- Time
- Post link
Out by it.
The actual building ironically is by a watery sea.
Ryan McAvoy said:
Just needs a few touches probably.
I think the shot would gain immensely by just adding a clear blue sky. Maybe a dune sea in the background would help (since Luke's uncle states he lives in a dune sea).
But as I said, I love the SE version which does exactly that.
真実
Out by it.
The actual building ironically is by a watery sea.
Bingowings said:
It was a physical prop and the light was really hitting it from the same direction as the building ergo it felt real to me.
The newer version is a pretty picture but it doesn't feel realistic.
I'm with Bingo on all of this - interior Death Star77, Ben's house77, hangers77, etc. After 1977 they just seemed to take the ball and run with it. The very thing that made the 1977 film magical - imagination - seemed to be whittled away as time went on. The prequels are an abomination compared to Taylor's work. Can't even be compared. Aaagain, George - know when to to say when.
SilverWook said:
Tatooine isn't a nice place to live, and the cinematography, intentionally or not reflects that.
Visually ugly and inhospitable are two different things. If you watch some quality BBC documentary showing beautiful shots of desert you can clearly see and get the feeling that the environment is inhospitable and harsh to life, but at the same time you can still enjoy the nice scenery. And since we are talking about fantasy film here this should be even more so. Unfortunately the original shots fail to provide that.
Yet with scenes of Hoth, Dagobah and Tatooine (in ROTJ) they succeeded in that. So without any shame I can say I am very glad Lucas updated Tatooine shots in ANH.
真実
I don't know, both work but I always liked the shot/angle used in John Jympson's early cut of the film more:
I recommend the nice article American Cinematographer did on Gil Taylor years ago if you haven't seen it: http://www.theasc.com/magazine/feb06/taylor/page1.html
IMO, the Cinematography of Star Wars is much nicer than people often give it credit for, and it doesn't help that much when it cannot be seen in its true light any longer when his cinematography is completely destroyed in the video releases, especially in the horrible 2004/11 transfers.
RIP Gil Taylor, you made fantasy look real.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
Great article! Now I remember where I'd read about the diffusion argument.
What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.
RIP also to Richard "your sad devotion to that ancient religion" LeParmentier:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22179901
Where were you in '77?
Most places aren't beautiful, Tatooine was supposed to be "a little rough", and Obiwan was a "hermit". The original version reflected that perfectly. Turning it into a sort of Disneyland was part and parcel of the SE ruination of a great trilogy.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
^This!
That’s impossible, even for a computer.
imperialscum said:
Ryan McAvoy said:
Just needs a few touches probably.
I think the shot would gain immensely by just adding a clear blue sky. Maybe a dune sea in the background would help (since Luke's uncle states he lives in a dune sea).
But as I said, I love the SE version which does exactly that.
Except the sky in North Africa was rarely that clear california blue, they didnt want that, that was one of the whole reasons they went there, Lucas has spoken of the unique color over there, they could have just shot it on the way to Vegas. (Of course this is before the latest color seems to be trying to turn the movie into fuckin STAR WARS TOKYO DRIFT )
Baronlando said:
imperialscum said:
Ryan McAvoy said:
Just needs a few touches probably.
I think the shot would gain immensely by just adding a clear blue sky. Maybe a dune sea in the background would help (since Luke's uncle states he lives in a dune sea).
But as I said, I love the SE version which does exactly that.
Except the sky in North Africa was rarely that clear california blue, they didnt want that, that was one of the whole reasons they went there, Lucas has spoken of the unique color over there, they could have just shot it on the way to Vegas. (Of course this is before the latest color seems to be trying to turn the movie into fuckin STAR WARS TOKYO DRIFT )
Come on, don't be ridiculous. It is not like there is a lot of cloudy days in North Africa at that time either. And the sky can be just "as blue" here as in California.
They actually had a bad luck getting storms while filming (as stated in Empire of Dreams by Watts)
真実
And yet, the shots done in Death Valley back in the states are easy to spot.
Where were you in '77?
