|
Fake news
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
I guess what people are complaining about in terms of composition seems to be that they can tell it's a thing superimposed on another thing- they find the effect itself unconvincing. But when I say "those shots look really cool actually" I'm more about the colors and lights and the way elements are arranged, because that's cool. Digital superimposition isn't perfect but from an aesthetic perspective, it's a drat sight better than old traveling mattes and the like. (c.f. The Black Hole, which has gorgeous modelwork and some quite pretty art direction but is marred by thick matte lines everywhere.) There's less of that ugly contrast or degradation of film elements. In the special features of the Criterion Godzilla there's a nice bit where an actress in one of the more recent Godzilla movies was looking at King Kong vs. Godzilla and sorta chuckled at a shot of some model tanks, and the person watching it with her explained, "If Eiji Tsubaraya wanted to he could have gone and shot some actual tanks. Making it look as real as possible wasn't the point." To a certain extent all it matters is what it looks like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
The Corusanct chase scene in AotC had some dope imagery
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Hmm. AotC strikes again
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
 Maxwell Lord posted:I guess what people are complaining about in terms of composition seems to be that they can tell it's a thing superimposed on another thing- they find the effect itself unconvincing. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
To go with what Maxwell Lord was saying, I think this shot is a good example of something that might not look particularly real, but has a great aesthetic anyway (YMMV). In the story it's just an apartment building, but the lighting and haze give it this painterly, fairy tale-ish feel that sells it as something fantastical from another world. Compare to, say, Endor in ROTJ. It looks entirely realistic because it was shot in the forests of northern California. And it also looks completely boring and mundane, like the characters are just walking around in the forests of northern California.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
This is an incredibly smug and annoying post, you haven't understood his point at all. He's saying it's irrelevant whether they're using actual models or not, the post-production treatment of the image doesn't work for some people, and it's understandable given the aestehtics of the film. I bet this is one of those things where you take what is a completely subjective reaction and impute an entire ideology to it, or a malign intent. Some things just are off or uncanny to some people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
This is loving dumb: Kelly Marie Tran, ‘Last Jedi’ actor, faces racist online harassment quote:Rose Tico’s homeworld — actually called Hays Minor — was renamed “Ching Chong China.” The user also attributed a fake quote to Rose: “Heil Hitler and I don’t know why I was casted in a good movie like Star Wars.” What in the actual gently caress. First off, why is this even news? Don't give the troll rear end in a top hat who did this media attention. Second, LOL @ "good movie like Star Wars" am I right? (Shut up) Tender Bender posted:I'm assuming red letter media asked this in their review since everyone is parroting it as if it's a reasonable question. Sorry dude. I didn't watch the RLM review of TLJ so I'm not sure what it looked like I parroted. AndyElusive fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Dec 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
"Casted"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:This is an incredibly smug and annoying post, you haven't understood his point at all. He's saying it's irrelevant whether they're using actual models or not, the post-production treatment of the image doesn't work for some people, and it's understandable given the aestehtics of the film. I bet this is one of those things where you take what is a completely subjective reaction and impute an entire ideology to it, or a malign intent. Some things just are off or uncanny to some people. Maxwell wrote about the compositing, and I posted an example of absolutely seamless compositing. It is quite impossible to tell how much of the image is a model and how much is CGI. (Is the building on the right a model? Probably - but I honestly can't tell.) But, as expected, people are still uncomfortable/upset at something in the image. And I am showing, rather objectively, that this 'something' is not 'CGI'. It is not 'compositing'. The discomfort comes first, and then the justifications are invented retroactively. If people were being honest, they might say that they hate miniatures. But no-one would dare say this. So, again, the reasons have instantly shifted to, uh... 'aestehtics(sic) causing subjective reactions to... post-production treatment of the image'...? And that's nonsense. Hydronium is closer to the point: the movie is not 'natural', where 'natural' is synonymous with 'mediocre'. He even points to the 'natural' Endor scenes as a counterexample, when they feature some of the most obvious compositing in all Star Wars:  The true problem is obviously that the prequels don't look lovely enough. They don't look cheap enough. The image is so perfect, in its depiction of something impossible, that there are two conclusions: either they built an entire apartment building on an alien planet, or it must be CGI.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
UmOk posted:Fake news You mean I'm suppose to use my loving eyes?! Those are only reserved for looking at poo poo like solar eclipses! And not with any of those pussy rear end lib glasses bullshit!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:
