Where did this "the Prequels are poorly shot" meme come from?
Not even him, there were hundreds of threads bashing the prequels way before any teaser was shown for Episode VII. Fucking hundreds. Fuck off. The percentage of people disliking the prequels were near or if not at 100%, any dissenters being masterbaiters. How long have you been here
TPM wasn't bad at all, it was Clone Wars and Revenge of the Sith where George just couldn't be bothered to film the thing properly so had everything shot in a green room where he could sit on his arse all day drinking coffee.
That shots are frames exactly as they need to be.
Much better than
>weird isometric angle with an X-Wing and some huts in the background on what looks like an obvious set stage
Reminder that George fucking hated filming the OT, and was already sick of it by the time TPM came around. Then during that prequel shoot they had to endure 130 degree heat in North Africa, the one night a horrific sandstrom swept through and destroyed everything costing them a ton of money and putting back production by months.
Fuck off faggot. A bunch of wide shots doesn't make a film well shot.
Because the vast majority of the audience were ingrates who would rather focus on the negative than the positive. First lesson of pop-culture: the worst thing about anything is it's fan-base.
my thoughts exactly
in what way? My idea of a well shot film is one where you can basically freeze frame and take whatever you're looking at and hang it on your wall.
that's well shot, and the prequels is full of that.
you would hang that on your wall? HAHAHAHAHA
And OP's image has few if any examples of the film being good at those. The CGI especially makes it poor.
You have no idea what you're talking about, holy shit it's so obvious.
I was agreeing with you until you said
>A "wide shot" is not a thing, since the aspect ratio stays the same for an entire film.
Of course a wide shot is a thing. Maybe you know it better by the term "Full shot" or "Long Shot" ?
It's in reference to how much of the body you're showing when framing the characters usually.
A long shot shows the entire body, a mid-shot shows just a little above the knees, medium-close shows basically the torso and the head, and a close up shows just the face.
of course there are lots of difference terms for these things that mean the same thing
giving two links because I never like to just give wikipedia
I agree with what you're saying but DESU senpai Gravity won the oscar for best cinemetography and it deserved it
and some of the best shots of dozens of well shot films involve mostly digital compositions, such as Tinker Tailor Solder Spy
what do you think?
Tried my best with AOTC senpai.
The problem is there's a lot of CGI backgrounds that look fine in motion but don't hold up. There's also way more action. It was the first all-digital production, so all things considered it looks pretty good.
I don't know, that's why I was asking. I have a copy of the film on my computer that I never got around to watching.
Seems like a film that'd be enjoyable to watch once, appreciate the work that went into it, and just not really come back to it.
What an amateur definition. You can't define what well shot means when you're clearly this much of a dumbass. You might as well be saying the prequels are good because they're fun.
Yes Stanley, I would hang that on my wall, but I find Hayden's face pleasant so maybe that helps.
but there's lots of stuff from the film I think looks great
not in the least. It bores any sane man to tears
The prequels are actually way less fun than the originals or TFA. They are satisfying on an ideological or subtextually level. Lucas spends the entire trilogy trolling idiots.
You thought the Jedi were good guys? No, they're stupid-ass ninjas who flip around and only give a shit about light sabers and their precious Jedi Order.
You thought the Republic was good and noble? Wrong.
You thought Obi-wan was a good guy? Nah, he's actually a fucking dickhead.
>it has two of my favorite star wars villains in it, that makes it a good shot
hahaha. how pretentious. Of course someone can define something as well shot if it's aesthetically pleasing and of course of course someone can consider a movie good if it's fun to watch
that's what movies are for after all
Why do I get such a greco roman vibe from the prequels? It's like George thought he was making Caligula or some shit. But yeah, with that being said, the far right column are some of the best shots. The rest are pretty shit m8
there are lots of images with them together, but that is a good one. so is this one.
What makes the 7th picture in your post so special? a close up of his face saturated in orange? nice....
maybe if you love the movie, and the character, it means more to you (but it's not particularly nice like the 15th shot is, but only the great contrast in the lighting makes that one good)
a shot doesn't need a fancy technique to be good. Sometimes the image itself is valuable.
Some of the most important photos of all time weren't filled with incredible techniques we think of when we think of amazing photos, it was simply the subject matter (ie who or what was in them)
Which one of those stills is meant to show good cinematography?
ITT No one knows what they are talking about because those are some of the worst shots in the movie. They all look like shit and made my head hurt looking at this collage. God I hate you guys.
