TV's Frink said:
I don't remember Attack of The.
C'mon, sorry. I mean AOTR, of course. :\
The Original Trilogy’s Timeline Reconstruction: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Implied-starting-date-of-the-Empire-from-OT-dialogue/post/786201/#TopicPost786201
Looks like the First Order has taken over the chill-out area of my local mall.
Ceci n’est pas une signature.
Frank your Majesty said:
Looks like the First Order has taken over the chill-out area of my local mall.
Is that an orange lightsaber next to a pink one? Maul vs. Vader confirmed.
The Original Trilogy’s Timeline Reconstruction: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Implied-starting-date-of-the-Empire-from-OT-dialogue/post/786201/#TopicPost786201
Ha!
Alderaan said:
Akton said:
And yet the space battles in SW were shot and edited to emulate WWII dogfight footage... precisely because Lucas wanted an element of dynamic realism that had never been seen in a sci fi film before.
The new stuff is simply following that philosophy with modern filmmaking tools...
The dogfights were effective because of the editing, not the camerawork.
What an odd thing to say. It's both-and, not either/or. The editing was great, but it's not like it came to the rescue of boring, static camerawork. Remember the camera diving into the trench?
But all of this skirts the issue that the philosophy that gave us those dogfights was to add as much documentary-like realism to the space battles as possible. Lucas made no bones about the influence his background in shooting documentaries had on the making of Star Wars.
"These deadly rays will be your death..."
Alderaan said:
Oh and I was referring to the shaky cam. There's nothing "real" about snap zooms. It's very unnatural.
All part of the same documentary-like philosophy. Such camera work was impossible in the days of early motion-control photography. That's why you didn't see anything like that in the OT, not some odd notion that it infringes on the "epic" nature of the saga, which you're projecting backward onto the OT.
I don't think anyone hates the PT as much as I do, but some of this petty nitpicking is absurd. Tempering our expectations with some caution is reasonable and laudable, but this whole strangely luddite-like approach to the sfx and cinematography is not at all reasonable, in my opinion.
"These deadly rays will be your death..."
SilverWook said:
luckydube, your image is broken...
Sorry wook. Dont know what happened to the original. But I found another.
When the OT ended back in 83 and I knew that was all there was, in my own imaginations I'd visualized sequences that could be if there would ever be 'the further adventures of...'
Right off the bat, you can tell this is the galaxy we came to know and love. The shiny sparkly color saturated look from the PT is gone. The rebels look like rebels. The Empire or whatever they're called these days, is sleek and dark and slithery as ever.
These are images that seem to have been taken straight from my own imaginations and I'm sure many other die-hard OT fans could say the same.
JJ has such deference to those films.
I got such an adrenaline rush when i saw this part of the trailer. It was the same adrenaline rush I felt seeing the speeder bikes in the ROTJ trailer.
No problem. And it took my brain this long to notice the ROTJ homage in that shot. Considering I hated the snap zooms and shaky cam on the BSG reboot, that zoom oddly doesn't bother me at all.
First Order... Wasn't the Empire called "First Choice" in Backstroke of The West? ;)
Where were you in '77?
SilverWook said:
No problem. And it took my brain this long to notice the ROTJ homage in that shot. Considering I hated the snap zooms and shaky cam on the BSG reboot, that zoom oddly doesn't bother me at all.
First Order... Wasn't the Empire called "First Choice" in Backstroke of The West? ;)
The Shaky Cams and Snaps zooms never really bothered me with the BSG reboot because I saw it as a totally new *product*
Because this film is meant to be a sequel, I think they should tone down what they CAN do today to fit in a bit more with what could not be done when the original came out.
It's not to say I don't see the success in what they are achieving I have to say I am actually rather optimistic about all that I have seen so far I really like everything else about the sequence I have seen apart from that weird camera move as the falcon does the loop and the snap zoom.
I am not nit picking either I think if they could give it back the sweeping and gracious moves we are used to, I think it would be an all out winner it's the only fear I have that there could be a lot of this type of stuff?... There might not be however. Let's just wait and see... I give it a very good stamp overall.
As I was taught a camera tripod was your friend, I found shaky cam to be distracting, amateur looking, and gave me a slight headache if I watched it too long.
I've seen real WWII combat footage where the cameraman held steady while a Japanese Zero crashed right in front of them. I think a movie ought to be able to do the same in a fantasy situation.