Why would you do inverted commas, maintain my typo, only to fabricate something I said and call it nonsense. Good post!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:Why would you do inverted commas, maintain my typo, only to fabricate something I said and call it nonsense. Good post! "He's saying it's irrelevant whether they're using actual models or not, the post-production treatment of the image doesn't work for some people, and it's understandable given the aestehtics [sic] of the film." I cut off the redundant first part (which should have probably ended in a semicolon), then parsed the remainder: "Given the aestehtics[sic] of the film, it's understandable [that] the post-production treatment of the image doesn't work for some people." In other words, you wrote that the aesthetics caused subjective reactions to a (nebulously-defined) post-production treatment. And that's nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:This is an incredibly smug and annoying post, you haven't understood his point at all. He's saying it's irrelevant whether they're using actual models or not, the post-production treatment of the image doesn't work for some people, and it's understandable given the aestehtics of the film. I bet this is one of those things where you take what is a completely subjective reaction and impute an entire ideology to it, or a malign intent. Some things just are off or uncanny to some people. My point is that people should focus less on "does it look real" and more on the pure aesthetics. Effects are always going to age, but that doesn't mean real is always better. In King Kong it's obvious that the filmmakers did not go on location to a tropical island, Skull Island is all sets and matte paintings, but it is a more fantastical environment than if they'd restricted themselves to places that actually exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Things are getting hot and heavy in,this thread
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
pretty weird that they would make all those giant cgi people and not even use them in the film
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Transformers used practical models too but no one gives a poo poo because like Croissant and the chase scene it's all vapid baubles for imbeciles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It's called paraphrasing. I did not alter the meaning of what you wrote. Let's go step by step: That's all well and good but the films still look like poo poo. What's on screen tends to look ugly, bland, or some combination thereof. By contrast I think Episode VIII came out looking much better while still using what I assume were similar techniques. This techniques we're better utilized and the result was a better looking film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Flying Zamboni posted:That's all well and good but the films still look like poo poo. What's on screen tends to look ugly, bland, or some combination thereof. The trouble is that it has been proven, over and over, that you have no idea what you are talking about. If you were to post a screen from each movie, as a sort of 'moviefight', you would fail to articulate anything in support of one film or against another. You will not write anything about this 'utilization'. Your apparent goal, in the movie discussion forum, is to stifle discussion of movies. Instead of simply posting two screencaps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Flying Zamboni posted:That's all well and good but the films still look like poo poo. What's on screen tends to look ugly, bland, or some combination thereof. Okay, so what's wrong with these from a composition/lighting/etc. perspective?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Okay, so what's wrong with these from a composition/lighting/etc. perspective? Nothing. It's personal preference. A nice composition is okay, but doesn't really do much for me, unless it's reaaaallly striking. Like any shot in Blade Runner 2049, is awe inspiring, where's the prequels it's just...alright I guess. It looks like 50's space movies, like this Island Earth as discussed previously, but so what? I don't like those films or their style much either.  There's just not much going on, overall, which is why it leaves me with an empty feeling.Like the Corsuant underground bar stuff seems okay in theory, but overall it leaves me cold because it's way too over lit, and doesn't have enough atmosphere. It looks like an average night club with some aliens. It needs something, like smoke, to give it that extra kick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
That's a valid preference to have. There's just far too many people who say "The prequels are lazy filmmaking with nothing but poorly done cgi, no craft" to which Luke Skywalker would say something like "Everything you just said in that sentence is wrong".
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
I'm gonna take a guess and say when someone says bland or CG sucks they mean something may look too "clinical/smooth/clean." Texture helps. Even Bungie made a comment that as they developed Mastercheif with more computing power, they actually downgraded the number of polygons and instead concentrated on textures making the character model more "realistic" or "advanced" From a storytelling perspective and otherwise, they look fine to me. I also think the Hulk from Ang Lee's 2003 movie is good because of how it interacts with its environment, skin, and performs. Technology and ability what it was at the time, it works in the aid of the story/setting. Conversely I think the ending fight of Letterier's Hulk is pathetic because it is merely two poorly animated CG blobs going at it and when I saw it in the theater you couldn't distinguish one from another for clear action or choreography when they got physical in each other's space.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
I mean, I love a ton of films with dated effects. Like I appreciate the end of The Terminator, with the stop motion Endo running around, despite it not looking so hot. But it's neat for people like me, who tend to think maybe on a more technical, filmmaking point of view, I get it. How can you show a hulking robot skeleton running around in wideshots when your budget is tiny as hell? Stop Motion made sense. The problem I have with the prequels, is just, overall they look really bland to me. Like isolated frames look good, but on the whole it's super boring. It's either a locked down shot, or a dull pan across a room, or even a really boring slow zoom. The only time I perk up is when I see some dolly track action going on, and it does liven it up a bit. I do know why though. It's because it's not that easy to track a dolly track shot when your whole background is blue. That's what those little tape crosses are for. But I'd imagine the technology was not there yet where they could do it as seamlessly as they can do it now. But I could be wrong, and maybe Lucas just wanted it to be that way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Keep one thing in mind. Corcusant is supposed to be clean on the surface, it's the central city of a major power and home of the Jedi. There's a ton of filth but on the surface it's supposed to be a modern advanced city. The other locations are more raw and jagged and chaotic, especially where Anakin and Obi Wan have their final duel. The green screen is what it is but the environments are varied and do support in the background the themes and undercurrent of the story. That is one additional reason why, they are good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
