Lord Phillock said:
To me, cinematography can't be "updated"... sure it can "look" like a 2000s movie, but that doesn't mean it's "improved" from previous generation's styles of lighting. I think if they kept it as close as possible to the older films (visually), it would be so much more "creative", really... because no one does that anymore; and to do that would be a very pleasant surprise. It would feel more "fresh"... don't you think?
To me, cinematography can't be "updated"... sure it can "look" like a 2000s movie, but that doesn't mean it's "improved" from previous generation's styles of lighting. I think if they kept it as close as possible to the older films (visually), it would be so much more "creative", really... because no one does that anymore; and to do that would be a very pleasant surprise. It would feel more "fresh"... don't you think?
I totally agree. I always said that if Lucas had strived to make the prequels match the OT in terms of cinematography and effects he would have been praised for making a 'retro' film. Tarantino mimcs older styles and gets praised, John Favreau used old school techniques to shoot Zathura and was praised, Michel Gondry used in-camera and stage effects for Eternal Sunshine and was praised, imagine if George had done that for Star Wars and imagine if they had done that for the new Indy movie - it would have been so cool, especially with the current 80s retro mania that seems to be in fashion right now. A missed opportunity if you ask me. George could still have used his beloved computers, but use them imaginitely to give a non-digital look. And with his money and creative team the puppets could have been awesome - just look at Pan's labyrinth.