Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2016 19:08:49 GMT
I don't think you need to know history to understand the pile of bodies, but you questioned whether that ever could happen, so I'm telling you that yes, it can, and yes, it has. The piles were started by the collision of the cavalry charges. All those dead horses and men had to go somewhere. As more men charged into the front lines and fell, they began to pile up, and then men started charging over the bodies. Eventually, the Bolton army used the shields to back the remaining men against the wall of bodies and squeezed them into an even bigger corpse pile. It kind of seems like you're skeptical that viewers should ever get to be happy about an outcome in Game of Thrones.  I, for one, am hoping that the good guys win this thing in the end, so I'm expecting a few more hard won wins. They have to make some progress toward that at some point, and there isn't that much time left to wrap this thing up. War is horrible and horrific; it also plugs into the same human drives that make us fuck and scream, which is why people got so incredibly pumped. As for Sansa, I think she is becoming a Machiavellian player. And like you said, better a darth Sansa than a dead Ned. It's not necessarily that I don't think there would be piles of bodies in a battle, but I didn't understand how they could stack so high without an external physical force causing that, and the show didn't show me what it was. It was an over-the-top visual. Huge stacks of bodies just started appearing during a point where I was all ready confused by what was happening in the battle. As a viewer, all I know is what is happening in the context of the episode, and in 10 seconds they could have shown Bolton archers falling from the battlements onto growing corpse piles, or something! Anything! I'm not going to be invested in Jon suffocating under a pile of bodies if it feels less like a natural extension of the battle's progression, and more like a calculated plot point by the writers. It goes back to my sense that there was a lack of cohesion in this battle, not just from a narrative standpoint, but in tone, as well. It's not that I think every outcome should be bad, just look at how triumphant Arya's moment with Jaqen was in episode 8. A girl has no name and an audience needs a win. But this was the centerpiece of the season, and it lacked the complexity that previous year's big episodes have had. Ramsay's lack of presence in the final half of season 6 made him feel more like a Big Boss character, just waiting around in the castle for Player 1 to show up and defeat him. Compare that to Stannis, who was an integral character that we followed all throughout season 2. The audience was kind of rooting for him to kill Joffrey, but also rooting for Tyrion to save the day. The Battle of the Bastards felt very confused. You've got these gritty moments like Jon being suffocated, his face caked in blood and mud. Then you've got a cheesy CGI shot following a volley of arrows, a cool tracking shot over Jon's shoulder. It's like the production team couldn't decide if they wanted to match the horror of Hardhome, or the epic excitement of Blackwater and WoTW, so instead of choosing a singular vision, they decided to just mash all these ideas together and hope for the best. There was a serious mismatch in tone from one moment to the next. I wouldn't be surprised to find out Sapochnik was pushing for the nitty gritty elements, while D&D wanted more cool moments, or vice versa. In the Inside the Episode thingy one of the Ds says that they did intend to show something they had not seen before in battles that they watched for inspiration: a pitched Medieval battle that showed what it was like inside the battle as well as the geography of it. So, you're right that they absolutely were combining two types of battles into one. I don't think their intent was cool vs. gritty, but I guess maybe that was a product. I didn't think the CGI or tracking shots looked cheesy at all. I liked them, so I guess that is the big difference in our enjoyment of the battle. I particularly liked the volley of arrows that somehow narrowly missed Jon, and then all the random things that happened just after that. It showed that skill isn't the only thing that helps you survive a battle. Luck and chance are just as important. You're right that you don't really see the bodies piling up. You see some of it, but not much. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2016 1:17:14 GMT
Soon all my favourites will be dead... So long as Ser Davos lives, this fandom is not over for me... Forgot to respond to this. Davos has a new purpose and that's fucking kicking White Walker ass. He's actually a character I think could survive the entire series. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveyJoe on Jun 24, 2016 7:37:35 GMT
