[HN Gopher] The movie mistake mystery from "Revenge of the Sith"
___________________________________________________________________
The movie mistake mystery from "Revenge of the Sith"
Author : CharlesW
Score : 273 points
Date : 2025-04-20 17:29 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (fxrant.blogspot.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (fxrant.blogspot.com)
| the_af wrote:
| I have to agree with the article's author that what he calls
| "overzealous" removal of movie mistakes seems wrong. It wouldn't
| matter so much if the original movie was still readily available,
| but it's often the case that only the latest "fixed" version
| remains available.
|
| With Star Wars in particular, Lucas' incessant meddling has long
| have gone far past the point of diminishing returns, and
| frequently making the movies worse.
|
| More in general, I like watching the original movie, warts and
| all. I often disagree with the corrections, especially when they
| restore scenes that were left out for a reason, make color
| correction choices I disagree with (e.g. Blade Runner's "green
| tint" is inferior to its original bluish tint), etc.
| pnw wrote:
| Agree 100%. In addition to fixing mistakes and changing the
| color palette, I also object to the use of DNR and similar
| techniques to remove the film grain from older movies, in order
| to make them look more "modern", like films shot on digital.
| Unfortunately Cameron's recent 4k remasters of his classic
| films all suffer from this problem.
| hammock wrote:
| I get it though, it's crazy that I know so many people who
| now say "I don't like old movies" or "I don't want to watch
| this movie, it looks old" when what they see and are really
| saying without realizing it is , it was shot on film.
|
| It's especially worse since the hit rate of actually good,
| creative movies is so much lower in the digital era.
|
| My big pet peeve now is these "ew, this movie looks old"
| attitude.
|
| I was watching Sum of All Fears the other day and my partner
| had this attitude. Funny though as soon as people in tuxedos
| showed up on the screen she changed her mind and started
| watching. Tuxedos are one of those movie magic things.
| jimbokun wrote:
| Weird how what we grow up with influences our tastes. To me
| the look of films shot on old school film signals "high
| quality" and overly digitally edited movies signals "cheap"
| in the sense of being shot on a green screen lot to save on
| shooting on location.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| I think people who start to get into the craft of film-
| making (even academically, not making their own films)
| even a little tend to open up a lot to older films.
|
| It's so much more impressive when they had to actually
| arrange for the thing you're seeing to exist, at least in
| some sense, in real life, so light could bounce off it
| and hit the film. That is a real landscape that the
| actors and crew had to travel to! They really made horses
| jump off that train car! They really had two thousand
| extras for this shot! That kind of thing. If there was a
| set at least they had to build it, and even if the
| results look a little janky it's usually interesting and
| the craft impressive.
|
| They shot with environmental lighting? They had to rig
| their other lights _just so_ and maybe just work with
| what was available to get a good shot. The light is the
| light. The constraints on their options often seem to
| improve, rather than harm, the final product.
|
| Now it's like oh they couldn't even be bothered to film
| on a real damn _street_. Ugh. All the location shooting
| is just getting backgrounds to composite in later. The
| light on the actors didn't even exist when and where the
| background was shot. It sucks and is boring.
| neckro23 wrote:
| It's a travesty. I was sourcing video for an Alien/Aliens
| watch party (for a couple of adolescents who had never seen
| either) and I had to hunt down a copy of the older HD Bluray
| of _Aliens_ because the 4k remaster looked so awful.
|
| (By contrast, the 4k of _Alien_ looks fantastic.)
| phreack wrote:
| This is why archiving is such a worthwhile endeavor. We could
| end up losing the original movies otherwise!
| jimbokun wrote:
| It's the artistic equivalent of Stalin erasing disfavored
| figures from Soviet photographs.
| 615341652341 wrote:
| Finally! I've only been casually following this over the years,
| so this is a great write up!!
| vmilner wrote:
| I noticed watching the recent 4K release of The Terminator that
| the garage attendant in the final scene has a piece of paper in
| his top pocket with "There's a storm coming" written upside down
| on it.