Not as easy to spot as the blue/green screen shots in ROTJ and the PT.
imperialscum said:
Come on, don't be ridiculous. It is not like there is a lot of cloudy days in North Africa at that time either. And the sky can be just "as blue" here as in California.
They actually had a bad luck getting storms while filming (as stated in Empire of Dreams by Watts)
Jesus Christ, take it up with Lucas and everyone who worked on the fucking movie.
Or take it elsewhere.
Where were you in '77?
Baronlando said:
imperialscum said:
Come on, don't be ridiculous. It is not like there is a lot of cloudy days in North Africa at that time either. And the sky can be just "as blue" here as in California.
They actually had a bad luck getting storms while filming (as stated in Empire of Dreams by Watts)
Jesus Christ, take it up with Lucas and everyone who worked on the fucking movie.
Clam down. I wasn't trying to offend you. I was just saying that North Africa isn't really known for cloudy weather and that (according to Watts) they didn't search for clouds. :)
真実
I think a lot of this arguing belongs in the OT vs SE subforum. Can we please concentrate on the cinematography of Star Wars and the work of Gilbert Taylor.
I don't think Mr Taylor had a saying in which shot was going to be used to show Ben's hut, nor how it was to be retouched for the 97 SE.
So after a couple of days I was thinking about how ANH has a very realistic lighting scheme for the exteriors, and a very classical hollywood look for the interiors. ESB is very well lit as well, but it has a much darker and contrasty look (contrast in light, not colors per se). I feel both lend themselves well to the story they are telling.
What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.
ESB was a great deal more dynamic in general (some might even say 'showy') - a lot more moving camera and close-up work, often with longer lenses.
As you say, it's a different story and it makes sense to shoot in a different style - I like the visual evolution (at least as far as the first two films go - RotJ heads back towards the wide and static approach). Of course Lucas wasn't overly enamoured with the rushes...
The most interesting thing to me is a different director was used on each original trilogy film, and a different director of photography or cinematographer whichever you prefer.
Each film is kind of different visually.
All three prequels were directed by Lucas. All three shot by Tatterstall.
All three pretty ho hum and boring other than some nice cinematography in Phantom Menace which was still a terrible film.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
msycamore said:
I don't know, both work but I always liked the shot/angle used in John Jympson's early cut of the film more:
That's a much better shot, I wonder why they didn't use that. The original seems very bland and almost fake, like they used models or something. I don't mean it should be like the SE, no, but the angle is very uninteresting.
And in the time of greatest despair, there shall come a savior, and he shall be known as the Son of the Suns.
IIRC, the Landspeeder was optically added to the other shot in post. You can see what appears to be the sloping edge of the building showing faintly through it. The speeder is either a painting, or the miniature one used for other shots.
One wonders why they went to all that trouble with a better shot lying around.
Where were you in '77?
The building though real is about half the size of the building it's meant to be in the film so they had to put the speeder in post as it would be to the wrong scale otherwise.
But both elements have a physicality to them which is more tangible than the painting/model combination of the SE in my opinion.
Bingowings said:
The building though real is about half the size of the building it's meant to be in the film so they had to put the speeder in post as it would be to the wrong scale otherwise.
Interesting, could be the reason they went with an optical alternative. It actually never occured to me.
Top: John Jympson Cut Below: Film Version
Looking at them again side-by-side, I think they did the right choice even if the angle and composition of the shot is a bit uninspiring, the doorway seen straight on in the Jympson cut could be another factor for their choice. The interior scenes was originally actually timed quite dark compared to the earlier video releases where it was often incorrectly timed quite bright, but I guess that's a bit too much, we later also see windows in the set for the interior. Talking about the doorway, the nights must have been freezing cold, I would have invested in a door if I was Ben. ;)
As for clear blue skies vs cloudy skies discussed earlier, they also had to struggle keep matching adjacent shots as good as possible back then whereas nowadays you do all that in the computer, there's sometimes a lot of time between takes and different scenes when shooting a film which made these things difficult when you're on location.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com