I doubt there will be much of it in the movie, at least I hope not!
Where were you in '77?
The x-wing fly over I thought was superb and the classic shuttle and escort ships flying towards a larger ship looked like something straight out the OT.The opening shot was great too. They just have to perhaps show a little restraint with the modern technology I think with this sequence in particular from what I have seen of it.
Less is often more.
I don't know who came up with the idea of using the "snap zoom" in all these big hollywood movies, but it looks stupid as hell.
It looks as though you have this really expensive movie, but some sequences were filmed by your dumb uncle with his Hi8 camcorder, and his finger constantly on the zoom button.
It's worse than shaky cam, which in itself has overstayed its welcome, way overused.
woofermazing said:
And why the hell is Wessel a changeling? No character ever acknowledges it, it doesn't advance the plot in any way, and it is confusing as hell for the audience.
I'm pretty sure Anakin mentions she's a changeling. Otherwise, though, you're right -- it doesn't add anything to the film at all. It's probably just another example of Lucas shoving his "cool" digital effects into a movie to showcase how "advanced" and "realistic" they are.
AOTC has at least one snap zoom and I think there's a minor one in ESB during the battle of Hoth.
Agreed, they seem to have gone fairly easy on the shaky cam, but these snap-zooms are obnoxious. Takes you right out of the movie. I hate that sort of self-reflexive film making. This is meant to be fantasy and escapism and we are meant to be disembodied spectators. Why would any filmmaker go out of their way to make it seem as if there's a cameraman filming it? In shots that never even involved a camera no less. Boggles the mind.
Having said that, the trailer in general was very pleasing to me. You get the sense that our heroes are thrust into the adventure organically just as Luke was, and everything we see meshes aesthetically with the OT. The super clean troopers on that ice world was jarring initially, but I'm getting the sense that this new incarnation of the Empire is totalitarian, and cult-like rather than being the straightforward dictatorship it used to be. It fits for me.
The crispness of the image is always going to take some getting used to. As others have said though, it's 2015 and to be expected. Those 4K/imax shots do show some really nice grain though, which is an enormous upgrade from the overly scrubbed cartoon look of the Prequels.
unamochilla2 said:
I think there's a minor one in ESB during the battle of Hoth.
I had to look it up, and it's minor, yes. It's a really quick shot of a rebel soldier, it's a slight zoom, not the exaggerated WHOOOSH that's in the trailer that goes from very far away to quite close to the action. It's a bit ridiculous.
unamochilla2 said:
AOTC has at least one snap zoom and I think there's a minor one in ESB during the battle of Hoth.
There are several in both the arena battle and the clone battle. The one thing they all have in common is that they all suck.
Alright guys, I've went ahead and released a video breaking down the Star Wars: Battlefront in-engine footage reveal and the new trailer for the new movie The Force Awakens giving speculation on both. If you enjoy games and enjoy Star Wars and have the time to invest; watch the video. There's alot of info in here you don't want to miss.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNsnsVOQGAU
Cheers!
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the PT era star destroyer so far (the one the Falcon flies into).
forthebanterni said:
Alright guys, I've went ahead and released a video breaking down the Star Wars: Battlefront in-engine footage reveal and the new trailer for the new movie The Force Awakens giving speculation on both. If you enjoy games and enjoy Star Wars and have the time to invest; watch the video. There's alot of info in here you don't want to miss.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNsnsVOQGAU
Cheers!
Please do not spam the board. One post about this was sufficient.
Where were you in '77?
RicOlie_2 said:
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the PT era star destroyer so far (the one the Falcon flies into).
I didn't know it was PT-era...but I'm not very observant.
TV's Frink said:
RicOlie_2 said:
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the PT era star destroyer so far (the one the Falcon flies into).
I didn't know it was PT-era...but I'm not very observant.
With people picking apart the colour-coding, Chewie's eyes, etc., I thought someone would have complained.
The engines set farther back than the main ones and the tail-thing sticking out the back is what gives it away.
You catch on pretty quick.
RicOlie_2 said:
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the PT era star destroyer so far (the one the Falcon flies into).
It looks to me more like a Super Star Destroyer (like the Executor) on its back.
Note the 3 engines and further hull extending towards the bottom of the frame in the trailer.
Maybe, but it seems a bit small. Of course, it could well be a class of SD we haven't seen before.