| xhevahir wrote:
| Did you notice the Terminator counts his kills in floating-
| point numbers? I'd hate to see the studio correct these things.
| p_ing wrote:
| "Casualties", not kills. Perhaps using floating point is for
| working with another Terminator, or the decimal value being
| calculated based on the wound inflicted, with a whole number
| being a kill.
|
| Or really, just to Look Cool And Technical And Shit.
| kibwen wrote:
| To nobody's surprise, Skynet is a strict utilitarian who
| has rationally concluded that plucking one billion
| eyelashes is equivalent to one murder.
| p_ing wrote:
| There's a lot of camera-eye real estate for zeros!
| varjag wrote:
| So T800 is indeed coded in Javascript, I knew it! What else
| to expect of devs in 2029
| jimbokun wrote:
| It's because JavaScript has the most example code in the
| LLM's training data that writes the Terminator source code.
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| Of course not! As is well known, T800 is coded in COBOL
| ([1]).
|
| [1]: https://www.theterminatorfans.com/the-terminator-
| vision-hud-...
| fortran77 wrote:
| By this guy:
| https://x.com/ThrillScience/status/1249742678532620293
| adzm wrote:
| Maybe it is fixed point though
| p_ing wrote:
| > Painting out these movie mistakes as part of a restoration is
| wrong. What's in the movie is in the movie, and altering the
| movie to this extent is a form of revisionist history.
|
| How many times has Lord of the Rings been revised? Dune? <Insert
| other long-lived actively managed novel>. Is the active
| management of these novels "wrong"? Is fixing grammar, spelling,
| or clarifying story beats "wrong"?
|
| I personally don't think so, and I'd rather read something which
| has been corrected, especially if done for story clarity.
| rightbyte wrote:
| George Lucas had an especially hostile stand against the
| unaltered versions though.
| jimbokun wrote:
| All of those are absolutely wrong.
|
| In the vast majority of cases it's "fixing" the original in
| this sense;
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/18/painting-match...
|
| Also, it's important to be able to see these works as
| originally published. Otherwise, you are passing off a forgery
| as the original.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| I'm not necessarily opposed to all fixes like this, but in
| film most of these strike me as totally unnecessary and
| making the movie strictly worse.
|
| Normal viewers almost never notice these things, and movie
| nerds _like_ little glimpses behind the curtain. So it's
| doing almost nothing for one sort of viewer, and making it
| worse for another.
| p_ing wrote:
| How are they wrong? Which ones are wrong? Which spelling
| correction, grammar correction, story clarity is wrong?
|
| Is the Blade Runner Director's Cut wrong?
| wat10000 wrote:
| That's absurd. The incident with the fresco was an outrage
| because it ruined the original. If the well-meaning vandal
| had merely defaced a copy, nobody would have cared.
|
| If you want to see works as originally published, get a copy
| of the original publishing. Buying a re-issue and expecting
| it to be identical in every way is silly.
| _wire_ wrote:
| The only one I've ever noticed on my own in a long life of
| watching movies is the compressed air tank to overturn a chariot
| in Gladiator (2000).
|
| I was told about the pole that causes the truck to flip in
| Raiders of the Lost Ark and now I can't unsee it.
|
| --Warning to those who enjoy 2001 A Space Odyssey with their
| blinders on...--
|
| 2001 made a big impression on me as a kid and I've seen it many
| times. There was a point when watching for the Nth time in middle
| age that I first noticed that all the anti-gravity shots show the
| actors bodies carrying their own weight. Especially in the aisle
| scene with the floating pen, which itself is rotating about the
| center of the sheet of clear plastic it's attached to rather than
| its center of mass. Later in the same sequence, food trays are
| brought to the bridge after the long scenes of a flight
| attendant, who picks up trays as they slide downs from a
| dispenser, and as she hands the trays to the crew, one of them
| instinctively puts his hand out under the tray to helpfully catch
| its weight. In the next scene an officer joins other crew by
| coming up from behind them, leaning over and resting his arms on
| their chair backs as the scene cuts to details of anti-gravity
| meal consumption. Finally Floyd stands in front of a toilet
| reading a 1000 word hard-printed list of instructions after the
| viewer has been shown electronic displays used everywhere else.
