|
It's a bit of a confusing shot because it's not really in sync with the rest of the movie. IIRC the lighting doesn't really lead to that scene at all, and it doesn't really reference it afterwards. Now in (for example) Man of Steel, the world always looks like this:  So the corresponding reference seems more organic: 
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
Instead of seeming like a montage it seems like part of a sizzle reel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
wyoming posted:If it really is when they attack Maz' temple, I'm guessing it was from a scrapped shot on Jakku they reused because it looked too good to waste. That's exactly the case; Maz's planet doesn't have any moons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Wait, what's the shot we're talking about? It's broken for me in the original post, so I was opening it in a new tab. It may have taken me to the wrong one. I don't see any moons in the Apocalypse Now shot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
ThePlague-Daemon posted:Wait, what's the shot we're talking about? It's broken for me in the original post, so I was opening it in a new tab. It may have taken me to the wrong one. I don't see any moons in the Apocalypse Now shot. The star is getting partially covered from two sides, at least implying there are two or more moons. Hat Thoughts posted:drat, ur right my dude, the fact that ppl can't agree which planet the picture from the movie's on is totally evidence in favor of the movie's visual storytelling skill. Nam Myoho Renge Kyo  wyoming posted:Some people can't handle any criticism against films they like. Irony. Cnut the Great posted:They obviously also used sand, yes. There was a lot of that lying around, too. I'm not a fan of the special effects changes in the special editions, so I was legitimately unfamiliar with this shot. I'll concede the point. Friendly Factory fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
I'm oddly fascinated by that little spherical pod with the big portholes by the freighter. It looks out of place the way tourists do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Friendly Factory posted:I'm not a fan of the special effects changes in the special editions, so I was legitimately unfamiliar with this shot. I'll concede the point. In this shot a little robot flies up to a bigger robot going BEEDABOO~BEEDABEE~BEEDABOO in an irritating way and the bigger robot smashes it to the ground. Truly a worthwhile addition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Friendly Factory posted:The star is getting partially covered from two sides, at least implying there are two or more moons. The top one's definitely a cloud, you can see it extending off to the left. I think the bottom one is part of the landscape.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
MrSmokes posted:There's nothing wrong with actual good criticism. It's perfectly valid to critique the cinematography of a film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
ThePlague-Daemon posted:The top one's definitely a cloud, you can see it extending off to the left. I think the bottom one is part of the landscape. The image is of two, simultaneous, partial solar eclipses, as in this real-world example. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Yeah, I see what you think it is. It just isn't that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
ThePlague-Daemon posted:Yeah, I see what you think it is. It just isn't that. The artists didn't accidentally put together an SFX shot with massive semispherical clouds that look like moons until you inspect the borders of the frame. The point is that it's a sci-fi landscape - a riff on Episode 4's binary sunset.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
You're right, they didn't do that. The top ones is flat before it leaves the sun, and the bottom one is clearly landscape. ThePlague-Daemon fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
You're getting the eclipse and the landscape mixed up with the horizontal clouds that are obscuring everything. The shot is hazy and distorted by design, while the basic image of three spheres is identifiable at a glance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Hot take: the poster is good, and the only people confused are the people choosing to be confused.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Nobody is confused by the poster. The guy that made the poster, however, was confused by the opening shot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
cargohills posted:Nobody is confused by the poster. The guy that made the poster, however, was confused by the opening shot. Has anyone been in touch with him to confirm this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:Has anyone been in touch with him to confirm this? Death of the illustrator. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:Has anyone been in touch with him to confirm this? Yes, by reading the poster he made & published.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
We'll that big "planet" obviously isn't Jakku. So yes, he either misunderstood or didn't try very hard to make a Jakku like texture (which would be out of place considering all the other work he did). As an aside the little "moon" is our actual, existing-in-the-sky Moon, which I'm pretty sure isn't TFA. I was also confused by the logistics of the opening shot, after seeing it twice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
The audience is looking up from Jakku at the moon and a large ship flies overhead. I don't get what's so confusing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Complain to the artist, then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:Has anyone been in touch with him to confirm this? The alternative is that the artist was perfectly aware that the transports did not go to the moon, but portrayed them doing so anyways because what actually happened in the movie did not match their vision of what they felt should have happened (or at least, what they felt would look good on a poster). If that were the case, it'd be sort of a fan reedit. Schwarzwald fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:The alternative is that the artist was perfectly aware that the transports did not go to the moon, but portrayed them doing so anyways because what actually happened in the movie did not match their vision of what they felt should have happened--sort of like a fan reedit. Or thought 'this would look cool in a poster'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:The alternative is that the artist was perfectly aware that the transports did not go to the moon, but portrayed them doing so anyways because what actually happened in the movie did not match their vision of what they felt should have happened--sort of like a fan reedit. Or he took some artistic license to make it look closer to the other three posters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
