote:

Will you watch it?

quote:

PG-13 or R?

quote:

Who will direct the sequel?

Who should direct the sequel?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

R-rating for Star Wars would single-handedly be the dumbest thing ever.

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.


TREK WARS

Single Virgin Mod Candidate 2013

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives
To paraphrase the great man himself:

Vad3r won't go anywhere near this.