| The self-consciousness of that clip provides a lovely relief from
| all the previous cognitive dissonance. I'm not able to unsee any
| of this now and it detracts from the spectacle. But at the same
| time, it makes the orchestration and ideas of the movie seem all
| the more artistic, so nothing lost except innocence. There are
| many other oddities to find in the movie working on different
| planes of awareness, including proprioceptive assumptions about
| reality, intelligence, progress, and spirituality.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I too have seen 2001 countless times, and I missed some of
| these! One you missed is when food is sucked from the tube, the
| food flows back down into the container.
|
| We had very little experience with zero g at the time, and
| surely Kubrick and his crew had zero. They did a remarkable job
| despite that.
| JadeNB wrote:
| > Later in the same sequence, food trays are brought to the
| bridge after the long scenes of a flight attendant, who picks
| up trays as they slide downs from a dispenser, and as she hands
| the trays to the crew, one of them instinctively puts his hand
| out under the tray to helpfully catch its weight.
|
| Is this one clearly wrong? As you say, it's essentially an
| instinctive motion, so one can easily imagine the reflex taking
| over even if the scene were genuinely in zero gravity.
| alganet wrote:
| Toasty!
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _Painting out these movie mistakes as part of a restoration is
| wrong. What 's in the movie is in the movie, and altering the
| movie to this extent is a form of revisionist history. Cinema is
| worse off when over-aggressive restorations alter the action
| within the frame. To me, this is equivalent to swapping out an
| actor's performance with a different take, or changing the music
| score during an action sequence, or replacing a puppet creature
| with a computer graphics version of the same creature decades
| after release._
|
| It's really not the equivalent though. I don't see anything wrong
| with fixing a license plate or removing a reflection or a modern-
| day wristwatch.
|
| It's the equivalent of fixing a spelling error in a novel, or a
| wrong chord in sheet music. None of the filmmakers wanted those
| things there. They weren't done with intent. They were just
| mistakes.
|
| Changing music or replacing a puppet with CG, of course I'm
| against. That's changing the art of it. Different music makes you
| feel different. A CG creature has a different personality. Just
| like you don't want to replace vocabulary in a novel to make it
| more modern-day.
|
| I think it's usually pretty easy to distinguish the two. The
| first ones would have been corrected at the time if they'd
| noticed and gone for another take. They take us _out_ of the
| movie if we notice them. The latter category is a reflection of
| the technology, resources, and intentional choices. They keep us
| _in_ the world of moviemaking as it was at that time.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| I'm a lot more bothered by the change to the color grading in
| the "after" of Alien than the minor change to the effect, and
| by the picture looking way shittier in the "fixed" Goodfellas
| shot (the first is blu ray, the second "blu ray and streaming",
| so hopefully the example was taken from streaming and that's
| why it looks so much worse)
| crazygringo wrote:
| Oh yeah. Totally agreed on not changing the color grading.
| That's as big as changing the music.
|
| With blogs that take screenshots of 4K content though,
| sometimes that's using a media player with poor HDR color
| decoding though. Bad HDR always winds up with a green tint,
| that's the telltale sign. VLC is the worst with that.
|
| But I don't think that's the case here. There are definitely
| a lot of rereleases with badly done color.
| tvaziri wrote:
| It was taken from streaming but that's the "new" color grade
| madrox wrote:
| I also found this take interesting coming from someone at ILM
| where they grafted Hayden Christensen into Return of the Jedi.
|
| Though in this day and age I can't help but ask "why not both?"
| It feels easy to add a choice to your viewing experience. If
| they can do it for Black Mirror then they can certainly ask up
| front "which version would you like to see?"