It's not necessarily that I don't think there would be piles of bodies in a battle, but I didn't understand how they could stack so high without an external physical force causing that, and the show didn't show me what it was. It was an over-the-top visual. Huge stacks of bodies just started appearing during a point where I was all ready confused by what was happening in the battle. As a viewer, all I know is what is happening in the context of the episode, and in 10 seconds they could have shown Bolton archers falling from the battlements onto growing corpse piles, or something! Anything! I'm not going to be invested in Jon suffocating under a pile of bodies if it feels less like a natural extension of the battle's progression, and more like a calculated plot point by the writers. It goes back to my sense that there was a lack of cohesion in this battle, not just from a narrative standpoint, but in tone, as well. It's not that I think every outcome should be bad, just look at how triumphant Arya's moment with Jaqen was in episode 8. A girl has no name and an audience needs a win. But this was the centerpiece of the season, and it lacked the complexity that previous year's big episodes have had. Ramsay's lack of presence in the final half of season 6 made him feel more like a Big Boss character, just waiting around in the castle for Player 1 to show up and defeat him. Compare that to Stannis, who was an integral character that we followed all throughout season 2. The audience was kind of rooting for him to kill Joffrey, but also rooting for Tyrion to save the day. The Battle of the Bastards felt very confused. You've got these gritty moments like Jon being suffocated, his face caked in blood and mud. Then you've got a cheesy CGI shot following a volley of arrows, a cool tracking shot over Jon's shoulder. It's like the production team couldn't decide if they wanted to match the horror of Hardhome, or the epic excitement of Blackwater and WoTW, so instead of choosing a singular vision, they decided to just mash all these ideas together and hope for the best. There was a serious mismatch in tone from one moment to the next. I wouldn't be surprised to find out Sapochnik was pushing for the nitty gritty elements, while D&D wanted more cool moments, or vice versa. In the Inside the Episode thingy one of the Ds says that they did intend to show something they had not seen before in battles that they watched for inspiration: a pitched Medieval battle that showed what it was like inside the battle as well as the geography of it. So, you're right that they absolutely were combining two types of battles into one. I don't think their intent was cool vs. gritty, but I guess maybe that was a product. I didn't think the CGI or tracking shots looked cheesy at all. I liked them, so I guess that is the big difference in our enjoyment of the battle. I particularly liked the volley of arrows that somehow narrowly missed Jon, and then all the random things that happened just after that. It showed that skill isn't the only thing that helps you survive a battle. Luck and chance are just as important. You're right that you don't really see the bodies piling up. You see some of it, but not much. Well, what I'm getting at is these cool moments somehow slipped in and don't mesh with with the grim tone they were probably going for. Especially since they don't really enhance the story or the tone. Let's take a look at one of the flashiest moments from WoTW: This is a very cool moment from that episode, and it actually enhances the story. This is just after Jon Snow comes down from the elevator to help. So this tracking shot is helping the viewer understand how complex this battle is, that Thorne and Jon have to organize defenses from two different parts of the Wall, from the North and South. The Wildlings have all ready infiltrated the main grounds of Castle Black South, and at this point there are Wildlings and Night's Watch men running all over. It's not one line of soldiers on one side facing a line of soldiers on the other. People from both sides are everywhere, Ygritte is firing arrows from the rafters above, but the audience understands what is happening clearly. While I wouldn't be surprised if CGI was used to enhance this scene, it feels real and has a dramatic weight that's grounded in reality. This moment from BotB looks like Kit in front of a green screen and when he knocks the soldier off the horse, it doesn't really look like the sword connects with him, or the soldier has the proper weight. Something about it is just off.  Similarly, the tracking shot of the arrow volley might look cool, but it doesn't add anything of substance. I know this type of shot is impossible for a camera to achieve, and the arrows just look fake to me.  What's wrong with Shot A showing archers nocking their bows, firing arrows, and Shot B showing Kit rolling on the ground as the arrows narrowly miss him? I thought that shot looked fine, and the arrows hitting the ground looked more real than the ones flying through the air just a moment before. I had trouble connecting the moments because the shot in the middle screamed fake to me, taking me out of the moment. The language of film is simple, all you have to do as a director is follow the 180 rule. To explain, notice how there are two shots of the same archers here:  One shot is medium, the other much tighter, but they are on the right side of the screen in both shots. If the second shot had shown the archers on the left, it would have broken the 180 degree rule, and the audience would have been instantly confused, thinking the second shot was a group of archers