>There is more to composing a shot than making it look pretty
If it looks pretty, it must have been composed well
at least well enough
The entire point---at least on the most basic of levels of photography---is to 1) capture the image. 2) capture it in a way that looks good
If you've accomplished that, anything else is window dressing.
You've met your goal already. You keep using your favorite buzzword "pleb" but the problem with the anti-pleb thinking is that people like you always want to overcomplicate things and prefer style over substance. You'd prefer a masterfully composed shot of a turd over a more simply composed---but still good looking---shot of something incredible
> a close up of his face saturated in orange?
>maybe if you love the movie, and the character, it means more to you
well no shit, which is what the content of the film, the thematic material, and the time in the story all tie into the shot, but it only has meaning if the shot is composed in some way to reflect/enhance that feeling. which is why the shot of Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now is timeless and why Anakin/Obi wan is not
> shot doesn't need a fancy technique to be good
that's exactly what it needs
>Sometimes the image itself is valuable.
no, only images with both artistic expression and technical competence/excellence are valuable
photography is not cinematography. each image in a film is connected to the rest. their connection in technique and how it ties into the underlying meaning
I don't know why you typed all this. There is still more to shot composition than making something look pretty. Like you said: it also has to capture the subject well and do what the frame should do.
A shot can look pretty without being at all well put together, because beauty is mostly subjective. A shot of Luke's eyes could look beautiful, but if there's no reason to focus on them or if it pointlessly distracts from the current focus of the scene, it can be a bad shot. Film isn't meant to be a slideshow of pretty pictures: the pictures have also have purpose, not just form.
>Reminder that George fucking hated filming the OT, and was already sick of it by the time TPM came around.
This. Lucas hated filming all of the Star Wars movies, which is why he had the good sense to get other directors for two of the OT movies. The sad thing is that his ego made him want to direct all of the PT, and he did a half-assed job because of how much he hated it. You can see him going through the same thing in his recent interviews, since he comes off incredibly bitter about having nothing to do with the movies, but still kind of glad to be rid of them. It's weird as fuck. I guess he realizes Star Wars is his legacy (and the source of his fortune) and feel connected to it, but hates what it did to his life.
Also, all this talk about shot composition is kind of missing the point. Arguments about how the PT is shot aren't usually focused on composition, but on how scenes themselves are usually framed in relation to what's going on. And they are usually boring in that regard; for example, most dialogue is filmed as two people talking in static reverse shots.
I don't care about the shots but Darth Mauls makeup team should have been fucking executed
Whoever did his headspikes needs to be found and flayed
That shit wouldn't pass at a highschool stage play, why the FUCK is it on film forever?
wow, veteran filmmaker knows how to put together a basic composition. Doesn't get them off the hook for being drab and boring as shit when the same visual pattern is used endlessly through 3 films
Compositionally, the prequels are not only aesthetically pleasing, but thematically and narratively appropriate, and meticulously planned. Lucas is a tremendous visual director, and your assertions otherwise demonstrate your own lack of understanding of cinematic language, you gigantic pleb.
you probably think the last hobbit movie was aesthetically pleasing
this guy >>64541183
thinks that endless tracking shots followed by a two shot for wooden dialogue in front of a green screen for some (who fucking cares) alien planet or senate floor is thematically and narrative appropriate
They're pretty terrible compared to >>64540300 or any of the other examples posted in this thread.
Explain how >>64539215 is anywhere near as well composed or visually pleasing as something like >>64541049
>his ego made him want to direct all of the PT
You know that's not true
He reached out to other people including Spielberg and Zemeckis to direct, but they all told him he should do it
David Lynch said the same thing about ROTJ and Lucas kept asking until he found someone that wanted to do it. Lucas freely admits that he isn't a good writer and that he doesn't like directing, but insisted on doing both for all three prequels because it's "his story." I'm sure if he actually looked, instead of just throwing out ideas to friends early in the planning stages, he could have found people willing to work with him.
Nevermind competing, it's not even in the same stratosphere with the prequels. Lucas CAN do great visual direction but the prequels are poor examples.
The OP's image is basically just some cool photographs with neat set design, costumes and CGI, while the prequel collages showcase excellent practical effects, visual theme, lighting, contrast, and vivid atmosphere.
right, because all those millions of people who live TFA are neckbeards. All those kids, all those parents, all those normie teenagers, all those people like my Grandpa who hadnt been to a movie in a fucking decade, all neckbeards
christ. look in a mirror once in a while