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| > I also found this take interesting coming from someone at
| ILM where they grafted Hayden Christensen into Return of the
| Jedi.
|
| Presumably the author would be opposed to that as well. Just
| because his employer did it doesn't mean he approves of it.
| simonh wrote:
| I literally just finished watching Episode IV, the one with
| the CGI makeover. The extra alien CGI in Mos Eisley is awful.
| It doesn't stand up at all, with the one exception of the
| Jaba scene which gets away with it because it is pretty fun.
| I wish we'd watched the original version.
| Henchman21 wrote:
| Is it easy to find the original? I'd love a copy of each on
| my Plex server, but I have had trouble finding an original
| copy. I admit I may not know where or how to look; advice
| is welcome!
| Namahanna wrote:
| What you are looking for is this -
| https://www.thestarwarstrilogy.com/project-4k77/
|
| "97% of project 4K77 is from a single, original 1977 35mm
| Technicolor release print, scanned at full 4K, cleaned at
| 4K, and rendered at 4K."
|
| Opening scene comparison -
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1b47UP6ZGI
| thih9 wrote:
| > It's the equivalent of fixing a spelling error in a novel,
|
| I was surprised to learn that this is a thing and has been for
| a long time.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible
| WalterBright wrote:
| The trouble with spelling errors is they drop me out of the
| immersion in the story. I recall reading one that averaged 2
| spelling errors per page. The story and writing was fine, but
| reading it was like driving on a beautiful country road and
| hitting a pothole every hundred yards. I finally just gave up
| on the book.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| Spelling errors also are sometimes not introduced by the
| author, but by the typesetter or publisher. In a preface to
| the Lord of the Rings, Tolkien complains about how many
| revisions it took to get typesetters to type the book
| correctly, especially with the words that he had made up or
| created new conventions for (elves vs. elfs, for example).
| WalterBright wrote:
| Why oh why did the music for Rocky & Bullwinkle change for the
| dvd release? It's horrible. The R&B on VHS have the original
| music.
| Onawa wrote:
| Because of expired licenses to use the original music. You
| can see the same thing happening with later releases of
| media. As an example, DVD releases of Scrubs were known to
| have switched out many songs in the entire show.
| pests wrote:
| This happens in the streaming days too. I believe Arrested
| Development was one where when it came to streaming they
| had to change the music.
| shmeeed wrote:
| They didn't have the license and actually got sued for the
| VHS release.
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/FrostbiteFalls/comments/1flr8ue/fra.
| ..
| WalterBright wrote:
| Thank you, at last I have an explanation!
|
| As for the people responsible: _You Maniacs! You blew it
| up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!_
| anjel wrote:
| Its almost always a rights issue with changes to movie
| and TV soundtracks.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| And video games too. GTA 4 has had that issue, and
| digital copies of the game have had music (which Rockstar
| no longer has the rights to) patched out.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| If you have wide taste in film and TV, at some point you
| _have to_ turn to piracy (and /or fan edits) to get the "real
| thing". Impossible or impractical to get it any other way.
| Ghos3t wrote:
| There is some value in the mistakes and limitations of older
| movies, I am sure if you look it up people who can explain it
| far better than me can give lots of examples, I saw a video
| once about the growing trend of analog horror where people
| intentionally watch older horror movies in older storage and
| display formats like VHS and CRT televisions, because in many
| ways the high def modern tv screens and 4K mastered prints
| actually take away from the atmosphere of the original movie
| that was made keeping the limitations of the technology of the
| time. Wes Anderson also talks about how watching the fur
| pattern constantly changing on the model of King Kong in the
| black and white stop-motion movie due to the puppeteers
| touching the model to manipulate it inspired him to do the same
| in his Fantastic Mr Fox movie
| mort96 wrote:
| It's similar to how old games look so different on modern
| hardware: the pixel art on a current-day screen looks like
| high-fidelity perfectly sharp uniformly colored squares,
| while the "pixel art" of old games rendered on a CRT didn't
| look like "pixel art" at all but rather like high-fidelity
| art rendered on a low-fidelity screen. There's a lot of
| detail implied by the way CRTs render what's encoded in
| software as perfect squares.
