ST The Color of The Force Awakens

Exactly. A night raid aboard a closed up troop transport that's having a somewhat bumpy landing isn't going to be perfectly lit. The other shots are very much similar to the standard SW palette. The Daisy Ridley scenes and the X-wing cockpit obviously have a newer look to them, because the movie is, well, new. And there is nothing wrong with that. I'm not going to flip out because the Empire decided to install bluish lights on their night raid dropships.

 

Sure they can

 

I think they have to use some newer colours and techniques to sell in that this is actually 30 years later.
This is "now" in the star wars galaxy.

It is a trick of the mind that I'm all for.

 

Didn't really like the approach to cinematography. Like others have said, very blockbuster and quite generic. Still, a lot changes in post-production with regards to filters and what not (but let's face it: the basic look will be that of Abrams' Star Trek).

 

I like it. For me, it makes it feel fresh.

 

That's a good point, and something I had thought about. In-atmo with overcast skies will produce flatter lighting, so I can excuse it being an extreme case when it comes to dynamic range. That being said, the lack of true highlights and shadows and the teal/orange palette are still glaring, and it's consistent with the other shots people have posted. (Stormtrooper armor should be white, not mushy greyish-teal.)

For me, it feels like every other recent blockbuster. (Images behind spoiler tags.)

Spoiler

I'm gonna go bleach my eyes now.

 

Then behold the next evolution in color cinematography.

 

I don't think it looks like that collection of shots above at all. The trooper shot DOES lean towards that, but so what. The rest of the shots just look pretty naturalistic to me.

Also I'm sure you could find lots of films from 1977 with a similar colour palette to ANH.

 

Lamentable as it might be, 30 years have passed both in universe and real life. It looks like blockbusters do nowadays? SPOILER ALERT: It is going to be a blockbuster next year.
JJ might go back to using puppets and props to make the film less plastic thant the PT, but he won't make it look like a 30 years old movie.

 

Second one looks "video gamey" to me compared to the first.

Before I face the pitch forks, though, such a look in Star Wars is not a bad thing to me.

 

I can't believe this thread exists.

 

Abadacus's point wasn't about modern technology. Rather, Abadacus's point was about excessive teal and orange tinting in some modern movies. Is anything that's not teal or orange considered "looking like an old movie?"

 

You should go to the preservation section of the originaltrilogy.com forums if your in disbelief that people do such things. Go pick up Harmy's Despecialized editions if you want to see a master at work. TESB is particularly gorgeous, what with bringing it's colors more or less back to it's proper original theatrical palette and not that god awful bluray mess.

 

I actually like the color grading in the troopers scene. The atmosphere reminds of Republic Commando.

 

The color did not bother me each episode looks different anyway. The color on the prequels were diffrent than the OT. This felt like both trilogies but fresh at the same time.

 

I hope that the ST has its own colour palate just as the other two trilogies each have a unique look to them. By the look of TFA so far, it does, which pleases me

 

"Fresh" is something totally different from "bad" (and the two are anything but mutually exclusive). Screwing a film up in post by tinting all the backgrounds in tones of blue and bringing up the orange hue in the faces is a disease of modern cinematography. It looks unnatural, it looks fake, it looks like crap. It was done subtly in this teaser compared to other films, but it was still done, and that's a bad sign.

Movies don't have to look as they did 30 years ago. They merely have to look good. There are many movies released within the last 5 years that have a rich color palette. But the vast majority of movies that cost more than 100 million to make have been "tealed" in post. Compare the Hobbit movies (more restrained in this regard than most blockbusters, but still guilty) with the Lord of the Rings trilogy -- same cinematographer. Notice how the LotR movies look the same way reality does, while the Hobbit movies look like a video game?





Which one looks more like what your eyes can see and which looks stylized and fake? In the first picture, the faces really pop out. And that's the only reason this is done. Is it worth it? Does your eye not go to the faces in the second picture, anyway?

 

In your opinion.

 

And in the opinion of most people who have experience in cinematography and color grading. Ask around in circles of professional cinematographers, colorists, etc. You'll find they generally share my opinion.

 

I'll get right on that. So if that is a popular opinion among the professional cinematographers, colorists, etc., why are so many films doing it? Nevermind, I'll ask them when I talk to them later.

 

Everything posted is the opinion of the poster. Worthless post.

In my opinion.

 

Because the faces of the actors pop out against the background by making the former orang-er and the latter blue-er. It's not the cinematographers that are doing it. The cinematographers shoot the movie and deliver it. Then it goes into a computer where this is done to the picture because it's been established now as the "blockbuster look" and every producer expects it.

That's what your cinematographer friends will tell you as well, when you have your little chat later on.

 

For those complaining about the amount of blue and orange in a Star Wars movie it's like none of you have ever seen The Empire Strikes Back.

 

Well, I happen to like it. So there...