I need to start previewing my replies rather than editing my posts after the fact. This thread moves to fast for me to get away with that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
All the other posters show things flying towards the viewer. The TFA poster is the only one that shows things flying away. But we're getting away from the point here: the opening shot reads as an establishing shot of a location. The basic image is of a planet being enveloped by a dark cloud. But then the small ships fly away from it towards the actual (offscreen) setting, so you end up with conflicting information. If a regular movie opens with a shot of the moon, we know that the action is probably not set on the moon because of context. But the people watching Star Wars Episode 7 have no way of readily identifying what they're seeing. "Oh, those are Jakku's moons. The action must be taking place on Jakku at night." Nobody thinks this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:If a regular movie opens with a shot of the moon, we know that the action is probably not set on the moon because of context. But the people watching Star Wars Episode 7 have no way of readily identifying what they're seeing. "Oh, those are Jakku's moons. The action must be taking place on Jakku at night." Nobody thinks this. Thankfully, the movie shows the transports descending followed immediately by one of our characters watching them come down to Jakku through the sky at night, in what I'd call perfectly cromulent visual storytelling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
I can honestly say I was never confused about what was happening on screen at Star Wars: Episode Seven: The Force Awakens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Saying The Force Awakens is confusing is the new trilogy's equivalent of "I hated how CG everything looked!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Somebody (the poster artist) has been demonstrably confused. Please don't be dense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I can honestly say I was never confused about what was happening on screen at Star Wars: Episode Seven: The Force Awakens. Phylodox posted:Saying The Force Awakens is confusing is the new trilogy's equivalent of "I hated how CG everything looked!" Right? The movie might have it's flaws, but until this discussion flared up I never heard "I couldn't follow the film" being one of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
You still haven't heard that complaint because nobody here is saying that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
cargohills posted:Somebody (the poster artist) has been demonstrably confused. Please don't be dense. Or, again, he just thought it looked cool
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Dr. Memory posted:I'm oddly fascinated by that little spherical pod with the big portholes by the freighter. It looks out of place the way tourists do. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/9000_Z001_landspeeder That may be a CG version but there was a practical one parked somewhere near the cantina in the original version of IV. When the teaser for TFA came out some speculated that BB8's head was modeled after it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Jerkface posted:Thankfully, the movie shows the transports descending followed immediately by one of our characters watching them come down to Jakku through the sky at night, in what I'd call perfectly cromulent visual storytelling. I agree that the shot is understandable afterwards, but that's just the thing: it's only understandable afterwards. The movie has to explain itself. Why not just make it clear what's happening to begin with? Granted, there can be good reasons for having it happen that way. For example, a film that had misperception or confusion as a theme could use such a sequence to make a point. TFA doesn't do that, however. It's uncertain just for the sake of being uncertain. Savidudeosoo posted:Right? The movie might have it's flaws, but until this discussion flared up I never heard "I couldn't follow the film" being one of them. No one has actually said that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:You're getting the eclipse and the landscape mixed up with the horizontal It's hazy, but the basic shapes are clear, and they aren't spheres. The lower landscape doesn't look like Jakku, either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Jerkface posted:Thankfully, the movie shows the transports descending followed immediately by one of our characters watching them come down to Jakku through the sky at night, in what I'd call perfectly cromulent visual storytelling. The issue is that the audience doesn't know what Jakku is, at this point in the story. Since the opening shot immediately reads as an establishing shot, many naturally assume that the following shot with BB8 takes place on that white moon. The only way to avoid this confusion is to not only pay attention to which way the ships are going, but pay more attention to their direction of travel than on what is conveyed by the rest of the shot. The simplest way to avoid this issue would be for the camera to follow the transports down towards the surface of the third sphere. That's what they did in Empire Strikes Back:  These are the first four shots of the film, and each one conveys a new piece of information. Shot 1: A large 'aircraft carrier' type of ship is traveling through space. Shot 2: We cut to the underside, from which a bunch of pods emerge, and fly in random directions. The camera follows one of them. The aircraft carrier continues flying 'up', away from the pod. Shot 3: A reverse angle. Pod is now flying into empty space. The aircraft carrier is no longer visible. Shot 4: The exact same angle, but the pod is now over a planet. This cut instantly conveys the passage of time. The pod hasn't changed direction, but is now in an entirely different location. Shot 5 [not shown here]: The exact same angle, with the pod now entering the atmosphere. It's only on the sixth shot that we actually see the pod land, from roughly the perspective of a person standing on the planet. Abrams essentially mixes the information from shots 1, 2 and 4, then cuts pretty much directly to shot 6. And the 'shot 4' component is narratively irrelevant - gratuitous/distracting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
If it helps, I've used mspaint to re-edit Empire Strikes Back to look more like Force Awakens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:56
|
|