JCC Embrace The FU - Formerly the STAR WARS IS BAD thread

These guys know nothing about impractical lightsabers.

 

What kind of cinematography does Star Wars even have? Honestly the cinematography is not that noticeable in any Star Wars film even the OT, it's very simple and straightforward, not particularly dynamic - it takes a backseat to everything else, even the editing. Which I'm fine with, it actually helps the audience immersion when you forget the camera is there. The most dynamic shots in any of the OT are the model shots - probably because there was a separate special fx cinematographer.

Honestly a general issue with many films these days (but the prequels especially) is there's a clear distinction between the live action and model (or, in the case of the prequels CGI) shots. The cinematography should be seamless. In a full CGI environment the "camera" can do anything - sweep, arc, pan, zoom - it's limitless, and you can get carried away with gratuitous single-take shots that feel like a roller coaster. Stuff you could never do with a physical camera on a set. You automatically know if you're watching a cgi or live action scene because the cinematography suddenly switches gears. And that tends to pull me out of the movie.

 

I think on some other website, someone said, "What's next, someone wielding two double-bladed lightsabers with both arms and then twirling them around like a majorette?", and I almost wanted to say:



"General Pong Krell says hello".

 

loved it. welcome back, Star Wars. I've missed you for 31 years.

 

I think you notice it more because there is a clearly defined sky, ground, and horizon. The Death Star trench run has some very similar shakeycam moments as do some of the scenes in ESB and ROTJ. Then there was the massive Coruscant battle in ROTS. So there is some precedent, not quite like this particular shot, but very similar in style and I think more people would be saying something if it *wasn't* moving about to some degree.

And yes, the contrails and dust kicked up were awesome! Reminds me a lot of Howard Hughes' work "Hell's Angels" where he would reshoot it multiple times to make sure that there was enough cues in the background to suggest motion. This can be done only so well in space, the change to a land/sky based fight is a most welcome one, IMO.

 

Tch, a few old familiar spaceships zooming about for a few seconds and everyone becomes a squealing fanboy/girl.

 

7 seconds for the falcon tracking shot. I don't think there's a single fx shot in nu Trek that holds for more than 1 or 2 seconds. the SW teaser trailer already has a longer attention span than all of nu Trek, so at least we know Abrams is capable of making a few adjustments.

 

Man, that saber looks dumb.

Anyway, it's mostly just faces and things flying around so other than it being an overly recycled OT I don't know what got people so excited. I remember the TPM and RotS trailers being more exciting-- and way more exciting than the movies themselves.

 

I think because we were already familiar with the story and characters. With this it's a bit more of a who cares, because we don't know who we're supposed to care for.

 

i'm so glad the teaser didn't trot out the withering original cast members for their "NOT TOO CLOSE!" ups.

 

i dunno guys...

 

I don't know about you guys, but the MF's obviously spotted some Olive Garden soggy breadsticks in that teaser!

 

Only after a few rounds of the unlimited pasta. The MF has some junk in the trunk if ya know what I mean, and I ain't talking about the cargo hold.

 

Is this a Carrie Fisher joke?

 

Did I mention her at all?

 

No I was just putting 2 + 2 together.

 

How can it be a Carrier Fischer joke if there is no reference to cocaine?

You're clearly spending too much time with Tunes.

 

I wasn't really in awe...it did however made me tilt my head a little as I thought, heh not bad. but I gotta admit the falcon shot was exciting to watch. other than that, I didn't care much of anything else.

 

Cool.

 

This looks like a clip--albiet with appropriately updated graphics--that could be taken from the period between ESB and ROTJ. That could either be a wonderful or an awful thing. I absolutely don't want a retread of the same story we already had, and which wasn't even novel the first time. Nor do I just want a lift of "iconic" imagery. But including these elements doesn't mean that the story will take such a route.

All that we can conclude from the trailer is that this will probably look pretty. That's been true even in the worst entries. Not sure what else there is to say at the moment.

 

So is the lightsaber intended to mimic a claymore, or is the apparent crossguard more of an exhaust for the seemingly unstable crystal/beam? It looks more like two welding flames.

(wow, it's been 9 years and I totally just slipped back into 2SA/3SA geek mode.)

 

And you're somehow getting 5 as a result. I have no idea what you are getting at here. My comment was about the Falcon looking differently, specifically with the rear of it being right there in the camera. It has nothing to do with your accusation that I was somehow (in a way that still puzzles me) making fun of Ms Fisher and I find your comment to be trollish and in incredibly poor taste.