opposite the first. You'll notice that the entire first part of the battle has Jon's army on the left side of the screen, and Ramsay's on the right. Sapochnik knows what he's doing, and I would have enjoyed the battle much more without the cartoonish self-indulgence. Marshall's tracking shot featured real actors swinging prop swords at each other. It emphasizes the chaos of the battle, but in an elegant way that doesn't disorient the viewer. The tracking shots here simply couldn't have been achieved without CGI, and didn't add anything to the battle except look cool. It takes a lot more skill and patience to film something like Marshall did, but the tracking shot with Jon from Sunday can be done with Kit in front of a green screen while a computer does the heavy lifting. I wonder if D&D decided 'fuck it, HBO is giving us all this money this year, let's do some cool shit!' because there is a mishmash of tones throughout the battle. When you start throwing in too many ingredients that don't work together, the entire meal is ruined. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2016 11:54:29 GMT
In the Inside the Episode thingy one of the Ds says that they did intend to show something they had not seen before in battles that they watched for inspiration: a pitched Medieval battle that showed what it was like inside the battle as well as the geography of it. So, you're right that they absolutely were combining two types of battles into one. I don't think their intent was cool vs. gritty, but I guess maybe that was a product. I didn't think the CGI or tracking shots looked cheesy at all. I liked them, so I guess that is the big difference in our enjoyment of the battle. I particularly liked the volley of arrows that somehow narrowly missed Jon, and then all the random things that happened just after that. It showed that skill isn't the only thing that helps you survive a battle. Luck and chance are just as important. You're right that you don't really see the bodies piling up. You see some of it, but not much. Well, what I'm getting at is these cool moments somehow slipped in and don't mesh with with the grim tone they were probably going for. Especially since they don't really enhance the story or the tone. Let's take a look at one of the flashiest moments from WoTW: This is a very cool moment from that episode, and it actually enhances the story. This is just after Jon Snow comes down from the elevator to help. So this tracking shot is helping the viewer understand how complex this battle is, that Thorne and Jon have to organize defenses from two different parts of the Wall, from the North and South. The Wildlings have all ready infiltrated the main grounds of Castle Black South, and at this point there are Wildlings and Night's Watch men running all over. It's not one line of soldiers on one side facing a line of soldiers on the other. People from both sides are everywhere, Ygritte is firing arrows from the rafters above, but the audience understands what is happening clearly. While I wouldn't be surprised if CGI was used to enhance this scene, it feels real and has a dramatic weight that's grounded in reality. This moment from BotB looks like Kit in front of a green screen and when he knocks the soldier off the horse, it doesn't really look like the sword connects with him, or the soldier has the proper weight. Something about it is just off.I think this is an example of you being an editing snob.  I think that shot looks fine, but now that you point it out, yes I see that. Yeah, I didn't love the arrows through the air shot. I didn't hate it, but it didn't impress me. The part I enjoyed was seeing the volley of arrows fall all around Jon. Aside from the way that next sequence was shot, I loved what was HAPPENING. Jon got lucky a couple times. He killed two men who were fighting, so he probably killed one of his own men. Crazy shit that seemed VERY real to me. I love love loved Watchers on the Wall, and my favorite part of that was the super long shot, but truthfully, it looked like a stage set compared to this. This looked much more real to my eye.  I definitely don't think any part of the battle looked cartoonish with the possible exception of Wun Wun ripping a dude apart, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. There was no way to get those horse shots without using CGI, so I think that's why they used so much of it. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveyJoe on Jun 25, 2016 6:04:41 GMT
