|
The TFA one is better in this case because it's the classic "buddies ride off into the sunset," establishing an expectation of a bond between Rey and BB-8. We already know about the droids' squabbling relationship by the time we see this image in ANH, and it tells us nothing new.
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:33 |
|
|
I think a lot of the individual shots in TFA are really very good. The movie doesn't pace them well to let some of them really sink in though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
I also thought TFA was way too quick but I am very old so who knows.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:I must be bad at this, because I actually enjoy the shots from TFA more in this comparison, for the most part. And I'm not going to be able to point out why or explain myself all that well, so apologies ahead of time. But I love how much more the camera moves in The Force Awakens. There's such an energy to it, it engages me. The cinematography of TFA is perfectly fine, even if it's not my preferred style (or even, really, the general "Star Wars style" as established up to this point). I'd still argue that the original Star Wars has better cinematography, but it's not something I particularly hold against TFA. I'd even have to agree with homullus that the specific TFA shot you posted, at least taken in isolation from its context, is more interesting than the ANH shot. The actul problem I have, and which that video illustrates, is the lack of originality in the way the imagery is utilized to tell a deeper story. There's a subtle but very real difference between well-executed visual "rhyming" and empty referencing, and it's actually something I think is pretty easy to articulate. To start with, take this famous shot from A New Hope:  Here's J.J. referencing it in TFA:  It's a technically fine shot. It's quite pretty, even. But is it doing anything new, really? Like, at all? Or is it just blindly aping something that Lucas did in the original Star Wars? I'd argue the latter. Now compare it to the multiple occasions in the prequels where Lucas references that twin sunset shot. First, the obvious one:  Superficially, it's even more of a rip-off of himself than what J.J. did. It's a shot of two people (plus baby Luke) staring out at a twin sunset in the exact same way and in the exact same location as in ANH. Except the tone and context of the ROTS shot is completely different. Whereas the ANH shot is filled with an overwhelming sense of melancholy about unfulfilled dreams, the ROTS shot communicates a sense of hopeful optimism about the limitless potential of the future. By referencing his original shot, Lucas subtly subverts it and in fact turns the entire original meaning completely on its head. Lucas also references the twin sunset shot in Attack of the Clones, and again completely subverts it:  Here, we find Anakin standing in the same place where Luke stands in ANH, gazing out at the horizon. But whereas the focus of the shot in ANH was on the suns setting on the horizon, the focus in AOTC is instead on the long shadows being cast in the opposite direction. Whereas Luke yearns desperately for change, any sort of change, and gazes longingly into the future, Anakin fears the change and uncertainty that the future brings, and remains emotionally tethered by the shadows of his past. This is made all the more evident in the very next scene, where Anakin is shown pitted in a desperate race against the setting suns, which we now realize he must have been staring down in the previous shot:  Lucas goes one step further in ROTS and actually references his own reference from AOTC, emphasizing the thematic connection between these two moments:  A single tear runs down Anakin's cheek as he looks to the horizon, to the future, and sees only light being eclipsed by darkness:  Once again, it's a creative variation on the motif established by A New Hope, one that reinterprets familiar imagery specifically in order to make a new point. That's the difference between rhyming and referencing. Lucas actually does something meaningful with his references to past films. He has an actual story to tell. It's not about fan service, or giving people vague warm fuzzies, or the fetishization of consumerist nostalgia. Most importantly, it's not about Star Wars. It just is Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Lucas pilfered themes, shots, character archetypes etc. from previous movies. Star Wars is fun but not because of originality or unique story telling techniques. TFA is no different
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:Lucas pilfered themes, shots, character archetypes etc. from previous movies. Star Wars is fun but not because of originality or unique story telling techniques. TFA is no different
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:Lucas was able to synthesize a variety of different sources into a single cohesive whole- not a whole lot of similarities otherwise between stuff like The Hidden Fortress, Metropolis, The Searchers and Triumph of the Will. TFA's point of reference, from what I can tell, seems to only be other Star Wars movies. And that one Apocalypse Now shot but it quite literally does not fit in with the rest of that scene (because it was pilfered from a Jakku fight).
