|
Effectronica posted:You can't know, but someone with more than two neurons to rub together could look at how the characters are presented as both shadowed and on the same level, rather than one in the light and one in the dark, or one higher and the other lower, and conclude that neither is being presented as right, instinctively. They both reflect light, though? Neither are shadowed until after they express concern. E: actually, going back to the images presented, neither of them really lose light; the forward shots at the start just look brighter, and they have the light reflection for the entirety of the facial shots.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
Yeah. That is very true. Personal preference. I wouldn't call them bad shots either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Additionally, recognizing flaws instead of justifying them does not turn you into an un-fan. Nothing is ever a flaw if you can justify it. That's the entire thesis of this forum. That's the entire thesis of the Internet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Yaws posted:Do we know anything about Rogue One? It'll be interesting to have a Star Wars film that dispenses with the Force and Jedi and all that. If that's what they intend to do. Granted it's fair to not want the entire story to be about the Jedi order, but how come? Like it seems without that you would just have an action movie in the old serial style, and while that might well be fun, I'd hope it would be possible to do that without having to brand it as Star Wars. (Probably isn't, of course.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 23:51
|
|
Neurolimal posted:They both reflect light, though? Neither are shadowed until after they express concern. Seriously? High school art classes cover this. This is Color Theory Ninety-loving-Nine. Our perception of a color depends on its surroundings. Surrounding a color with darker or cooler colors makes it look different than surrounding it with lighter or warmer colors. A character that is surrounded by cooler colors looks differently than one surrounded by warmer colors. Most people tend to view a dark and cool composition more negatively than a light and warm composition. So, as a consequence...
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I hear this a lot. One of the most iconic Star Wars images is the stormtroopers. That's really all you need to make it Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:There's no fancy camera angle tricks being used in that scene. It's shot that way because Vader is much taller than Leia. It's a simple eye-line match cut. It's the most basic way to shoot a scene like that with characters of such noticeably different heights. Darth Vader and Leia are both being portrayed in literally the most neutral way possible. this would be true for the full shots, but the face shots are most definitely angled downward slightly/upward slightly. While you might be content with believing these are coincidences, have you considered that the shot is actually...intentionally good? Let go of your hate, let optimism and passion thrive. Dont hate star wars. quote:They're not bad shots. It doesn't matter how old or how new a movie is. A bad shot is a bad shot and a good shot is a good shot. That never changes. It's uncreative and expository, tradition can be challenged, classics and throwbacks are labeled such because we have evolved past them. "People are going to talk in this scene" isn't an excuse to stop the hamster wheel in your head. Any scenr not meant to generate calm boredom should have the creativity of the Vader's Darth Egg Shell scene.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Seriously? High school art classes cover this. This is Color Theory Ninety-loving-Nine. Our perception of a color depends on its surroundings. Surrounding a color with darker or cooler colors makes it look different than surrounding it with lighter or warmer colors. A character that is surrounded by cooler colors looks differently than one surrounded by warmer colors. Most people tend to view a dark and cool composition more negatively than a light and warm composition. So, as a consequence... So as a consequence, all the face shots look darker, even before they start arguing. I am glad we have reached common ground.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Nothing is ever a flaw if you can justify it. That's what 'justification' means.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Yeah. That is very true. Personal preference. I wouldn't call them bad shots either. Of course it's all up to preference. My argument just stems from the thought process "thing has flaw, older thing has some flaw, thing good? Both bad?". If you like or don't mind the chat scenes more power to you  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
turtlecrunch posted:Poe isn't in it so it's a wash.  I still really like the fact that the super skilled hotshot pilot also happens to be a really sweet guy instead of sticking with the usual Top Gun style hypermasculine stuff. And I really hope that continues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:In this case, you are endorsing both a midichlorian-style literalism (Christ had scientifically provable mutant powers that allowed him to rise from the dead, levitate, transform water into wine, etc.) and an associated belief in a grand design in which torture, slavery and whatnot are 'a part of the plan.' Believing Jesus did miracles isn't "midichlorian-style literalism" you goon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
The fact that he can wear one of those rebel pilot suits and not look (entirely) like a dumbass should serve as a testament to the actor's charm and physical acting chops in of itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:That's what 'justification' means. A post hoc justification of a flaw doesn't make it not a flaw. See: Bigger Luke Theory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Believing Jesus did miracles isn't "midichlorian-style literalism" you goon. Believing Jesus did miracles is christian literalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 00:07
|
|
