|
Where is the idea that Jedi are Water Margin/Dynasty Warriors caliber warriors coming from? In the OT Vader is always shown with support troops and is never in the first wave indicating hes not a front line fighter and in the PT we see in attack of the clones that sustained fire absolutely will wreck a Jedis poo poo way before the order 66 stuff. All the Jedi we see in order 66 montage are emplaced with troops as well so them getting gunned down is an eventuality since theyre literally surrounded by enemies. I vaguely recall one of the Jedi during that montage does fight back but gets taken out because their are tons of clones.
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 07:42 |
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:
The PT has exactly the same division, the only difference is the distribution of environments; since the PT is more a movie about the "civilized" places, they occur in greater proportion. But the dirt is all still there in the fringe spaces - Tatooine, Geonosis, Utapau. We even get the Cloud City contrast in AOTC's Coruscant, with a clean, artificial, civilized upper level that transitions into a dirty, lived-in, dangerous lower level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 18:37
|
|
on the used future aesthetic
|
Oh god how am I just now finding out about this http://www.starwarsringtheory.com/
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Some of the most striking shots in the franchise are actors standing in front of matte paintings. Some of those paintings were digital. Rogue One contains some of the strongest examples.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Rogue One is just under Empire Strikes Back for "best-looking Star Wars movie", though I really like the New Hollywood aesthetic of the first film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:Yeah, the used future concept is greatly misunderstood. It's a certain choice of aesthetic for particular environments that says something about those environments, not a hard and fast rule. The OT is filled with overly clean and geometric spaces - the interior of Star Destroyers, the Death Star, the upper levels of Cloud City. Hell, the very first interior shot of the series is all clean white geometric corridors. Those are the "civilized" spaces, Imperial and otherwise. Things get dirty, junky, and asymmetrical on the fringes - Tatooine, the lower levels of Cloud City, and most prominently the Falcon. Precisely. Dirt is used, in these films, as a class signifier. Force Awakens abused this imagery to promote its feudalist ideology, while it's totally apt in the stridently leftist Rogue One. Note the imperial pilot's cheap goggles and long, messy hair. Obvious contrast with Krennic and his fuckin' cape. Rogue One is a solid class in characterization through visuals: costuming, props, and so-on. These lessons are taken directly from Lucas' films - like how Luke keeps the utility belt from the stormtrooper he killed, and uses the equipment inside to escape danger. Force Awakens, as a direct contrast, has characters constantly drawing attention to and explaining what their costumes mean. Poe points out that Ren's mask is weird. Leia points out Han's coat is the same. Phasma points out that FN isn't wearing a helmet. Poe points out that FN's wearing his coat. Han points out that Chewbaca's gun is big. And so-on. And the things that aren't explained are weak. After the big underlined image of FN shedding his armor, Abram's vision of a rogue stormtrooper - struggling to survive the desert - is a dusty Steve Jobs. "Prequel haters versus prequel lovers" is not a real conflict. It's instead a question of those speaking in terms of art, aesthetics, and ideology, versus those stuck trainspotting deviations from an unarticulated (and apolitical) good-realism. ("It's just bad. The movie's lighting's not realistic. It's bad.") What people are basically calling for is an untheorized naturalism, as if 'naturalism' hasn't been deliberated over for millennia. It's not even a question of ignorance, because you don't need to know very much to come up with a rudimentary definition of what nature means you. People are just having enormous trouble forming useful conclusions from their observations. "I can see a seam in the compositing!" So what? The implicit point seems to be that reality itself is 'seamless', and art should reflect this by eliminating error and explaining everything. Is that really... it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Well yeah, duh, but it's aesthetically displeasurable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
quote:After the big underlined image of FN shedding his armor, Abram's vision of a rogue stormtrooper - struggling to survive the desert - is a dusty Sterling Archer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Well yeah, duh, but it's aesthetically displeasurable. You merely voicing displeasure, not talking about aesthetics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:You merely voicing displeasure, not talking about aesthetics. Me am voice displeasure indeed. I don't care if it looks fake, plenty of films look fake, I just don't think it's fake in a way that's fun to look at. The intrusion of from-within terrorism in the placidly safe faux-utopia hotel room culture is nice (see also: Elephant, Playtime, etc), I just wish it was done with more panache. It's appropriate that the prequels came at the end of the Clinton administration. The best visual signifier of class in Rogue One is Jyn rolling around in the mud at the beginning vs all the Empire people having the world's most well-buffed floors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:People are just having enormous trouble forming useful conclusions from their observations. "I can see a seam in the compositing!" So what? The implicit point seems to be that reality itself is 'seamless', and art should reflect this by eliminating error and explaining everything. Is that really... it? The world loves to be deceived.