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
I can sort of understand wanting to reference Apocalypse Now though since Lucas was going to direct that originally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Stuff about sunsets While I didn't agree with all of it; this was a drat fine post and I wanted to let you know I appreciated it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Yeah, nice post Cnut.  I loved the scene of Rey speeding along in the distance. It was so calming. I forget, was it after she traded her poo poo in? It just seemed so chill. And the distance sound of her speeder humming relaxes me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Another ANH/TFA side-by-side comparison video: The difference in the legibility of shots here is striking. Abrams tends to fill the frame with a lot of little elements and shoot them in a way that de-emphasizes the character, object, or action that is the focus of the shot or scene. There are shadows that provide visual depth and an ominous tone, but also obscure facial performances and cloak the background so that the viewer has little idea what the space looks like at a glance. On the other hand, Lucas uses a steadier camera, stronger lines of action, and hierarchical composition to give A New Hope the look of an animated comic book, for lack of a better way of describing it. Very interesting stylistic differences that I probably wouldn't have picked up on without this video.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:I'm probably going to regret this, but here's an example (not of the movement, but of a comparison I like better). In this case, you're right, but the person making the video messed up. The shot of Rey walking is definitely not a reference to those two robots trundling into the hut. There's no similarity at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:In this case, you're right, but the person making the video messed up. The shot of Rey walking is definitely not a reference to those two robots trundling into the hut. There's no similarity at all. It's Luke walking home with the droids following. Same as the Rey shot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:It's Luke walking home with the droids following. Same as the Rey shot. Rey isn't bringing BB home. She's bringing BB to the motorcycle so that she can quickly transport him to the marketplace. The only similarity in the shots is that there's a robot rolling away from the camera.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Rey isn't bringing BB home. She's bringing BB to the motorcycle so that she can quickly transport him to the marketplace. The only similarity in the shots is that there's a robot rolling away from the camera. Nope. It's twilight when she finds BB-8 and it's daylight when she takes him to the market. And to top it off she even says to him "In the morning you go." She's heading home with him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:Nope. It's twilight when she finds BB-8 and it's daylight when she takes him to the market. And to top it off she even says to him "In the morning you go." She's heading home with him. Right, but we don't see any scenes of Rey or BB chilling at home (which is rather odd, now that I think about it). The film skips straight to the market. All the other shots in the video show similar compositions and/or similar imagery (e.g. a person being interrogated by a guy in a black mask, a person escaping detection by hanging off the edge of a bottomless pit, etc.). That shot has only similar plot content. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Watched it again this past weekend. It was still fun and I enjoyed it even if the ANH parallels are painfully apparent. All the lightsaber noises and visuals were awesome so you know fingers crossed for more of that. It's a very pretty film, but JJ just has no way to let off the accelerator in any of his films. If I have any particular complaint it would be that one which is just sorta his thing so  I found it visually interesting that no matter how much Kylo tries to escape the light, in every sequence with him he can't. There is always light pouring onto him or surrounding him no matter how hard he tries to get rid of it. Literal light that is. I don't think the film is as devoid of visual metaphor as some folks have claimed in here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
 I like this comparison. The original film's shots seem more geometrical and deliberate overall and TFA's seem more frenetic and open-framed. That doesn't seem quite right, is there a spectrum to how open a composition is, or is there a better word I should be using? I like the original movie's version of that shot better. I like that kind of geometrical design. It creates a nice sense of depth here. I also like how the value of the lights and darks is kind of inverted. Having to change where the gun is pointing to accommodate the mostly unchanged silhouette weakens the composition a little, though. I wonder how much of an impact that specific scene had on the color scheme of the new TIE fighters? ThePlague-Daemon fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Right, but we don't see any scenes of Rey or BB chilling at home (which is rather odd, now that I think about it). The film skips straight to the market. The film does not skip straight to the market though and easily shows that it is the next day. The Poe/Kylo interrogation scene takes place in between and that conveys a feeling of a night passing. As they arrive at the market Rey talks to BB-8 about how he should not give up hope and that she knows all about waiting. She is obviously continuing a conversation they've been having and she has taken a liking to BB-8. They are hanging out together until Poe comes back. ZoCrowes fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:The