Phylodox posted:A post hoc justification of a flaw doesn't make it not a flaw. See: Bigger Luke Theory. If a flaw is justified, it is not a flaw. Flaws are things that should not be there. If something is justified, it should be there.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:If a flaw is justified, it is not a flaw. Flaws are things that should not be there. If something is justified, it should be there. Alternate reality Bigger Luke confirmed for Episode VIII.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
homullus posted:"Not that stellar" is a weasel phrase that lets you get out of jail when somebody points out that the prequels were not anything close to universally panned. No matter how good the reviews were, well, they weren't THAT stellar, the arbitrary amount of stellar you will retroactively claim you meant. Roger Ebert knew movies, and the only one that got a "bad" review was Attack of the Clones, which was partly because he saw it on film rather than digital. He revised his opinion a little when he went back to see it again. OT got 4/4; Episodes I and III got 3.5/4 (Episode II on film got 2/4). Actually I was pretty clear that I said 80%: quote:Assuming well-reviewed is above 80, not one of the three has an aggregate number above that if you were to do a quick Google search.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Believing Jesus did miracles isn't "midichlorian-style literalism" you goon. Yes it is. If Jesus returned today and converted water into wine, then we could test the water for the presence of alcohol. True faith means accepting the evidence and then, nonetheless, still believing. That to say that I know that the Jedi were charlatans who exploited everyone with their mutant powers, but I also continue to believe that the Force exists in my solidarity with the droids and other 'lesser' beings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Why are people replying to SMG. The prequel chat is way too overblown, but there is some interesting things being said about them. I still don't like them at all and do not think they are any better then mediocre, but some people have raised some decently interesting things. It's when people get into bullshit like "Star Wars fans don't like Star Wars" that this thread disappears up its own rear end. Chickenfrogman fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 00:50
|
|
Phylodox posted:Alternate reality Bigger Luke confirmed for Episode VIII. It's actually really frustrating to see this kind of behavior, because what it says is that the person has totally closed their mind, which is always disturbing to see. Undoubtedly you're going to retreat into some other well-prepared rhetorical defense, pointlessly, because the culture of the SomethingAwful forums is poisonous, to the point where: Chickenfrogman posted:Why are people replying to SMG. Is the level of the conversation. Fear of being too sincere. It's disgusting. Abominable.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Speaking of eye-line match cuts. Here's Lucas actually intentionally using eye-line match cuts to dramatic effect in Attack of the Clones, in a way which I don't recall him ever doing in A New Hope:    And later in the scene, he does it again, this time using.....creative blocking!       Padme looks down at Anakin, telling him not to "grow up too fast." Then Anakin stands up to his full height, towering over Padme, and reminds her that he already is grown up. Lucas matches shots of Anakin to Padme's eyeline. But notice how Lucas neglects to match shots of Padme to Anakin's eyeline. This is important, because we the audience are meant to feel Padme's discomfort, while Anakin is choosing to ignore it. The choice Lucas makes here allows him to show a hint of temptation in Padme's ambivalent gaze toward Anakin, while still emphasizing the emotional distance which still exists between the two of them. Note the quite different approach taken in this scene (at 1:00): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ_PibZ1Q8M&t=60s Here, the eye-line matching is mutual, creating a sense of connection and intimacy between the two characters. Also note how Padme subtly parts her lips, how her eyes quickly dart down to Anakin's mouth and then back up to his eyes at 1:15, and how she otherwise maintainins constant, steady eye contact as she lets Anakin move in closer and closer. For those of you in this thread who might not know such things, allow me to illuminate you: Those are all clear, non-verbal signals that mean she wants Anakin to kiss her--even as she tries desperately to maintain her stony exterior. It's good, subtle acting. I know, I know, none of this was in the RLM review. I'm as shocked as you are, but I'm sure it was an honest oversight. After all, Stoklasa went to film school. Did you hear that? Film school! Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:It's actually really frustrating to see this kind of behavior, because what it says is that the person has totally closed their mind, which is always disturbing to see. Undoubtedly you're going to retreat into some other well-prepared rhetorical defense, pointlessly, because the culture of the SomethingAwful forums is poisonous, to the point where: If something isn't a flaw if it can be justified, then the very concept of a flaw ceases to have any meaning. Nothing is ever wrong if you're just willing to throw enough words at it. There's a difference between something being wrongly perceived as a flaw, such as Han's "parsecs" comment, and something being justified after the fact through convoluted, ridiculous logic, like "Bigger Luke" or whatever inane theories were concocted to explain how Han changes shirts between Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Is that sincere enough for you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:08
|
|
