Artistic/dramatic licence is an excuse if and only if it doesn't "work" without it. I see no problem with making the arrangement of SDs make physical sense; it doesn't detract from the film.
that top photo looks stupid the mouth and the eyes makes it look like it wants to cry
John Williams score to Return of the Jedi Remastered/Remixed:
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/JOHN-WILLIAMS-Star-Wars-Episode-VI-Return-of-the-Jedi-Remastered-Edition/topic/14606/page/1/
There's also the "who cares?" factor. ;) Some things can get a bit overboard, and there are plenty of things Adywan isn't bothering to change that others might. I'm still surprised there aren't any full post-ANH:R edits out there, using ANH:R as a base. (using the best ideas from the 'Can anything be done after ANH:R' thread, perhaps)
I'd like to see Vaderios make an edit, but he doesn't seem interested in such a thing. (plus, a lot of mock-ups would be nigh impossible to put in motion, right?)
fishmanlee said:
that top photo looks stupid the mouth and the eyes makes it look like it wants to cry
I think that there is a reason why they had the paws in front of its face.
I like this one 100x better than the SE one.
In regards to Vaderios' mock-up on the right, taking into account ImpFighter's preference for seeing the tower (which I can see too, so the Executor doesn't look like a flying arrow) the other thing that can be done is slim down the brighter underbelly area of the Executor to match the angle and perspective of the surrounding SDs.
I would love to see the model they used for this shot, much less to see someone do a drawing or mock-up of how the Executor would look from a front "dead-on" angle.
Something like this?
you may not be able to tell too well from how small the shot is, but here is a perspective image:
there are a lot of odd things going on here:
(1) the tower alignment doesn't match the hull alignment
(2) even the area underneath the Executor is wierd; if you look at the unmolested picture, the extension underneath is not symmetrical on either side
(3) the back tip does not quite make a straight line to the nose - it's as if the area leading to the underbelly extension dips INTO the hull.
“You people must realize that the public owns you for life, and when you’re dead, you’ll all be in commercials dancing with vacuum cleaners.”
– Homer Simpson
Artistic/dramatic licence is an excuse if and only if it doesn't "work" without it. I see no problem with making the arrangement of SDs make physical sense; it doesn't detract from the film.
Would you tell Brian de Palma he shouldn't use split focus because it's not realistic and his shots would work without it? Or (spoiler alert) that the whole of Schlinder's List should have been B&W? ;)
DE
I love that Angel can do 3D now.
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
doubleopost!!!
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
What's that got to do with it, DE? That's not taking artistic licence with reality, it's playing with the conventions of the medium (it's borderline but I'd even count sound-in-space as this); and in any case, Spielberg did have a reason for making Schindler's List that way. Showing physical things in a physically impossible arrangement, or one which violates continuity, can't be excused by "artistic licence" unless it makes a point. The only way I can see that applying here is if it made the ship more menacing, say, than a realistic shot would. It can be excused by "limited effects capabilities", and if we have the ability to correct it, we can.
I'm not demanding absolute realism. What matters is not that the film be realistic but that it be believable, and continuity or spatial violations can stretch that for some.
In regards to Vaderios' mock-up on the right, taking into account ImpFighter's preference for seeing the tower (which I can see too, so the Executor doesn't look like a flying arrow) the other thing that can be done is slim down the brighter underbelly area of the Executor to match the angle and perspective of the surrounding SDs.
I said before that we can use an other angle slight lower so the bridge could be visible. Nothing too hard.pi
There's also the "who cares?" factor. ;) Some things can get a bit overboard, and there are plenty of things Adywan isn't bothering to change that others might.
Many things that ady fixed are unnoticeable for the most of ppl. Who cares about the millennium falcon cannons? but i might care about money shots in ESB (it was an example, not bad word for ady's fixes) :)
I'd like to see Vaderios make an edit, but he doesn't seem interested in such a thing.
Trust me. My POVs are not storywise but visualwise... that sucks for most of you here. :P
I love that Angel can do 3D now.
Credit to original modeler(s)
-Angel
fishmanlee said:
that top photo looks stupid the mouth and the eyes makes it look like it wants to cry
He just wants a hug!
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
vaderios said:
I'd like to see Vaderios make an edit, but he doesn't seem interested in such a thing.
Trust me. My POVs are not storywise but visualwise... that sucks for most of you here. :P
Yeah, but I was thinking something along the lines of taking ANH:R and just applying your mock-up ideas to it, and not changing the story. A visual edit of the edit.
Monroville said:
I'm liking that alteration... as a kid, I was always a little uncertain as to what angle I was seeing the Executor from. The image above seems to give it a more natural perspective (to my eyes, at any rate).
“It’s a lot of fun… it’s a lot of fun to watch Star Wars.” – Bill Moyers
^I like that layout a lot too, Monroville. Good job. :)
Here is just a throwaway suggestion (EMPIRE is excellent without it; just suggesting as a possibility): in all or some of the "imperial fleet entering/ within/ leaving the asteroid belt" sequences, how would it look to show a lot more asteroids impacting on the Executor and escorting SDs shields (speaking of which, I know they're big rocks and all, but the one that takes out the SD conning tower - while cool - I always thought was kinda funny that the SD commander much less anyone else didn't notice the big, huge rock heading straight for them.. as well as the fact that said SD should have had shielding strong enough to repel a giant rock).
I would also consider having the SDs shoot more lasers at more asteroids. Just take how cluttered with asteroids the Falcon sequence is and compare that to all scenes with the Imperial Fleet. Granted, the Falcon is going into the heart of the storm and the fleet is going to send in more expendable fighters into the more dangerous areas, I'm just saying that there "could" be more (at least smaller) asteroids.