film does not skip straight to the market though and easily shows that it is the next day. The Poe/Kylo interrogation scene takes place in between and that conveys a feeling of a night passing. As they arrive at the market Rey talks to BB-8 about how he should not give up hope and that she knows all about waiting. She is obviously continuing a conversation they've been having and she has taken a liking to BB-8. They are hanging out together until Poe comes back. The point of that video is to compare visuals. The audio is removed, and the TFA shots are even presented out of chronological order. You're relying on dialogue and other things you remember from the full theatrical cut of TFA, which defeats the point. Also, here's an interesting comparison:  Top image is from one of the trailers, while the bottom is from the blu-ray. Besides the very wonky contrast, they did a bit of a phantom edit there. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Thanks for yet another awesome post Cnut. I really do love these a whole lot. It's turned me from being somewhat ambivalent about the prequels to sort of passionate. Out of curiosity, have you seen any documentary footage of Lucas walking through his own storyboards with this type of analysis? I know he liked to do a lot of his own storyboarding- that seems to bolster a lot of the author's intent in a lot of your examples.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Death By The Blues posted:Also, besides lens flare the only thing distinctive I can tell from Abrahams directing is his need to make the camera float, not as noticeable as a steadicam or shakicam, but rather wafting in the air. There are many floating cameras in Star Wars, appropriately enough. ThePlague-Daemon posted:
R2-D2's eye and BB-8's eye are both cameras, and both films contain close-up shots emphasizing the droid looking through them at something. R2-D2 is a tripod, with a steady eye; BB-8 is a ball, whose eye is always at an odd angle. R2 narrated the previous six films, but he slept through the seventh, where BB-8 witnessed the story. Neat!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:
You don't concede much do you? You said the shots had nothing in common. They had quite a bit in common. It's the protagonist returning home with droid(s) in tow. When someone points out a fairly straightforward contextual mistake you just keep equivocating. The video is comparing similar shots and their associated story beats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:I'm dying over that picture of Jar Jar in the right column. So that everyone can benefit(...?):  e: What a fantastic way to start a new page!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
Even with the audio removed, you still get a sense of time passing, and its made explicitly clear that simon pegg is the one to bring up enslaving BB-8. The shot borrows from the typical "wanderer and their new companion" shot, which in turn puts emphasis on BB-8 being a character, not merchandise. He's not hauled back on a sled. Not that you should remove audio from film, of course.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:Thanks for yet another awesome post Cnut. I really do love these a whole lot. It's turned me from being somewhat ambivalent about the prequels to sort of passionate. Out of curiosity, have you seen any documentary footage of Lucas walking through his own storyboards with this type of analysis? I know he liked to do a lot of his own storyboarding- that seems to bolster a lot of the author's intent in a lot of your examples. Once again, I can't really give any more specifics other than to read the making-of books, watch the behind-the-scenes material, and listen to the DVD commentaries. If I can point to a specific quote or behind-the-scenes tidbit that can back up my reading I usually do. In this case, at least, I think the intent is hard to deny: The Phantom Menace posted:SHMI : Son, my place is here. My future is here. It is time for you to let go...to let go of me. I cannot go with you. The setting of the suns is explicitly linked to the inevitability of change, and specifically to the idea that Anakin must learn to let go of his mother.   In AOTC, Anakin attempts to defy fate (note the reprise of the "Duel of the Fates" musical theme during this scene) by trying to outrun the setting suns, but his efforts prove to be futile. The suns are depicted as being steadily ahead of him, no matter how fast he tries to go. His failure to halt the natural cycle of change is highlighted by the prominent appearance of triplet moons where the twin suns used to be in the sky, coinciding with a dramatic red-to-blue palette shift: 
Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Mar 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Sweet! As always, you emphasize a lot of things that are not obvious just with casual viewings of the films. George and co. got a lot better at this stuff as they went along, I think, while JJ doesn't have the same kind of feel for it. At least in my opinion. I'm not saying JJ ruined TFA at all, but he has a different style for sure. And I can't say I'll be sorry seeing two other directors take their cracks at the rest of the series. Though I'll have to watch TFA several times to see if there are some things I missed during my single theatrical viewing three months ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
There's only been 1 movie so far - we'll see how the themes from the first are referenced - if at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
I'm kinda hoping TFA just acts as a bridge film to get people pumped about Star Wars again, and the actual NT runs from VIII to X. It feels like there were enough concepts teased, but not elaborated on, that could fill the additional movie without feeling dragged out (like the Hobbit).