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I don't care if it looks fake, plenty of films look fake, I just don't think it's fake in a way that's fun to look at. The intrusion of from-within terrorism in the placidly safe faux-utopia hotel room culture is nice (see also: Elephant, Playtime, etc), I just wish it was done with more panache. If you don't think the prequels have enough panache then I honestly can't imagine any movie ever satisfying you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:If you don't think the prequels have enough panache then I honestly can't imagine any movie ever satisfying you. The two I mentioned certainly do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:The two I mentioned certainly do. I wasn't sure if you were putting forward Rogue One and Empire as examples of panache, because I though you had moved on to class signifiers. So, if I understand you right, you'd be better satisfied with the amount of panache if the prequels had more mud and more buffed floors? Schwarzwald fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:So, if I understand you right, you'd be better satisfied with the amount of panache if the prequels had more mud and more buffed floors? I was real bummed when they cut the scene where Padme and Amidala had to mud wrestle to win over the Gungans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:I wasn't sure if you were putting forward Rogue One and Empire as examples of panache, because I though you had moved on to class signifiers. Basically, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Filthy Casual posted:I was real bummed when they cut the scene where Padme and Amidala had to mud wrestle to win over the Gungans. ...in Episode 3, The Handsome Devil
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Why do the obvious matte paintings in the OT get a pass? There's no mistaking them for real locations, they're very clearly paintings. The matte paintings, while often fake-looking, are used sparingly and are rarely in the forefront of scenes. By contrast, early-2000s CGI and bluescreen is front and center in the prequels constantly and for extended periods of time, especially in the latter two. Nobody would complain if there was a CGI shot setting up that Obi-Wan was on Kamino, followed by him talking to a real thing in a real room, the way restraint and common sense required them to use matte paintings in the original. Also, people are willing to forgive janky effects when the movie around them is fun and otherwise competent. The ugly fakery of the prequel films is almost a negligible issue in relation to everything else they fail at.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Since the movie is somewhat sparse on characterization and relies on existing knowledge of Star Wars, I thought it might be interesting to look at the poetry and rhyme - Luke Skywalker's story is about learning that your father is not who you thought he was, but that you can still save him and all your friends. Jyn Erso's story is about learning that your father is exactly who you thought he was all along and you never should have doubted him, but he needs you and your friends to die for his cause. Discuss.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Luke believed his father was a hero of the Clone Wars who died a great man. He was right on both accounts, it's just that the second part didn't come til Jedi.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Metropolis was a movie I know about. I guarantee you they arent referencing anything with the fact they fly in line except that it looked pretty
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:The ones who fought back sucked and lost too, so it's not just that. They're just all around awful at anything that isn't blowing up robots. https://youtu.be/Cu_80StDyfQ This dude kills like half of them before he is down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
underage at the vape shop posted:I guarantee you they arent referencing anything with the fact they fly in line except that it looked pretty In a series of movies that visually harken Flash Gordon, Kurosawa films, Japanese Kabuki, Shaw Bros. films and neoclassic architecture, thank god Something Awful forums poster underage at the vape shop is here to confirm that Lucas has never seen Metropolis and only does things because they look pretty.  I think you may be confusing Lucas with JJ Abrams my friend.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Razputeen posted:Nobody would complain if there was a CGI shot setting up that Obi-Wan was on Kamino, followed by him talking to a real thing in a real room, the way restraint and common sense required them to use matte paintings in the original.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
