Poll: Is it acceptable for a future director to not watch the star wars movies?

[Phuctifyno]

Watch carefully as they blow the core up at 7:18 - 7:19. Despite a substantial explosion, the chamber walls do not light up at all, nor does the tunnel they escape into. It's quite clear that the explosion has been superimposed, and this is the most significant explosion in the whole movie.

Well, first off, and for the sake of dickishness, Shit Yeah it lights up! It's very brief, just at the tail end of 7:18. And the following corridor doesn't light up right away to imply distance. We're meant to buy into the idea that even that chamber at the core of The Death Star is several kilometers wide and the Falcon, capable of ridiculous speeds, is outrunning the explosion and beats it there. It does start to light up in the very next shot. You might say that at least the light from the explosion should beat the Falcon to the corridor, but the surface it would be reflecting off of is where the camera is positioned... and if it lit up completely realistically, it'd be too bright to see anything.

[pushes glasses up, wipes cheeto dust on shirt, gets laid never again]

But that's beside the point. That's not the type of lighting I'm talking about, and I don't think there's an adequate way I can describe it. I'm talking about the way light acts in between the model being shot and the camera recording it, and how it looks on film. I mentioned before that I have been fooled by digital movies to think that some things that were real looked like CGI, because digital photography receives light differently than film and treats it more similarly to its simulated CGI version. I find that it blurs the distinction between the two, admittedly making the CGI look more realistic, but making the actual real stuff look less so.

Despite more "realistic" lighting and movement techniques employed, I don't see how is how this


looks any better than the pan shots in that ROTJ video between 2:18 and 3:08, or the dives from 5:02 to 5:20. It just has more stuff happening and faster. It looks synthetic; the movements and lighting are too perfect, they feel programmed. The added motion blurs stick out like a sore thumb. The ships appear to have no mass and their texture is tooo... shiny? oily? Like I said, it's hard to put my finger on.

But . . it's not the real deal. It's chroma keying. It's just as fake as CGI. The edges never look quite right.

It is true that the edges don't look quite right, if you're looking really close - but that's the same argument that's been thrown my way when criticizing CGI - having to look really close. Things are generally happening too fast and I'm too involved in the story to focus on the small imperfections. This is also why I do forgive a lot of CGI (though it doesn't really get by me the way imperfections in practical effects might). I should reiterate that it isn't small imperfections that fuel my distaste for CGI. It's not what the objects do, it's how they look.


The difference is physicality - it's not as fake because the CGI ships don't have any. The model ships are physical objects and the explosions are real explosions (even if they're not superimposed all that well; I would definitely consider those explosions to be the weakest link). In my experience, the human eye can tell the difference. Though, like I said before, it's possible that some can't.

 

[Bad Jim]

The ships appear to have no mass and their texture is tooo... shiny? oily?

I think that's the specular highlight. It is possible to do matt surfaces. There's no reason to make it really shiny. Modern aircraft are shiny because the surfaces are super smooth to reduce drag. However, since there is no corrosion in space it's plausible that the spacecraft are just made shiny and never corrode.

You've also probably noticed that the shading appears unnaturally pronounced because there is a lot less ambient light than you are used to. In fact there is a lot more ambient light than there should be, because they are in space. If the lighting was strictly correct, the dark sides of the spacecraft would be almost black and you wouldn't be able to see much. The correct way to address this would be to put little floodlights on the ships, so they were always lit, but they just used ambient lighting instead.

As for no mass, that's because all the fighters swoop and dive like Spitfires in the Battle of Britain. They're just doing what the original movies did though. All those fighters that go into the Death Star in ROTJ make implausibly sharp turns to do so. It's just the way they're expected to look I think.

 

[Phuctifyno]

I think that's the specular highlight. It is possible to do matt surfaces. There's no reason to make it really shiny. Modern aircraft are shiny because the surfaces are super smooth to reduce drag. However, since there is no corrosion in space it's plausible that the spacecraft are just made shiny and never corrode.

You've also probably noticed that the shading appears unnaturally pronounced because there is a lot less ambient light than you are used to. In fact there is a lot more ambient light than there should be, because they are in space. If the lighting was strictly correct, the dark sides of the spacecraft would be almost black and you wouldn't be able to see much. The correct way to address this would be to put little floodlights on the ships, so they were always lit, but they just used ambient lighting instead.

As for no mass, that's because all the fighters swoop and dive like Spitfires in the Battle of Britain. They're just doing what the original movies did though. All those fighters that go into the Death Star in ROTJ make implausibly sharp turns to do so. It's just the way they're expected to look I think.

Okay, Mr. Lucas... the jig is up. lol

I think I'll have to call it quits; we're still speaking different languages. You're still focused on what the objects do (lighting effects included). I'm aware that all kinds of programs can be written to recreate all kinds of naturally occuring phenomena. The shininess/oiliness and weightlessness I'm trying to describe has nothing to with applied textures on the ships or what logic within the film's world can go into why they would look that way, just with how they look on the screen. All CGI shares it, not just smooth ships in outer space.

For example:

Even with all the dust, smoke, sparks, shadows, reflections, flying debris, overwhelming detail, digital grading, lens flares, motion blurs, dramatic swooping camera angles, superimposed real elements, and simulated physics,

Spoiler: this

doesn't look as real as

Spoiler: this.

Because, plain as day, it just doesn't. My conscious self that's immersed in the film might have to make a small effort to forgive the shaky feet that reveal it to be much lighter and smaller than it appears, but my subconscious instantly accepts it as something real that physically shares (or shared) space with the real universe I live in. To me, that makes a world of difference.

I don't have to explain it to myself when I see it, it's just there. If your eyes just don't see it, then count yourself lucky, I guess. Sorry, I don't think there's much more I can deliver on the matter.