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
There's an alternate version of the comparion video done by someone else, which includes audio and all the films in the OT as a source. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e32tZ6RGzcw I like some homage, but hope it eases up a little. I'm a little glad Abrams is out, as ST:Into Darkness was awful in the sheer volume of story it copied from TWOK. Looper & Brick had some excellent cinematography even if both films had other problems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me the purpose of Storm Trooper's battle uniform? It hinders movement, restricts peripheral vision - yet is absolutely useless against every weapon.Cnut the Great posted:The cinematography of TFA is perfectly fine, even if it's not my preferred style (or even, really, the general "Star Wars style" as established up to this point). I'd still argue that the original Star Wars has better cinematography, but it's not something I particularly hold against TFA. I'd even have to agree with homullus that the specific TFA shot you posted, at least taken in isolation from its context, is more interesting than the ANH shot. More evidence of my contention that JJ Abrams is the Thomas Kincaid of movies. http://tinyurl.com/zwc2p9r Binary Logic fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
Binary Logic posted:Can someone explain to me the purpose of Storm Trooper's battle uniform? It hinders movement, restricts peripheral vision - yet is absolutely useless against every weapon. It looks cool. Also Avatar was the Thomas Kincaid of movies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
If we're going to praise Lucas for his visuals while we vilify him for the performances he got from his actors, we should afford the same courtesy to Abrams.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
J.J. Abrams is a filmmaker with a lot of raw technical talent, but who doesn't seem capable of producing work with a whole lot of depth or originality. There's a reason he's carved out the specific niche in the industry that he has. I don't think that's a terribly unfair or controversial assessment of his talents. He's a kid who grew up watching Spielberg movies and got really good at creating reasonable facsimiles of them--which is no small feat, and not something very many people could do, at least not as successfully as he has. But I don't think he's going to be remembered as an innovator or as one of the great, revolutionary filmmakers. e: Binary Logic posted:More evidence of my contention that JJ Abrams is the Thomas Kincaid of movies. That's actually an extremely fitting analogy. J.J. Abrams : Thomas Kinkade :: George Lucas: Norman Rockwell One artist's work shallowly derivative of the other's. Both derided in their time by elitist art snobs as a result of the broad mass appeal of their works; one fairly, the other unfairly. Notably, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg are both admirers and collectors of Rockwell's work. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Binary Logic posted:More evidence of my contention that JJ Abrams is the Thomas Kincaid of movies. The difference being that Disney would let Abrams get away with pissing on a statue of Winnie the Pooh as of now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:J.J. Abrams is a filmmaker with a lot of raw technical talent, but who doesn't seem capable of producing work with a whole lot of depth or originality. There's a reason he's carved out the specific niche in the industry that he has. I don't think that's a terribly unfair or controversial assessment of his talents. The similarities between Abrams, Spielberg, and Lucas are greater than people are realizing I think. There's a style of film that all three are known for pushing that is ultimately regressive in nature. And there's nothing wrong with that if they can pull it off well, which they have, multiple times. Of course there are exceptions, as Lucas has THX 1138, Spielberg's latter work which is fairly distinct from most of his work until about the turn of the century, and Abrams' association with works that he produced on both TV and film. There are two main differences though: the first is what kind of film style they regress towards. Lucas and Spielberg were heavily influenced by the swashbuckling matinee serial, and Abrams ironically gravitates towards the tone that Spielberg developed naturally through evolving as a filmmaker. The second is that of the three, Lucas is really the only one that has truly advanced the science and means of film making, and has had a far-greater influence on how a film is produced and even distributed. Even Spielberg can't touch him in that regard. As for the Abrams - Thomas Kinkade comparison? No. No, no, no, no NO. Thomas Kinkade was a piece of poo poo who made Norman Rockwell look like DaVinci and Michelangelo combined. Norman Rockwell had a great knack for subjects that captured the zeitgeist of America, and in several cases pushed genuine conversation about the state of affairs at that time. Thomas Kinkade just drew cabins in the woods. If there is anyone JJ Abrams should be compared to in terms of tone, it's probably Shepard Fairley.