ST The Cinematography of Episode VII

I so love the effects of the OT. The over the top laser blasts, the smoke/sparks from when a lightsaber hits something. Makes it feel more real.

 

Too bad the blasts got censored.

 

I kind of agree that it looks better without the blasts. Maybe I've just gotten used to living in the digital age, but there are many times when the effects of the OT look too much like special (practical) effects to me. They look like they exist in real life, but they often don't feel as well-integrated, and no more realistic than CG to me.

 

I'm not too fond of the squibs either. They look like squibs, not like blast impacts.

 

It's the best that could be done in 1977 and it looked great and in fact still does. It's not fair to judge 35 year old effects by today's standards. No argument for cutting those holds water. If it's deleted because "it doesn't look as good today" it's a simple blast point that could've been improved in any of the special editions without much effort and without looking fake or shoehorned in. Going by the logic of deleting stuff from old movies "because it doesn't look as good as it used to" will lead us to burning a whole lot of film reels. The other argument of being "more kiddie friendly" or "less violent" or whatever is just plain silly nitpicking. It's just a flash of light when someone gets hit by another flash of light, followed by lots of smoke. It's like censoring Power Rangers. We're not talking Bloody Mess perks from Fallout here, it's just a flash of light. It may seem like no big deal, and in the long run it isn't, but it's just making those scenes a few frames less cool looking for no reason at all.

 

Except that this was the main point of the Special Editions in the first place. The first film in particular never lived up to Lucas's vision of what it should have been so he removed many of the effects that he thought looked the worst. Most of them were replaced or enhanced with CG and/or digital compositing, but those were ones he was content to just cut. I think it's basically an improvement, especially when you consider that you don't see blasts like that in the rest of the OT.

 

IT'S NOT FAIR!

 

Agreed. I think it's an unnesesary change, but I understand the reasoning behind it. The change certainly doesn't bother me - although I really dislike the 'new' over the top sound of breaking glass that's plastered all over that particular scene.

 

The Lens flares JJ produces comes from the use of Panavision anamorphic lenses. Originally this was an error that never got corrected by panavision because they believe it is an art form. Currently the 2nd best lenses in the business "Zeiss" has introduced anamorphic lenses that have fixed the flare issue. Man of Steel was shot on 35mm film with panavision anamorphic lenses and although there were "flares" they looked like they actually belonged there. I can understand why some people do not like flares but JJ has said he is aware of this and he will probably not have them in star wars.

 

What does a blast impact look like?

 

I don't know, but it came from the Death Star! It's fully operational!

 

To be facetious for a second... the problem with a squib, in this particular scenario, is that they are obviously exploding outwards. I'd imagine that, If anything, smoke would be drawn inwards and out of the back rather than exloding outwards from the point of impact - unless they hit a stormtroopers fuse box.

 

That's why probably my favorite single "blast impact" in the saga (or at least the only one that made me think "that was cool") is this one in ESB:

(jump to 1:16, and yes, this was the best version I could find)



It really looks like a laser just punched a hole right through his chest. But also notice the "sparksplosion" preceding it isn't totally exaggerated. Love it.

On the topic of cinematography, I really hope they experiment with some (healthy) camera movement during the action scenes. Not referring to shaky/handheld, but smooth movement where the camera itself is changing position on set. Two of the coolest shots in the saga are shots from the lightsaber duels that use camera movement. One in TPM where the three due lists are fighting towards the "massive lightbeam chamber" and the camera moves towards them as they back up into the massive room. The other is in ROTJ, when Luke is going ballistic on Vader, and the camera simply moves from one side of the room to the other, tracking the movement of the two duelists. I realize Star Wars action scenes typically maintain minimal camera movement to preserve the classical feel, but I think there's room for experimentation. These are new films, after all.

 

Some steadycam movement could add quite a nice feel to the action sequences.

 

I don't mind some camera movement and even a little experimentation. I just don't want a lot of extreme camera moves like in Star Trek where it's all turning upside down and such and it hardly ever stops moving.

