adywan said:
Monroville said:
I wish you made it more cloudy and less open bright sky - there is something that just doesn't work with those shots: I would almost rather you space out the 3 AT-ATs and maybe add one on Veer's left in the last shot above.
Remember, the focus should be on Luke, not the 3 AT-ATs grouped together, the one falling down and the brightly lit mountains in the back, etc.
but why make it more cloudy when the rest of the battle has more blue sky? funny thing is that i have used the same sky as the original so the sky hasn't changed.lol. the battle is taking place on a clear day. the original shot made it suddenly jump to a dark, kinda stormy day. the mountains are brightly lit throughout. so i see no need for me to change this shot from the way it stands now.
Are you going to get rid of the large fog bank (or potential coming storm) that the AT-ATs are first seen in? Weather changes, especially in artic areas. Why is it hard to believe that a clear sky can't turn to stormy (or something even lighter than a storm) weather? Being that we see the walkers far off in the distance coming out of a large fog bank, that can account for any changes in the weather shots during the battle.
The problem after that then is continuity - I know that the Wedge scene has clear skies, so you would either have to show the fog bank/storm approaching in the distance or change the clear sky plates to be more cloudy.
Even then, my main argument is the focus of the image. The sky area could be replaced much like what you did for the ion cannon shot. The ground and hill could remain, just replace the sky with a clearer blue one, bring the far right AT-AT closer (about 2x size), add another AT-AT on the left that is mid sized between the foreground AT-AT and the new background one and thus, all 3 remaining AT-ATs are accounted for and the focus is still on Luke; I know, easier said than done - I'm not doing the work.
But please think about the composition of the image, not just the stuff that's in it. I never bought that whole "putting stuff in a movie simply because you can" argument, because if anything is going to be added, it still has to have something to do with a movie's storyline. It is only when something STANDS OUT and distracts that it becomes a detriment to a film or film edit (KILLER HORIZON: excellent edit, but there is one scene where too much is garnered from EMILY ROSE that it is obviously EMILY ROSE scenes stuffed into the movie, which then takes me OUT of the movie).
Having "more AT-ATs" or "more TIEs" would make sense because the Empire would send an army to go after whoever. I'm not making the argument to do that "with this edit" (you have made it quite clear what you are doing with EMPIRE:R), but what I am saying that to do so would not constitute a "doing it for the sake of it" thing (as opposed to 2 or 20 Death Stars in JEDI, or overloading any scene with so much stuff you can't tell what's going on), provided that you do something with the additions.
Granted, I have not seen this in motion, but it does feel like it is too much for one shot - whether the AT-ATs need to be spaced out a little more, something done with the mountains... it is just that everything is so in focus that it doesn't look real and that is what concerns me.