Lucas seems like a guy who almost certainly has a reference or inspiration point for most of the stuff he does. Not in a bad way, just that he seems to draw inspiration from many things and includes them in his work. Whether or not that makes his work achieve any higher level of quality is subjective of course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Razputeen posted:Also, people are willing to forgive janky effects when the movie around them is fun and otherwise competent. The ugly fakery of the prequel films is almost a negligible issue in relation to everything else they fail at. What, specifically, did the films fail at?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Soggy Cereal posted:Jyn Erso's story is about learning that your father is exactly who you thought he was all along and you never should have doubted him, but he needs you and your friends to die for his cause. I don't think Galen was explicit about that part, but Luke was only able turn Vader once he accepted he'd likely die trying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Martman posted:I think people complain more about the scenes where real humans talk to each other in real rooms than other scenes. No
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:What, specifically, did the films fail at? Well, failure implies intent. At the most basic level, presumably (and I do not know this for sure) Lucas failed at his intention of creating films that were not synonymous with "incompetent laughingstock" in the zeitgeist which destroyed his career and that of his leading man, causing him ultimately to bitterly sell his intellectual property to white slavers (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
saying 'they're bad' does not answer the question of 'what is bad about them' please post harder, not more
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
Failure to capture the audience at the time is not the fault of the movies themselves but of the audiences who weren't ready for it, and the unexpected echo chamber that was the emerging internet. Blade Runner suffered the same fate, but it didn't have the internet around for people to fester on their emotions and eventually the movie found a new audience, just as the people on the internet who have progressed past their preconceived notions have rediscovered an appreciation for the prequels.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
More importantly, they just aren't "fun". I tried rewatching them over Thanksgiving and they are an absolutely slog. Lucas argued that they are children's films. I'm fine with that. But I'm not going to try and learn to love the "Troll Movie" or the "The Chipmucks: Chipwrecked". They can be fine for children but as an adult they are absolutely abysmal. There are movies that can be enjoyed by both children and adults. To me and pretty much everyone I know, the prequels are just poo poo. My friends with kids will tepidly defend them, Episode One is a big hit with the kiddos so they have to watch that a lot. Even then, nobody likes loving Clones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Old people say the same thing about the original trilogy. The original trilogy are baby movies (with big themes no doubt) and you are a baby for liking them, but it's justified because you were a baby when you were first exposed to them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:Failure to capture the audience at the time is not the fault of the movies themselves but of the audiences who weren't ready for it, and the unexpected echo chamber that was the emerging internet. Blade Runner suffered the same fate, but it didn't have the internet around for people to fester on their emotions and eventually the movie found a new audience, just as the people on the internet who have progressed past their preconceived notions have rediscovered an appreciation for the prequels. TPM and AOTC went pretty much unchallenged, hence why RLM exploded once articulating what wasn't able to be said.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
temple posted:People were not ready = people are dumb unlike me, smart film watcher. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsWTiafB21Q I will concede that unlike RLM, this made me actually laugh at the time. It didn't make me want to become a spergy Randall clone though. And I wouldn't call myself a smart movie watcher. More of an open minded one. You should try it some time. There are some film gems out there that usually get overlooked because of petty superficialities. ruddiger fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Dec 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsWTiafB21Q edit: Nerd show references nerd topic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:Old people say the same thing about the original trilogy. I'd say they original trilogy is more juvenile/young adult. There's definitely some sexuality in them. Which the prequel trilogy lacks. Anyway, did anybody else enjoy how Scarif has basically the same planetary shield arrangement as Druidia from Space Balls?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Haha, for sure. The entire space battle at the orbital gate, I could only think, "It's Mega Maid! She's gone from suck to blow!" re: sexual imagery in the prequels. 
ruddiger fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Dec 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
The prequels are way more sexual than the original trilogy. Like, the most sexual the OT gets is PDA, and it's either explicitly in a sarcastic context (Leia kissing Luke), or it's a rather conventional consenting relationship between two freedom fighters/terrorists/heroes. It isn't until Anakin in the prequels that we get a character where a central component of their struggle is their traumatic sexual development. Like, Attack of the Clones is all about reproduction. You know. This movie about cloning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 07:42 |
|
|
Personally, I think the prequels are weighed down by dialog so clunky it's like the refrigerator box of unwieldy footwear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 05:39
|
|