 

Absolutely, and I think people (including filmmakers!) tend to forget what comprises the "art" of a good action scene : it's an arrangement of movement and collision that's meant to stimulate the senses. Too many filmmakers go straight for "collision" and forget about movement. That's why so many people moaned about the indecipherably shaky fight scenes of the Bourne trilogy. Sure, you could tell that someone was getting punched, but there was little of the primal glee conjured by, say, the trench run in ANH, which is almost entirely about the movement and speed of the subjects, allowing the collisions to have even more impact. You may think it unfair to compare a two-man brawl to an outer space dogfight (you could replace the ANH trench run in the sentence above with the Neo/Agent Smith duel from the Matrix if you like), but my point is this: the mental appeal of an action scene is basically the same appeal that draws people to those guys twirling fancy lights at raves, or going on a rollercoaster: we like to see things move and interact in interesting ways. The filmmakers who realize that are often the most successful.

 

To me, the worst offender of excessive camera movement by far is Michael Bay. I never cared to get past the first Transformers, but even before that when I saw The Island, it was the only time in my life that I found myself yelling at the screen to put the camera down for five seconds.

 

Two very good examples of camera movement.

Two more from the PT. Firstly, in AOTC when Padme and Anakin are in the field in front of the waterfall. The slow track along with the extensive dialogue gives a tranquil and peaceful atmosphere. Secondly, in TPM when the hologram of Palpatine is wondering where the Chancellor's envoys are. It goes around him as he speaks and then moves rapidly to Padme giving an urgency to the situation they are in.

I think SW uses camera tracking quite subtly so that it does not jump out as a "device" but immerses the viewer in the film.

I hope, as said above, that healthy experimentation is used to convey the emotional ambience of scenes. But at the same time to be seemless like the music.

 

I agree, I couldn't take the 2nd and 3rd Transformers. There was SO much camera movement I couldn't follow what was going on. I think I was almost motion sick. And I'm a roller coaster guy, I can go out to sea on a small boat, but Micheal bay makes me almost toss my cookies!


As far as the squib blast removal controversy, I don't think Lucas removed them because they "didn't look good", I think it was a 100% for a "less violent" look. If he just didn't like the way they looked, he would have CGIed in something better. Most of the stormtroopers were left exploding, just not plain clothes officers. And I haven't found proof, but I think some of the squibs were removed from the Rebel Fleet Troopers in the opening sequence in ANH.

I'm just saying if J.J. has a plain clothes person shot with a blaster, I want to see a squib explode! Hell, I'll even let him put in a lens flare too! At least it would make sense.

 

The only argument in favor of the squibs that I'll ever need.

But since we're on the subject of squibs, if GL removed the squibs from ANH because he thought it wasn't family-friendly, then why do we see even uglier and more gruesome instances of lasers hitting people in episodes of TCW - a show made for children and put on a children's network? Just one instance: Pong Krell gets killed, and you can see the laser hitting him in the back and drilling a rather ugly, orange burning hole that no one could possibly mistake for anything else. If they're willing to do that on the Cartoon Network, then no excuse for censoring the squibs holds any water at all.

Personally, I'd say keep the squibs, and make them big and obvious on plain-clothes people being shot (NOT just people in body armor, where the shot hitting flesh can be hidden); in other words, EMBRACE THE FACT THAT GRUESOME DEATH IS A FACT OF LIFE ITSELF, AND STOP BEING A DAMNED WUSS ABOUT IT. These films are supposed to teach people about how life works; the fact that people get killed, and that murder looks ugly, is as important a part of life as any other, and more important than many other parts.

 

Hey, laser guns are getting quite real these days.



In fact, I would argue that an exploding squib looks far less violent than a plain-clothes officer slowly being set on fire then combusting completely, shrieking in agony, as a more real laser would cause him to die

 

Which is exactly what we saw in ROTS, by the way. So I'm not sure what the big deal is with squibs.

 

Hey squibs are people too!