PS: thx for the comps... Vaderios: you're right. I need to download Photoshop! >:)
“You people must realize that the public owns you for life, and when you’re dead, you’ll all be in commercials dancing with vacuum cleaners.”
– Homer Simpson
Also, yet another extraneous suggestion: how would it look to give the Executor a underbelly bay mimicking the regular SDs, but one big enough to house a SD (with the idea that the Executor could take in an SD, dry dock it and repair it).
On that note, if something is done to that degree, how cool would it be to see an SD leaving said underbelly hanger bay?
“You people must realize that the public owns you for life, and when you’re dead, you’ll all be in commercials dancing with vacuum cleaners.”
– Homer Simpson
Monroville said:
Also, yet another extraneous suggestion: how would it look to give the Executor a underbelly bay mimicking the regular SDs, but one big enough to house a SD (with the idea that the Executor could take in an SD, dry dock it and repair it).
On that note, if something is done to that degree, how cool would it be to see an SD leaving said underbelly hanger bay?
Wow, that idea is really cool. It may border on prequel-esque over-visualization, but I'd love to see it, even in concept.
Like a mothership?
Aka Independence day?
hmm
-Angel
xhonzi said:
fishmanlee said:
that top photo looks stupid the mouth and the eyes makes it look like it wants to cry
He just wants a hug!
reminds me of my dying cat...
Siliconmaster482 said:
Monroville said:
Also, yet another extraneous suggestion: how would it look to give the Executor a underbelly bay mimicking the regular SDs, but one big enough to house a SD (with the idea that the Executor could take in an SD, dry dock it and repair it).
On that note, if something is done to that degree, how cool would it be to see an SD leaving said underbelly hanger bay?Wow, that idea is really cool. It may border on prequel-esque over-visualization, but I'd love to see it, even in concept.
Well, it wouldn't have to be anything big. You would just add the underbelly hanger bay in most of the Executor shots and maybe show the SD coming out of the Executor hanger bay in the grand opening fleet shot. It could be done in the second shot showing the SD underneath the Executor (we see the SD coming out of the hanger, then go to the far shot showing the entirity of the Executor, with the SD we saw in the previous shot moving below and away from the Executor)
Then again, if something like this could be done or were to be done, maybe the hanger could be on the top of the Executor - the idea being that if the S-SD hanger was on the top, the regular SD hanger would be on the bottom when entering the Executor hanger bay, which would allow AT-ATs to be loaded onto it. So in essence, you could have SDs lined up above and behind the Executor to lower into the S-SD hanger so as to be loaded by ground troops/armor, as well as be refitted/repaired/etc.
If this angle was taken, you could keep all existing shots (with slight modifications) but in the far off profile shot of the Executor, a SD could be shown lifting off out of the upper SD hanger bay on the Executor - the hanger wouldn't have to be physically shown, due to the angle of the Executor (other than deleting some of the upper building structure area to account for the hanger opening).
You could also show an SD coming out of said upper hanger bay in the arrival to Hoth shot.
“You people must realize that the public owns you for life, and when you’re dead, you’ll all be in commercials dancing with vacuum cleaners.”
– Homer Simpson
Besides that, that scene needs more star destroyers as we see them in previous shots. I wouldnt mind seeing more SDs coming from the outerspace.
We need Overlaps only with overlaps we can show depth and scale. Otherwise a flat image doesnt work.
-Angel
ESB Original Storyboard Sketch (Star Destroyers)
Here's an original Empire Strikes Back storyboard sketch of the Imperial Star Destroyer fleet. The storyboard is drawn in pencil and ink and includes a description of the scene elements with notes.
ESB Original Storyboard Sketch (Star Destroyer Closeup)
This is a hand-drawn storyboard from one of the most memorable scenes in the Empire Strikes Back where several shots of Star Destroyer closeups establish the scale against the Super Star Destroyer, Executor (Vader's ship). This is a one-of-a-kind piece from the movie production of Empire.
Star wars: Revisited. is now on facebook :)
http://www.facebook.com/swrevisited
Whoa! the second is really close to the final piece.
I wouldnt like seeing the executor from the top all the time. but id like to see him all at once. It feels cheap having its engines off frame. ( an other Marvel rule)
-Angel
Monroville said:
In regards to Vaderios' mock-up on the right, taking into account ImpFighter's preference for seeing the tower (which I can see too, so the Executor doesn't look like a flying arrow) the other thing that can be done is slim down the brighter underbelly area of the Executor to match the angle and perspective of the surrounding SDs.
I would love to see the model they used for this shot, much less to see someone do a drawing or mock-up of how the Executor would look from a front "dead-on" angle.
Something like this?
you may not be able to tell too well from how small the shot is, but here is a perspective image:
there are a lot of odd things going on here:
(1) the tower alignment doesn't match the hull alignment
(2) even the area underneath the Executor is wierd; if you look at the unmolested picture, the extension underneath is not symmetrical on either side
(3) the back tip does not quite make a straight line to the nose - it's as if the area leading to the underbelly extension dips INTO the hull.
Who says all the ships fly at the same angle in space (major brain bug).
Also, the Executor is a different type of ship than the ISDs. Who says it needs to look the same in profile or whatever? The main point is to see how massive it is in relation to the other ships. They're using a physical model, so why would it be "wrong"?
Kurgan said:
Also, the Executor is a different type of ship than the ISDs. Who says it needs to look the same in profile or whatever? The main point is to see how massive it is in relation to the other ships. They're using a physical model, so why would it be "wrong"?
They Forced 2 different perspectives into one shot. The model is just fine. But from that angle only the artistic liberation/license defines the "correct"
-Angel