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Fred Breakfast posted:As for the Abrams - Thomas Kinkade comparison? No. No, no, no, no NO. Thomas Kinkade was a piece of poo poo who made Norman Rockwell look like DaVinci and Michelangelo combined. Norman Rockwell had a great knack for subjects that captured the zeitgeist of America, and in several cases pushed genuine conversation about the state of affairs at that time. Thomas Kinkade just drew cabins in the woods. If there is anyone JJ Abrams should be compared to in terms of tone, it's probably Shepard Fairley. Thomas Kinkade drew cabins in the woods because it allowed him to present a safe, comforting, familiar vision of America that evoked warm fuzzy feelings in the people who viewed it. Norman Rockwell's work was about more than that kind of stuff, but that's all Kinkade himself was able to take away from it: http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/04/10/art-entertainment/from-our-archives-thomas-kinkades-american-dream.html quote:“I think Norman Rockwell was my earliest hero,” Kinkade relates. “I was an artist since I was a baby. I remember my mom had a big collection of copies of [Saturday Evening Post] magazines, and that was really my introduction to those great illustrators. Not just Norman Rockwell, but Stephan Dohanos, John Falter, John Clymer, and others.” He recalls being amazed at his first sight of a collection of Rockwell paintings. “I just sat in rapture, mainly because I didn’t know how it was possible to paint things that realistic,” he says. “I hadn’t seen artwork that could capture a sense of visual reality in that compelling way.” I find Abrams less objectionable than Kinkade on pretty much every level, but there are some definite parallels to Kinkade in the way his interpretation of Star Wars consists of reducing it to its most surface-level qualities in an effort to please a population of consumers rather than challenge them intellectually. For example, from interviews he's given, J.J. Abrams definitely seems to be under the impression that his version of the Force in TFA is more genuinely spiritual and meaningful than that found in Lucas's midichlorian-infested prequels. And yet where Lucas delivered a sweeping message about the central importance of symbiotic relationships at every level of existence, from the macrocosmic all the way down to the microscopic, Abrams offers up nothing more than vague, derivative paeans to a fictional energy field whose only notable function seems to be its capacity for delivering exposition and granting Matrix-like superpower downloads to the protagonist. Unlike Lucas, Abrams just doesn't appear to have anything at all novel or compelling to say about life, religion, or society. The Force doesn't actually represent anything real to him like it did to Lucas. It's just "The Force from Star Wars™". Just copy what the the old movies did, and people will be happy.For Abrams, and for a lot of fans, the Force isn't a metaphor. It's a crowd-pleasing franchise staple like the Proton Pack™ from Ghostbusters. All you have to do is to say, "It's an energy field that surrounds us" or "Don't cross the streams" and you're golden.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
The Force in TFA is a metaphor for being a Star Wars fan. It would be interesting to a Copy + Replace on TFA's script where you replace every instance of "The Force" with "being a Star Wars fan". "That's not how being a Star Wars fan works!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:R2-D2's eye and BB-8's eye are both cameras, and both films contain close-up shots emphasizing the droid looking through them at something. R2-D2 is a tripod, with a steady eye; BB-8 is a ball, whose eye is always at an odd angle. R2 narrated the previous six films, but he slept through the seventh, where BB-8 witnessed the story. Neat! Oh, nice catch! Binary Logic posted:Can someone explain to me the purpose of Storm Trooper's battle uniform? It hinders movement, restricts peripheral vision - yet is absolutely useless against every weapon. It's a visual story purpose: They're evil skeleton warriors! Plus thematic criticism of capitalism: they are m16s or whatever military hardware equivalent. Mediocre products that they must use, regardless of how poorly they function, because the Emperor no doubt rewarded a lackey with the exclusive contract, whose primary responsibility is to maximize profit not produce armour that works.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:33 |
|
|
I wouldn't describe J.J. as someone with pure technical talent. His direction, shot selection, blocking, etc. are pretty standard. Like a lot of other directors, he's addicted to close-ups and medium close ups.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 23:05
|
|