| teddyh wrote:
| Illustrative images: <https://imgur.com/gallery/SSpcDzA>
| wat10000 wrote:
| Are they watching made-for-TV movies? Otherwise I'd think the
| movies would have been made for theater viewing, and watching
| it in 4k on a big modern TV would be a lot closer to how the
| creators wanted you to see it than using VHS and an old TV.
| jancsika wrote:
| > It's the equivalent of fixing a spelling error in a novel, or
| a wrong chord in sheet music.
|
| Your analogies don't pass a simple self-check-- they are vastly
| different in scope.
|
| At worst a spelling error will create a single alternative
| spelling in history. Wrong chords, however, typically create
| entire branches of full pieces of music that include allusions
| to and variations upon the wrong chord. For example-- there's
| no way to "correct" the C major chord in Rachmaninoff's
| Variations on a Theme by Chopin. What are you going to do,
| change _every single variation_ in Rachmaninoff 's piece to
| reflect the correct chord (C minor) from Chopin's prelude?
|
| It gets even more complicated in jazz where chord substitutions
| are not only expected but often supersede the original chords.
| Even more to the point-- a lot of the die-hard Charlie Parker
| fans not only love the recording he made while obviously drunk,
| they love it _in spite of_ Parker 's wishes for nobody to ever
| hear it it (much less repeatedly play it and talk about it).
|
| That's all to say a) correcting an entrenched wrong chord is no
| simplistic task, and b) in any case it's wrong to assume that
| the artist's intentions are always the chief concern.
| davidcbc wrote:
| The analogy was fine, you're just stretching it too far.
|
| Of course there are times when it's better to leave a "wrong"
| chord in music, but it's incredibly common for sheet music to
| have unintentional errors, especially in an ensemble setting.
| If trumpets are playing a unison part but 1 and 2 have a Bb
| and trumpet 3 has a B natural nobody thinks twice about
| fixing the trumpet 3 part. That's the analogy, not jazz and
| Rachmaninoff
| tvaziri wrote:
| agree to disagree
| krick wrote:
| Yeah, I knew there must be a debate about this in the comments
| the moment I saw it.
|
| Honestly, I personally disagree with the sentiment on all
| levels. Meaning, I agree with your observation that there are
| degrees to "restoration", and fixing a mistake is just not the
| same as changing music.
|
| But then, I also have no sympathy to your objection of changing
| music or replacing a puppet with CG. I mean, I may like the old
| take better, but whatever, I'm not the one who made the movie.
| The people who made this particular cut for this particular
| release made it (duh). And these may or may be not the same
| directors and producers that made the cut you consider "the
| original one". It's their vision. Surely, it may seem
| surprising to a naive viewer that it's not the director the
| movie is attributed to who "made it" in its entirety, but this
| is just never the case and obviously any cinema enthusiast
| knows it all too well anyway.
|
| (But then I should probably mention that my fundamental
| disagreement with the sentiment spreads way farther than that,
| and I myself consider it kinda extreme. I often would be fine
| with the kind of "restoration" that essentially destroys the
| original thing. This would be off-topic to explain it here,
| because it wouldn't be about the movies anymore, but I just
| think that too much respect for the great things of the past
| often leads to losing sight of why these things were made in
| the first place. They were meant to be great at the time, not
| to be respected as a very old pile of rubbish a couple of
| thousands years later.)