 

[Bad Jim]

Even with all the dust, smoke, sparks, shadows, reflections, flying debris, overwhelming detail, digital grading, lens flares, motion blurs, dramatic swooping camera angles, superimposed real elements, and simulated physics,

Spoiler: this

doesn't look as real as . . .

So how exactlty would you do that scene if you were director?

 

[Altorin]

directors should watch everything basically.

Sort of like how game designers should play everything.

If your job is to craft experiences, then you need to have a broad set of experiences to draw upon.

In short, if you're going into that sort of creative field, never turn down watching anything because "I won't like it". That's not the point. You need to see why you won't like it, what was wrong with it, how you would have done it better, etc etc etc.

 

[SirDeadly]

I'd say it would be worthwhile watching older movies just to get an idea of different techniques used by different directors. You may also want to watch the behind the scene footage and making of series for a more in depth view of what goes on in a directors day.

 

[AlbertoDeSanta]

I don't think any director should watch any film. Why? Because, to want to be a director, you must have watched many movies before hand. You don't just wake up one morning and say 'Fuck I want to be a film director.' That being said, most budding Directors generally HAVE seen the 'dated' Star Wars films, hell I'm sure there aren't many people (Regardless of their career choice) who haven't seen them and if they haven't they should probably be ashamed.

The Star Wars example goes far beyond Directors though. It goes to screenwriters, script writers, make up artists, Special effects (Watch the Old Doctor Who episodes then the Old Star Wars films, you'll see why I say SFX), etc. I could go on.

That'the wrong question to ask. If you really want to be a director one day you should take the opportunity to watch every movie you can get your hands on. The studio movies as well as the indie movies. The High Budget ones as well as the low budget ones. The arthouse as well as the grindhouse. I don't think there's a single movie an aspiring director couldn't learn at least one single thing from. And if it's just one single shot or one specific performance.

THIS. In a nutshell. Every director needs an influence list, and watching any movie can inspire you.

 

[Phuctifyno]

So how exactlty would you do that scene if you were director?

Spoiler: Simple. Stick this guy

Spoiler: in one of these (but with more money thrown at it)

Spoiler: then shoot and edit it like this so no one can tell (which Bay does anyway).

Seriously though, that wasn't a scene, that was a shot. A shot alone isn't important to a movie's narrative (unless specifically designed to be). A scene can be comprised of a wide variety of shots, and I would try to construct the scene differently so as not to require CGI. If trying to film something practical means I have to sacrifice a few wanky money shots, I wouldn't count it as a loss; there are many more and far better ways to make a movie interesting... and plenty of beautiful shots that have been achieved without computers.

There are some pretty incredible things you could achieve and film in the real world - all kinds of tehnologies and techniques that are woefully underused by the film industry.

Spoiler: Here are some other awesome things which could look even more awesome with some professional cinematography, editing, maybe some green screen, or even a story to go along with.

 

[Evil Top Hat]

That made think,do people really love the MOVIES or the UNIVERSE....or the NOSTALGIA?

I'm only a few short years older than yourself, and I'd rate Star Wars as one of my favourite franchises, and The Empire Strikes Back in particular as being one of my favourite movies. I've no doubt nostalgia plays a role, but I can speak from experience in saying that the films are still incredible, even to a modern audience.

Personally, I'm a fan of worlds. Fantasy and sci fi, huge, sprawling stories that create their own unique reality with insane amounts of lore in every isolated detail. Star Wars does this perfectly, creating an extremely absorbing world, extremely well stylistically designed. I guess it's the same reason I love Lord of the Rings.

Star Wars is also very well written, discarding the modern prequel trilogy. The originals managed to create realistic and likable characters, a perfect sense of drama, and a host of very memorable and iconic scenes.

The originals had it all. I don't care much for visuals, so I can see how it may be frustrating for somebody that does to watch a film so old. Even so, by today's standards Star Wars creates an engrossing and detailed world of impressive scope and detail, whilst doing so in the framework of an excellent narrative.

If you didn't like the film though, that's fair enough. Nobody can expect you to enjoy the things you don't. Apart from the acting. The acting in Episode V is incredible. But yes, other than that feel free to like or dislike whatever you please.

It'd be fucking excellent if no one watched Star Wars at least until they wanted to investigate classical hero mythology and five-act structure. Thing is: we don't need any more of that.

I would, so long as it's done well. The plot structure isn't original anymore, but a tired idea is just fine so long as it's done well, and with an original take.

I'm not sure the last director watched the Star Wars movies.

Cinematographic zing.

 

[itsthesheppy]

If you watched Empire Strikes Back and didn't like it, it's possible you just don't like good movies. Which is okay. There's lots of Fasts and Furiouses out there. Watch those.

 

[Signa]

Well OP, if you're this "future director" then you owe it to yourself to watch all 6 Star Wars movies, regardless if you are entertained by them. Watch them in their release order (4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3) and then watch the Red Letter Media reviews on why episodes 1-3 were so bad. That should give you a start of understanding film and storytelling, what to do, and what not to do.

Making a movie isn't about you as a director, it's about your audience. If you don't know how to express yourself to them through the film, no one is going to want to hear what you have to say. Star Wars represents one of the most flawless and easily accessible examples of telling an audience a story, and you would be remiss to ignore it completely.

The first Star Wars movies did what they set out to do: tell a story. The prequels also did what they set out to do, and that was sell a product. Are you interested in making movies because you want to sell them, or is it because you want to tell stories? I hope you answered the latter, because you should burn in hell if you aren't. No one wants another Uwe Boll.

 

[Spikethebloody]

I know what you mean about the acting being really bad and they are really boring.
If you want to watch some true classics from the 80's i suggest you watch the original nightmare on elm street or Friday the 13th films.
True classics.