Well, what I'm getting at is these cool moments somehow slipped in and don't mesh with with the grim tone they were probably going for. Especially since they don't really enhance the story or the tone. Let's take a look at one of the flashiest moments from WoTW: This is a very cool moment from that episode, and it actually enhances the story. This is just after Jon Snow comes down from the elevator to help. So this tracking shot is helping the viewer understand how complex this battle is, that Thorne and Jon have to organize defenses from two different parts of the Wall, from the North and South. The Wildlings have all ready infiltrated the main grounds of Castle Black South, and at this point there are Wildlings and Night's Watch men running all over. It's not one line of soldiers on one side facing a line of soldiers on the other. People from both sides are everywhere, Ygritte is firing arrows from the rafters above, but the audience understands what is happening clearly. While I wouldn't be surprised if CGI was used to enhance this scene, it feels real and has a dramatic weight that's grounded in reality. This moment from BotB looks like Kit in front of a green screen and when he knocks the soldier off the horse, it doesn't really look like the sword connects with him, or the soldier has the proper weight. Something about it is just off.I think this is an example of you being an editing snob. I think that shot looks fine, but now that you point it out, yes I see that. Yeah, I didn't love the arrows through the air shot. I didn't hate it, but it didn't impress me. The part I enjoyed was seeing the volley of arrows fall all around Jon. Aside from the way that next sequence was shot, I loved what was HAPPENING. Jon got lucky a couple times. He killed two men who were fighting, so he probably killed one of his own men. Crazy shit that seemed VERY real to me. I love love loved Watchers on the Wall, and my favorite part of that was the super long shot, but truthfully, it looked like a stage set compared to this. This looked much more real to my eye. I definitely don't think any part of the battle looked cartoonish with the possible exception of Wun Wun ripping a dude apart, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. There was no way to get those horse shots without using CGI, so I think that's why they used so much of it. You say snob, I prefer purist.  My knowledge of filmmaking and editing probably makes me more sensitive to these types of visuals. And in this particular instance it's not an editing issue, but the blending of Kit's green screen work with the background. I grew up watching epics like Spartacus, Lawrence of Arabia, The Longest Day, The Fall of the Roman Empire, Alexander Nevsky, the list goes on. I was amazed at the excitement they could create on such a large scale through the power of filmmaking, clever editing, tons of extras, and beautiful cinematography. CGI is best used as a tool to enhance great filmmaking, and take it to further heights, but it is too often used as a shortcut to bypass the hassles of managing large productions that require a lot of extras and choreography, and that's what I think happened here. I don't have a problem with the volley of arrows or Jon's plot armor, it's well established that he was 'brought back for a reason.' My problem was the tracking shot of the animated arrows. You want to do some wide shots that make the army look bigger by copying and pasting your groups of extras? Fine. But a more intimate moment like the tracking shot of Jon Snow deserved better than a green screen special effect. I wager Neil Marshall would have put more effort and constructed a beautiful tracking shot that followed Kit on a dolly. But it's easier to skip those challenges and just do it in post. The iffy compositing pulled me out of the action, instead of Jon Snow tearing through enemies, I saw Kit Harrington flopping around in front of a chroma key. And that sense of corner cutting is evident throughout the entire episode, from questionable character decisions, to continuity errors, and yes, yet another deus ex machina. The production crew leaned too much on the budget instead of taking the time and energy to craft a set piece that lived up to its predecessors. Watchers on the Wall will always impress audiences because epic moments like the 360 shot is made from excellent direction, painstaking choreography, and wonderful camerawork. BotB will only impress people until its CGI looks dated, and it all ready pulled me out of the action on Sunday.  Sapochnik: "Great work, Kit. That's a wrap! Who wants a pint?" |
|
|
|
Post by boojam on Jun 25, 2016 9:13:27 GMT
You say snob, I prefer purist. My knowledge of filmmaking and editing probably makes me more sensitive to these types of visuals. And in this particular instance it's not an editing issue, but the blending of Kit's green screen work with the background. I grew up watching epics like Spartacus, Lawrence of Arabia, The Longest Day, The Fall of the Roman Empire, Alexander Nevsky, the list goes on. I was amazed at the excitement they could create on such a large scale through the power of filmmaking, clever editing, tons of extras, and beautiful cinematography. CGI is best used as a tool to enhance great filmmaking, and take it to further heights, but it is too often used as a shortcut to bypass the hassles of managing large productions that require a lot of extras and choreography, and that's what I think happened here. You know I watched again the Battle on the Ice scene in Alexander Nevsky where the mounted Teutonic Knights change into the Russian infantry. That scene has a terrific set up when one sees the mass horse change , sort of in step, from the point of view of the Russian troops to Prokofiev's magnificent music. However even tho the Knights change into the mass of Russians one can see that , even in those days, they have pull their punch or the horse would have been severely injured, which happened in the real battle. I compare this with the 'helicopter