|
| The only thing I am kinda objecting to is when changes made
| reflect the current political agenda in one way or another
| (i.e. censorship, be it taboo on display of tits on TV, cutting
| out statements that seem "politically incorrect" at the time
| and place of the release, removing some persona non-grata who
| made a very minor cameo appearance in the original movie or
| anything else like that). But, again, I don't really object to
| that because "they don't have the right to do it", but because
| it's just irritatingly stupid and makes me roll my eyes. It
| doesn't necessarily make the movie worse or even substantially
| different (I might not even notice), but unlike with
| remastering of the original movie, the intent clearly isn't to
| make it "better" (in their opinion), but just acting out of
| fear to cause trouble by displaying today something that was
| fine yesterday as is.
|
| What I think is kinda lacking is very clear and non-ambiguous
| versioning of movies. I am not that much of a movie enthusiast
| myself, but some people obviously care if you can see the
| original number-plate falling off the car, and it would be nice
| if these people could easily refer to that particular edit they
| like better. They kinda always do it anyway, but that only
| happens if they need to specifically mention this number plate
| falling off, and normally they try to pretend that 10 edits
| made for 10 releases on different media in different countries
| are all the same movie, which (almost by definition) is not the
| case. I mean, for books we have versions and ISBNs, and it's
| normal to reference specifically that, not just one of the
| authors and the title. Should be standard practice for movies
| too.
| noizejoy wrote:
| >> Painting out these movie mistakes as part of a restoration
| is wrong.
|
| > It's really not the equivalent though. I don't see anything
| wrong with fixing a license plate or removing a reflection or a
| modern-day wristwatch.
|
| I think it depends on the primary objective of the restoration.
| If I'm trying to preserve history, I shouldn't fix errors. If
| I'm trying to make a (by implication derivative) work that
| maximizes enjoyability for (new) audiences, then it's ok to
| fix.
|
| e.g. a long time ago, I once transferred vinyl recordings of an
| extremely amateur community musical group to CD.
|
| After thinking long and hard, I decided to fix recording
| technology flaws (a bad hum) and vinyl degradation flaws
| (crackles, dust, etc). But I didn't fix any of the musical
| performance flaws.
|
| Bottom line: I decided to respect the history of the
| performance, and disrespect the history of the recording and
| playback technology/medium.
| jart wrote:
| I believe it was a historical mistake to have so many white men
| in cinema. Like correcting a spelling error, we shall use AI to
| edit these films to recast them with black and brown women who
| represent the global majority.
| haunter wrote:
| I hate editing mistakes more. The Aviator has quite a few of
| these where for example in cut A two characters talk by walking
| side by side, in cut B they stop and turn towards each other
| (still talking), and in cut C they continue the talking but you
| can see cut A and C are the continuation of each other and cut B
| was inserted in the middle https://files.catbox.moe/dljiiw.mp4
|
| And that's just one example that film is full of those. Here is
| another jarring one https://files.catbox.moe/9m3gjq.mp4
|
| Despite that it won the Academy Award for Best Editing...
| alabastervlog wrote:
| I've managed to make myself so sensitive to this that I get all
| tense when there's a multi-camera setup for a conversation,
| waiting for the moment when they cut from A to B and someone's
| hands or head have teleported to a slightly (and sometimes not
| slightly!) different position.
|
| Very few such sequences complete without my noticing some spot
| where shots don't match up.
|
| Another one is key lights reflected in eyeballs. Nearly ruins
| Jackson's LOTR trilogy for me, it's in basically every damn
| scene. In several shots you can practically diagram out their
| whole lighting rig from a the reflections on an actor's eye, so
| many lights are plainly and distinctly visible. You see it some
| in lots of movies but OMG it's bad in those.
| andrewinardeer wrote:
| I have always considered it an actors job to ensure their
| hands or cigarette or whatever are in the same position when
| they hit the same word during multiple takes.
| Cruncharoo wrote:
| Oh, I have a similar pet peeve but for watching live sports.
| Sometimes they'll cut from the 'main' camera angle to a
| different one mid-action but it will be slightly out of sync
| and noticeable. For whatever reason this is super noticeable to
| me and bugs me to no end.
