Where did this "the Prequels are poorly shot"

>>64539215
Mike Stoklasa

daily reminder that TPM was shot on location more than TFA and used more practical effects and less CGI than TFA

ROTS has so many iconic scenes and shots it's not even funny
prequels have an assload of good content

>>64539215

Phantom Menace was shot decently. But good luck putting together another collage from the other two.

>>64539439
Already in the process my friend.

>>64539215
>Hershlag in a different costume every shot
That's actually quite impressive.

>>64539439

AotC would be hard

I think RotS looks majestic though

>>64539215
I love this new prequel contrarian meme, very fresh keep it up guys

>>64539529
Most impressive?

File: herschlag_angel.jpg (169KB, 1920x818px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1920x818px

>>64539215
Someone's ass.

>>64539215
TPM is much better shot than the two that followed it

tbf

>>64539215

You can say a lot of things about the prequels but you cannot say they were poorly shot. George was a very competent photographer.

>>64539215
>another bait thread

>>64539608
hello reddit

>>64539608
I hate this new TFA groupthink meme. Marvel Wars is fucking trash and you should be embarrassed for liking anything made by post-War Disney you fucking man-child.

>>64539215
>collage of poorly framed shots from TPM.jpg

>>64539845
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

>>64539992
>poorly framed

Huh?

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.

>>64540016
>first day on /tv/ the post
fuck off reddit

File: TFAXW.jpg (20KB, 720x288px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 720x288px

>>64539992
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

>>64539215
What the fuck? How are any of those shots special?

>>64539343
On what location?

>>64540112
>this fucking pleb

>>64539215
People criticise many different things about the prequels, but I've rarely ever seen someone claim they were poorly shot (Beyond the scope of normal hollywood schlock).

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.

>>64540079
Yeah okay bub

>>64540100
who here is defending TFA? No one. The prequels have been bad for almost 17 years now. Fucking get over it.
>>64540065
haha

>cinematography consists of still images
>filming a scene in shot/reverse shot is compelling
STOP PLEASE

>>64539215
The CGI was terrible
I've never heard anyone say they were poorly shot

the action scenes from the prequels are all fantastic
everything else is pure garbage

>>64540242
You're hearing me say it right now, the prequels are some of the worst shot high budget films of all time, especially Episode III.

File: 1409505821158.jpg (876KB, 1920x1911px) Image search: [Google]

876KB, 1920x1911px

>>64540156
Fuck off faggot. A bunch of wide shots doesn't make a film well shot.

>>64540100
>Judging a film based on a CAM

wew

>>64539215
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.

>>64540222
>that one fedora fag again
LOL

>>64540300
No, but lighting, framing, shadowing, coloring all do. A "wide shot" is not a thing, since the aspect ratio stays the same for an entire film.

>this cinematography meme
There is nothing exceptional about those shots. Even TV shows nowadays look equally good.

File: 1354422748366.jpg (2MB, 1920x4368px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x4368px

>>64540300
my nigger

>>64539215
I is probably the best shot out of all of them
II is the worst.
III is a mix in between.

The OT still feel nicer to me though.

>>64539215
Reddit Letter Media

File: revenge-of-the-sith.jpg (260KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1920x1080px

>>64540242
my thoughts exactly
>>64540291
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.

>>64540380
>A "wide shot" is not a thing, since the aspect ratio stays the same for an entire film
kek, I'm not even sure if you're baiting

>>64540423
Actually I meant more CGI related, not "shot".

The CGI of Jar Jar is shit in all 3 though.

>>64539713
This.

I'll never understand why people think 1 is nearly as bad as 2 or even 3

File: 1431086189872.jpg (4MB, 2000x1575px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2000x1575px

>>64540442
you would hang that on your wall? HAHAHAHAHA

>>64539215
>well shot
>it's all on a green screen
Next you guys are gonna be telling me video games are well shot

>>64540124
Italy, Tunisia, UK, are the most prominent

>>64540489
meme flick

>>64540489
I get that it's Kubrik and all, and he did quite a bit of work with it (first film to use candles for lighting?)

But is Barry Lyndon even enjoyable to watch?

>>64540380
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.

http://www.thewildclassroom.com/wildfilmschool/gettingstarted/camerashots.html

>>64540496
Every MGS is well shot

>>64540380
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

http://www.mediacollege.com/video/shots/wide-shot.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_shot

giving two links because I never like to just give wikipedia

>>64540496
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
>>64540524
what do you think?

File: AOTC.jpg (3MB, 5784x4120px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5784x4120px

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.

>>64540541
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.

>>64540524
It's long. That's it, really. It's a pretty sustainable and actually intriguing story.

>>64540442
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.

>>64540580
Fair enough, since the story's good I'll get around to seeing it.

