That's what i'm saying though. These complaints all apply to Rey.
The Star Wars problem
- Thread starter Shinzon4u
- Start date
No, I'm not saying that at all. There are other factors that I grade films on.
TFA gets massive pluses just for having the OT actors and props, for instance, and that's a major thing bumping it up to where it's at on my list. The whole Ben/Leia/Han thing is, for me at least, the heart of the film.
While Daisy Ridley is great, Rey is unfortunately too much of a random element for me to care about at this point. That the Force is strong with her is really the main thing we know about her. Besides a lack of clarity about what the political situation in the galaxy is after the fall of the Empire, other things missing from TFA include greater clarity about what happened to Luke's Jedi school, who the heck Max von Sydow was playing, and, if there's any relationship between why Rey was left on Jakku and the destruction of Luke's school, not to mention also von Sydow's character maybe tying it all together, then all of that should have been stated in the film as well. For example, was Rey hidden on Jakku after Luke's school was destroyed to hide her from the Knights of Ren? Seems possible; if it turns out to be the case, that information should have gone into TFA.
Why is ROTS so low on my list? Here are three random examples.
The medical droid says that Padmé lost the will to live. Baloney. She was being psychically killed by Anakin's physical transformation into Darth Vader happening across the galaxy. The droid should have just said that there is a force at work that it didn't understand.
Obi-Wan's duel with General Grievous on Utapau is absurd.
More banal dialog (after AOTC) at key junctures, e.g. "Anakin, you're breaking my heart."
It's literally impossible for me to articulate everything in my head.
He (it?) does say that. "For reasons we can't explain, we are losing her. We don't know why- she has lost the will to live".
Strike the second sentence, and it's much better.
You don't have to be in photography to see that, take the CGI usage some of it works better than others. To me the opening battle in ROTS just looks fake, and even though it was made a twenty or so years earlier the ending space battle in ROTJ looks more real. I think that's what hurts the PT the over use of CGI and less use of physical sets/effects. Compare that to TFA which seemed to balance the use of CGI and practical better. Sure TFA has it's flaws, i.e another superweapon
It may be subjective, but I am inclined to agree with you. I did not find the PT compelling, while I'm sure many others do.
So, subjective.
They could only shoot the ship models from angles where the stand/protrusion wasn't visible. Also the laser compositing looked primitive.
CGI allows for any any conceivable angle to be filmed.
And physics breaking.
As does model work, it depends on how many hard points the prop has, it can have more than one. You can also have multiple models if you can only have one hard point on the model.
Yes, but for RotJ they for some reason, maybe money, they didn't have mirrored for most of the ships. This is from a doc on Youtube, can't remember the name but it's about the SFX of either Star Wars or ILM.
And this is actually what made some of the space battle scenes in the prequels look fake to me. The crazy "camera" movement actually makes it harder for me to suspend disbelief compared to a less manic camera movement. It's the same with CGI-heavy action scenes in other movies that don't take place in space. When camera movement seems too crazy or "impossible" to me, I get reminded that this is just... video game.
Wouldn't that just be because you're used to it being more limited?And this is actually what made some of the space battle scenes in the prequels look fake to me. The crazy "camera" movement actually makes it harder for me to suspend disbelief compared to a less manic camera movement. It's the same with CGI-heavy action scenes in other movies that don't take place in space. When camera movement seems too crazy or "impossible" to me, I get reminded that this is just... video game.
Being able to shoot the scene as if it was real seems like an advancement to me.
The following idea is attributed to Orson Welles:And this is actually what made some of the space battle scenes in the prequels look fake to me. The crazy "camera" movement actually makes it harder for me to suspend disbelief compared to a less manic camera movement. It's the same with CGI-heavy action scenes in other movies that don't take place in space. When camera movement seems too crazy or "impossible" to me, I get reminded that this is just... video game.
"The enemy of art is the absence of limitations."
Seems apt.
That's kind of ironic to me considering this quote from and article I l enjoyed from The New Yorker-
"The labyrinthine opening shot of “Revenge of the Sith”— of Anakin and Obi-Wan giving chase to Dooku through the space vehicles on the planet of Coruscant—is a mighty and audacious gauntlet-throw, the digital equivalent of the opening shot of Orson Welles’s “Touch of Evil.” It wheels and gyrates and zips and pivots with a vertiginous wonder that declares, from the beginning, that Lucas had big visual ideas and was about to realize them with a heroically inventive virtuosity. And the rest of the movie follows through on that self-dare."
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cu...ven-star-wars-films-reveal-about-george-lucas
That is sorta ironic.
That's an interesting comparison, but there is a major important difference between the two opening sequences: the Touch of Evil sequence climaxes in a car bomb going off, whereas the ROTS sequence ends on anticlimax.
In what way is it an anticlimax?
This can be true, lets look at Jaws, they had issues with Bruce (the shark) in Jaws and the film is much better because of the limited use they could get out it. So a limitation turned into a positive.
The energy of the film is sucked into space when the fighters skid into the hangar, which is confirmed by the fact that the following hangar bay sequence and everything including climbing the spire is utter dullsville. It was already teetering on the edge when the buzz droids deploy onto Obi-Wan's fighter.
Hmm, I disagree with that. The crash is very exciting to me, what with how they barely make it in and all. I also love the visual of Obi jumping out of his ship in a high arc.
No, not really. It's not "being able to shoot a scene as if it was real". It's actually quite the opposite. Impossible camera movement kills suspension of disbelief. And in CGI-heavy space battles I'm not convinced the "camera pretends to be a fighter" thing is actually more immersive as it might increase the video game aesthetics feel. Whereas a more neutral and slightly less "crazy" observer position feels more realistic.
It's obviously even worse in CGI battle sequences that happen on a planet. When the "digital camera" does movements you couldn't really do with a real camera you're reminded of the fact that this is just computer-generated.
Suspension of disbelief works best when there's as little "crazy" elements as possible so that you buy the few crazy things that are in the shot.
This is why TFA works so well. The practical effects and props add a sense of realism to the scenes that make it easier to swallow the CGI.