Phylodox posted:If something isn't a flaw if it can be justified, then the very concept of a flaw ceases to have any meaning. Nothing is ever wrong if you're just willing to throw enough words at it. There's a difference between something being wrongly perceived as a flaw, such as Han's "parsecs" comment, and something being justified after the fact through convoluted, ridiculous logic, like "Bigger Luke" or whatever inane theories were concocted to explain how Han changes shirts between Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Is that sincere enough for you? Well, I don't have whatever's wrong with your brain, so I can understand that just because somebody writes something, they're not necessarily convincing. So, for example, no amount of words will ever be convincing as to why Han's shirt changes, because we know that it was obviously a mistake. I think this disconnect is being driven by the desire to reduce this analog concept to a digital state, whereby we can run words through a program and determine whether they are truthful or not.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Man, I forgot just how poorly the actors are edited into a number of green screen scenes, whoever 5000 pages said ot was right; it's like you're watching an uncompressed FMV game. To quote the antihero protagonist of the fourth trilogy: quote:YOU may not have noticed it... but your brain did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:I know, I know, none of this was in the RLM review. I'm as shocked as you are, but I'm sure it was an honest oversight. After all, Stoklasa went to film school. Did you hear that? Film school! The RLM videos are just a series of funny videos. There's no need to be upset.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Well, I don't have whatever's wrong with your brain, so I can understand that just because somebody writes something, they're not necessarily convincing. So, for example, no amount of words will ever be convincing as to why Han's shirt changes, because we know that it was obviously a mistake. I think this disconnect is being driven by the desire to reduce this analog concept to a digital state, whereby we can run words through a program and determine whether they are truthful or not. Just because something can be read as not-wrong doesn't mean it can't also be read as not-right. His negative opinion of the prequels is just as valid as your positive opinion. It's not being cynical, brainwashed, or insincerity, he just isn't convinced of your theories nor has he become interested in them. Even optimists avoid dog poo poo (and are likely not convinced that it will make their shoes nicer....yet)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:this would be true for the full shots, but the face shots are most definitely angled downward slightly/upward slightly. While you might be content with believing these are coincidences, have you considered that the shot is actually...intentionally good? I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Eye-line match cuts, by definition, have nothing to do with full shots of all the characters and objects in the scene. I don't know why you're even mentioning them. The face shots are indeed angled slightly downward and slightly upward. That's how you do eye-line matches. If the camera wasn't angled slightly up or slightly down in the face shots, it would result in a feeling of discontinuity in the editing. That's the default way to film close-ups of characters of different heights who are engaged in face-to-face conversation with each other. Observe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUR3jCeGCm4 Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:The RLM videos are just a series of funny videos. There's no need to be upset. I'm not mad. You're mad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
I mean, just because it's technically competent doesn't mean it's ascetically pleasing. You may appreciate Lucas' locked down style, but there are people that don't and find it super boring. Blocking and all that IS important, no doubt. But a little flair would be nice. Something to keep the audience moving through a scene.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
I care about as much about whether or not the shot is a standard shot as I do what the director's intent was: none. It works for me because I believe that it asserts Leia as defiant, and that's all I need.quote:I'm not mad. You're mad. Lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:I care about as much about whether or not the shot is a standard shot as I do what the director's intent was: none. It works for me because I believe that it asserts Leia as defiant, and that's all I need. Maybe your opinions about those shots has less to do with how they're composed than what they contain?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Just think how many books of text were written about the Prequels on these forums. Then look in the mirror. And look down. Then go to the medicine cabinet and take out those blades. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Discussing movies on a movie discussion forum is bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Discussing movies on a movie discussion forum is bad. "Actually the opposite is true" -Zizek
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
korusan posted:what part don't you get? The prequels didn't get that stellar of reviews. I think the comment " Aside from Phantom Menace these were neither huge cultural events or long remembered favorites " is rly funny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Maybe your opinions about those shots has less to do with how they're composed than what they contain? I believe it's both. Leia making a big ol' grumpy face helps, but making her look even smaller also helps. Sometimes Standard works just fine or even better-than-fine. sometime's it doesn't. Remember that the original argument was less "the old trilogy has amazing camerawork" and more "the old trilogy has less boring uninteractive scenes than the PT". The PT example shot has some interesting technical work. It is also dull as balls otherwise. In one scene you're a stormtrooper escorting Leia to the brig, in the other you're an embarassed waiter who accidentally walked into The Snuggie Society Gathering.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Discussing movies on a movie discussion forum is bad. Reaching so hard you eventually go up your own rear end in a top hat then back out your mouth is not discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:Reaching so hard you eventually go up your own rear end in a top hat then back out your mouth I wonder if there is an animated gif of this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:Just think how many books of text were written about the Prequels on these forums. Then look in the mirror. And look down. Then go to the medicine cabinet and take out those blades. I had fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
teagone posted:I wonder if there is an animated gif of this. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 02:07
|
|