It doesn't need to be filthy, but it just kind of lacks texture. It's hard to describe, but like, maybe add some fog just to break up the visuals a little bit. That's the only thing I could think of off the top of my head. It's just too clean of a frame. But that's probably due to the digital cameras.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:It doesn't need to be filthy, but it just kind of lacks texture. It's hard to describe, but like, maybe add some fog just to break up the visuals a little bit. That's the only thing I could think of off the top of my head. It's just too clean of a frame. But that's probably due to the digital cameras. I do get what you mean. There is fog or smog as some of those shots show, it breaks up the light as the cars are flying in the early daylight. But I think one thing that is meant is they are too "smooth," no bumps or rockiness, and not flawed enough. There's no grime, no particle effect, its clean light on surface and looks efficient. At least in the Corc shot. It's surgical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Like the Corsuant underground bar stuff seems okay in theory, but overall it leaves me cold because it's way too over lit, and doesn't have enough atmosphere. It looks like an average night club with some aliens. It needs something, like smoke, to give it that extra kick. The scene in question was shot using hazers to provide an atmospheric fog. You can see this effect quite obviously in the background of this shot:  This effect is employed throughout to make the characters in the foreground stand out against the overall darkness of the setting. In other words, the smoke machine you thought was missing is actually what caused the 'overlit' effect, as the haze was deliberately employed to reduce the contrast of elements in the background of the image.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Gatts posted:I do get what you mean. There is fog or smog as some of those shots show, it breaks up the light as the cars are flying in the early daylight. Exactly. Which is fine for the Clone place. Which I don't mind the look of that, outside of the iffy compositing of Obi Wan in some of the shots. But it does look nice. The bar stuff just isn't all that striking to me, as it is for others.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
I'm imagining people complaining about how the fog, if they had included it, looks like something from a PS2 game.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Yeah the visual “dislike” is ideological; they don’t like the movies because of memes, so the goalposts always have to keep moving
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:I guess what people are complaining about in terms of composition seems to be that they can tell it's a thing superimposed on another thing- they find the effect itself unconvincing. it actually looks really good, though, even in terms of realism. When I'm watching those scenes almost nothing stands out to me. I never even remotely question that the characters are real people flying through a sprawling futuristic city. There is some dodgy CGI in the prequels that stands out. But I honestly have no earthly idea how anyone could watch that speeder chase sequence and think it's so bad that they're actually embarrassed on behalf of the filmmakers. The only thing that looks dodgy to me is one shot of Obi-Wan hanging on to the droid in the beginning. Otherwise it's a spectacular sequence and an amazing special effects accomplishment. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Dec 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
A similar amount of atmospheric haze is employed for the prison scenes in Guardians Of The Galaxy, which is a very aesthetically similar film to the prequels - albeit with not-as-good cinematography. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:Yeah the visual “dislike” is ideological; they don’t like the movies because of memes, so the goalposts always have to keep moving Same except for TLJ and everyone who dislike sit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
One of the best parts of the club scene is Anakin catching the eye of George Lucas's daughter and wrecking Ahmed Best's game:
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Same except for TLJ and everyone who dislike sit. Mind, ideology is as fine a reason as any to dislike a movie, it’s just that prequel hating people aren’t honest. Plenty of folks who dislike TLJ have honestly and openly said that the they don’t like it because they don’t like, say, the direction of Luke’s character People who say they don’t like the prequels seem to hide behind “CGI bad”
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:Mind, ideology is as fine a reason as any to dislike a movie, it’s just that prequel people aren’t honest. Plenty of folks who dislike TLJ have honestly and openly said that the they don’t like it because they don’t like, say, the direction of Luke’s character So not my luke. Which invalidates your opinion here on the cine of d's. Just fyi.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:So not my luke. Which invalidates your opinion here on the cine of d's. Just fyi. Invalidates? Are you under the assumption Lowtax is going to ban people for their movie thoughts or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:Yeah the visual “dislike” is ideological; they don’t like the movies because of memes, so the goalposts always have to keep moving "Compositing" has replaced "editing" as the chief prequel complaint.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:35
|
|