shot' of the Knights of the Vale charging in the Bolton line , it's a CGI , and it looks great , I have never seen that done before. Ridley Scott could have done that in the battle at the beginning of Gladiator but , I guess, didn't think of it. Actually that battle looks good for a sword and mud fight. Speaking of Nevsky Kubrick must have taken inspiration from that for the set up of the big battle in Spartacus 1960 , the Roman Legions marching forward from the POV of the slave army is genius work , what a vista! However, you may know, Kubrick was so disappointed with the hand to hand combat he used very little of it. I remember reading a description of what he wanted and could not get. I think in later years if given the chance again he would have , but he didn't do film making like that. I don't remember any good battle in Fall of the Roman Empire. I think there was a fair one in the Richard Burton Alexander the Great film of 1956. (This is kind of a forgotten film but it's the best one about Alexander, the Oliver Stone version is about something but it's not Alexander the Great!) My take on this battle is that it is a superior try , I can see the seams too, but the over all effort of trying to visualize verisimilitude is really remarkable , I think CGI is the way to go. I don't even know if it would ever really be possible to do a real spear and sandal battle , movie-wise, and make it look authentic. (And even keep it R-rated!) Have you ever seen Scipione l'africano (1937)? The Mussolini sponsored movie about the Second Punic War? It climaxes with the Battle of Zama. Something like nearly 40,000 thousand extras in the battle scene! Alas the action is lackluster and elephants and horse died in the making of it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2016 12:11:27 GMT
I think this is an example of you being an editing snob. I think that shot looks fine, but now that you point it out, yes I see that. Yeah, I didn't love the arrows through the air shot. I didn't hate it, but it didn't impress me. The part I enjoyed was seeing the volley of arrows fall all around Jon. Aside from the way that next sequence was shot, I loved what was HAPPENING. Jon got lucky a couple times. He killed two men who were fighting, so he probably killed one of his own men. Crazy shit that seemed VERY real to me. I love love loved Watchers on the Wall, and my favorite part of that was the super long shot, but truthfully, it looked like a stage set compared to this. This looked much more real to my eye. I definitely don't think any part of the battle looked cartoonish with the possible exception of Wun Wun ripping a dude apart, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. There was no way to get those horse shots without using CGI, so I think that's why they used so much of it. And in this particular instance it's not an editing issue, but the blending of Kit's green screen work with the background. I grew up watching epics like Spartacus, Lawrence of Arabia, The Longest Day, The Fall of the Roman Empire, Alexander Nevsky, the list goes on. I was amazed at the excitement they could create on such a large scale through the power of filmmaking, clever editing, tons of extras, and beautiful cinematography. CGI is best used as a tool to enhance great filmmaking, and take it to further heights, but it is too often used as a shortcut to bypass the hassles of managing large productions that require a lot of extras and choreography, and that's what I think happened here. I don't have a problem with the volley of arrows or Jon's plot armor, it's well established that he was 'brought back for a reason.' My problem was the tracking shot of the animated arrows. You want to do some wide shots that make the army look bigger by copying and pasting your groups of extras? Fine. But a more intimate moment like the tracking shot of Jon Snow deserved better than a green screen special effect. I wager Neil Marshall would have put more effort and constructed a beautiful tracking shot that followed Kit on a dolly. But it's easier to skip those challenges and just do it in post. The iffy compositing pulled me out of the action, instead of Jon Snow tearing through enemies, I saw Kit Harrington flopping around in front of a chroma key. And that sense of corner cutting is evident throughout the entire episode, from questionable character decisions, to continuity errors, and yes, yet another deus ex machina. The production crew leaned too much on the budget instead of taking the time and energy to craft a set piece that lived up to its predecessors. Watchers on the Wall will always impress audiences because epic moments like the 360 shot is made from excellent direction, painstaking choreography, and wonderful camerawork. BotB will only impress people until its CGI looks dated, and it all ready pulled me out of the action on Sunday. Sapochnik: "Great work, Kit. That's a wrap! Who wants a pint?" Make a gotdamn film already, Davey Eagle Eye Joe! That's not just a retort. I'm dead serious. boojam I agree, the horses were really the element that forced all the CGI. And I loved that horses were present, so I'm good with it. I started seeing "the seams" on repeat viewings, but I was looking for them. |
|
|
|