>>64540555
every decent shot in here is a copy of the OT though

File: Star-Wars-Episode-III-Revenge-Of-The-Sith-Darth-Vader-darth-vader-18356829-1599-677.jpg (122KB, 1599x677px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1599x677px

>>64540489
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

>>64540524
not in the least. It bores any sane man to tears

>>64540583
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.

File: -1444140664.jpg (138KB, 620x350px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 620x350px

>>64540496
Got you pham

Honestly the visuals in the prequels are pretty decent. Aside from the poorly aging CGI they look fine. It's the writing and acting that are the biggest problems.

File: 1431061230077.jpg (3MB, 2000x1278px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2000x1278px

>>64540617
>it has two of my favorite star wars villains in it, that makes it a good shot
unbelievable

>>64540583
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

>>64540555
This is why 2 and 3 are unwatchable.

>>64540555
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

>>64540537
I think by "wide shot" they are talking about a shot of a setting or location, a far back shot that's like a landscape painting, as opposed to a "long shot"

>>64540674
Because he was trying to create a Greek/roman tragedy in space. It's no secret.

>>64540668
>well shot
>aesthetically pleasing

See, there's your problem. These aren't the same thing. There is more to composing a shot than making it look pretty, you gigantic pleb.

>>64540741
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXaDtAtpLPs

Yup, it was great.

>>64540652
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)

>>64540808
Hello reddit!

TPM = best shot
AOTC = best subtext
ROTS = most fun

>>64540808
>>64540741
>fart humor
Wow he actually resorted to 3000 year old humor too. This is all starting to make more sense to me. It's like a grand theater play

>>64540808
sup reddit-kun

File: Iya - other.webm (3MB, 1280x546px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x546px

>>64539215
Which one of those stills is meant to show good cinematography?

File: Drinking sadness.png (363KB, 452x710px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 452x710px

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.

>>64540652
>>64540889
meme flicks

>>64540898
Post some of the best shots then.

>>64540808
>>64540868

Truly.

Fart humor is timeless. The scope of Lucas cannot be surpassed.

>>64540792
>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

>>64540889
i almost fell asleep watching this.

This is my favourite Star Wars video by Robot Chicken

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZFCqS6B-wo

>>64540652
Man the night time bridge scene in Apocalypse Now should be like the school of cinematography

>>64539215
Reddit Letter Me-me-a.

>>64539215
reddit letter media

File: 1431061498761.jpg (3MB, 2001x2100px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2001x2100px

>>64540834
> a close up of his face saturated in orange?
triggered
>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

>>64540652
Anyone else immediately think Apocalypse Now in TFA when the TIE fighters were coming with the sunset behind them?

>>64540486
I don't get it as well. As a movie, TPM is objectively the best of the prequels, even with Jar Jar.

>>64541062
yes, it was a deliberate homage. Apocalypse Now invented giant sun cinematography

>>64540944
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.

>>64541081
Apocalypse now felt like a bad acid trip

>>64540167
>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?

>>64541099
that's because Vietnam was a bad acid trip
it just ended and America didn't fucking know how to deal with it

>>64539215
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

S O
D E N S E

>>64540124
tattooine and naboo

>>64540792
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.

>>64540486
because films are more than just their cinematography?

File: 1341881508779.gif (2MB, 340x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 340x240px

>>64541183
you probably think the last hobbit movie was aesthetically pleasing

>>64541100
this

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

ITT: people who know nothing about art argue with other people who know nothing about art.

>>64541183
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

>>64541049
Choosing a Kubrick film is cheating though, you can't compete with that.

>>64541355
>ITT: people who know a thing or two about art argue with people who know nothing about art.

>>64541100
>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

>>64541355
Join in!!

Also Kubrick fanboy reporting in.

Yall talking smack about Barry...not ok
The pacing matches the tone of the movie perfectly.

>>64541377
No one ever said Lucas could compete with Kubrick, dumbass.

>>64541049
Wow, I didn't realize how badly Space Odyssey has held up. Maybe it was revolutionary at the time, but looks really amateur by modern standards.

>>64541444
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.

>>64541487
This is the first actual b8 post ITT, in case anyone is wondering

>>64541453
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.

>>64540524
>Barry Lyndon
Nope. It`s a pretty looking but lifeless end emotionless flick.

>>64541545
>lifeless end emotionless
how to spot someone who doesnt even like movies

>>64541522
Take off your nostalgia goggles, old timer.

Prequels are objectively shot better than TFA. Just wait until TFA blu-ray comes out and the comparisons will be easy to make.

>>64541592
>dadrock logic

>>64541570
That`s true desu.

>>64541595
Well yeah, TFA is a generic action blockbuster. At least the prequels were sci-fi.

>>64541693
>implying the prequels weren't popcorn flicks for children

>>64541759
Better than crableg flicks for neckbeards.

>>64540537

>giving two links because i never like to give just wikipedia
you are a god among insects. never let anyone tell you otherwise

>>64541796
>for neckbeards.
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

>>64541877
Plenty of those same people saw the prequels too