| crazygringo wrote:
| You might be interested to know that in terms of editing skill,
| physical matching/continuity is the _least_ important thing to
| get right:
|
| https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/walter-murch-rule-of-six/
|
| Anybody can edit a scene so that there are no inconsistencies.
| The art of editing comes from maximizing emotional impact, then
| the story, then rhythm. When editors sacrifice matching for
| those, it's not a mistake -- it's intentional.
|
| The fact is, editors work with the footage they're given --
| reshoots happen when new scenes are needed or footage is
| unusable, but not for continuity errors. If the most
| emotionally impactful combination of shots has a continuity
| error, the worse for continuity.
| jonathanlydall wrote:
| I watched Aliens at least half a dozen times (still one of my all
| time favourites), and only noticed it when a friend pointed it
| out to us as it was playing at New Year's party.
| sickcodebruh wrote:
| There's a really funny duality to mistakes in recorded art that
| is vastly different when viewed as a fan and the creator.
|
| As a music fan, I really love little mistakes in incredible
| albums. They're humanizing, they show that the recording was made
| by people and it makes the highs feel so much higher.
|
| As an artist, I loathe mistakes in my own work and I will spend a
| basically limitless amount of time fixing annoying performance
| quirks in software -- I'm talking things that I can do but didn't
| get quite right -- so I can listen to it without distraction or
| regrets. I know that nobody will notice these except me and the
| type of listener who does catch them will either not mind or
| appreciate it the way I would. But when it's my own work, it's
| different. I'm sure it's the same for filmmakers so I understand
| the impulse to fix it later.
| codeflo wrote:
| Looking at the green screen shots of that Mustafar fight in
| Episode III: If that was the actual lighting of the in-camera
| scene, then it's not a mystery at all that everything in that
| movie looked so fake.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| I want to believe they've improved the process by a lot since
| then, including getting the lighting right. Although I'm sure
| most of that is done in post-processing.
|
| The making of The Mandalorian is interesting though, by using a
| projected screen as the set rendered in realtime, they can get
| the environmental lighting on the actors correct as well
| without much post-processing.
| joshvm wrote:
| The Volume is pretty cool. A practical version of this that's
| often overlooked is Oblivion (probably because the plot is
| naff). The "sky tower" set is physical with 270 degrees of
| front projection to handle the sky. It would have been a lot
| harder to convincingly re-create all the optical effects and
| not worry about what light would look like scattered off
| glass or other occluding objects.
|
| https://www.fdtimes.com/2013/03/29/claudio-miranda-asc-on-
| ob...
|
| Another example is the motion simulator/projector setup from
| First Man, which makes the cockpit and landing sequences look
| so good. They won best VFX.
|
| https://youtu.be/sw57ORTgGG4?si=NjRNt551HJhL_l9k&t=193
| (relevant footage starts around 3:13)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UChwuyWVzsI
| alabastervlog wrote:
| By Episode II, Lucas had decided to make damn near everything
| green screen. They weren't even building chairs and benches the
| actors sat on. Green boxes in many cases.
|
| It looked like complete shit even by the standards of the time,
| and of course hasn't aged well.
|
| I watched a "film edits" fan edit of the Clone Wars CG cartoon,
| and one of the odder things about the experience was the end,
| where the editor cut together the final arc of that show,
| another shorter 2D cartoon, and the live action (well... mostly
| also just CG) Revenge of the Sith in roughly chronological
| order (including some nifty simultaneous action bits).
|
| What was so odd was how _very_ much worse and less-real-feeling
| the "live action" film was than the wholly CG cartoon. The
| writing, the line delivery, the sets, the action, the editing--
| it was all worse and came off as far _more_ fake than a literal
| cartoon.
| bombcar wrote:
| Does that Civil War movie have a modern electrical box in the
| background? Because that's what it looks like to me - totally
| distracted me from the watch.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-20 23:00 UTC)