Post by boojam on Jun 25, 2016 12:50:48 GMT
Sapochnik: "Great work, Kit. That's a wrap! Who wants a pint?" Make a gotdamn film already, Davey Eagle Eye Joe! That's not just a retort. I'm dead serious. boojam I agree, the horses were really the element that forced all the CGI. And I loved that horses were present, so I'm good with it. I started seeing "the seams" on repeat viewings, but I was looking for them. There are stories that the great film director John Ford was indifferent to the horses that he used in his Westerns, not to primary ones but 'stunt' horse. I don't mean the stunt men were indifferent to the horse, but in those days they just pushed things to the limit with much , if any, restrictions. Speaking of cinematography with CGI and editing would be interesting to see the current cinema magician Emmanuel Lubezki try his hand at one of these action sequences. |
|
|
|
Post by boojam on Jun 25, 2016 13:40:06 GMT
This moment from BotB looks like Kit in front of a green screen and when he knocks the soldier off the horse, it doesn't really look like the sword connects with him, or the soldier has the proper weight. Something about it is just off. I see what you mean but all in the all it really looks ok to my eye. It's a little off, but the flow and the composition look fine to me. I am guessing the horse was real but was composited into the frame, lot of the mayhem in the background looks very good. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveyJoe on Jun 25, 2016 17:32:43 GMT
You say snob, I prefer purist. My knowledge of filmmaking and editing probably makes me more sensitive to these types of visuals. And in this particular instance it's not an editing issue, but the blending of Kit's green screen work with the background. I grew up watching epics like Spartacus, Lawrence of Arabia, The Longest Day, The Fall of the Roman Empire, Alexander Nevsky, the list goes on. I was amazed at the excitement they could create on such a large scale through the power of filmmaking, clever editing, tons of extras, and beautiful cinematography. CGI is best used as a tool to enhance great filmmaking, and take it to further heights, but it is too often used as a shortcut to bypass the hassles of managing large productions that require a lot of extras and choreography, and that's what I think happened here. You know I watched again the Battle on the Ice scene in Alexander Nevsky where the mounted Teutonic Knights change into the Russian infantry. That scene has a terrific set up when one sees the mass horse change , sort of in step, from the point of view of the Russian troops to Prokofiev's magnificent music. However even tho the Knights change into the mass of Russians one can see that , even in those days, they have pull their punch or the horse would have been severely injured, which happened in the real battle. I compare this with the 'helicopter shot' of the Knights of the Vale charging in the Bolton line , it's a CGI , and it looks great , I have never seen that done before. Ridley Scott could have done that in the battle at the beginning of Gladiator but , I guess, didn't think of it. Actually that battle looks good for a sword and mud fight. Speaking of Nevsky Kubrick must have taken inspiration from that for the set up of the big battle in Spartacus 1960 , the Roman Legions marching forward from the POV of the slave army is genius work , what a vista! However, you may know, Kubrick was so disappointed with the hand to hand combat he used very little of it. I remember reading a description of what he wanted and could not get. I think in later years if given the chance again he would have , but he didn't do film making like that. I don't remember any good battle in Fall of the Roman Empire. I think there was a fair one in the Richard Burton Alexander the Great film of 1956. (This is kind of a forgotten film but it's the best one about Alexander, the Oliver Stone version is about something but it's not Alexander the Great!) My take on this battle is that it is a superior try , I can see the seams too, but the over all effort of trying to visualize verisimilitude is really remarkable , I think CGI is the way to go. I don't even know if it would ever really be possible to do a real spear and sandal battle , movie-wise, and make it look authentic. (And even keep it R-rated!) Have you ever seen Scipione l'africano (1937)? The Mussolini sponsored movie about the Second Punic War? It climaxes with the Battle of Zama. Something like nearly 40,000 thousand extras in the battle scene! Alas the action is lackluster and elephants and horse died in the making of it. Kubrick hated most of his experience working on Spartacus. and of course he wasn't fully satisfied, he's one of the most notorious perfectionists in film making. I don't think Sapochnik is as much of a perfectionist.  The Knights of the Vale charge was definitely not the first use of aerials for a shot like that, they did it back in season 4 with Stannis charging the Wildlings. Rewatch Braveheart's cavalry charge at Stirling to see how to use horses convincingly in a gritty, violent battle. Gibson was even investigated by the The American Humane Film/TV Organization because they were convinced that horses were harmed or killed in that scene. I refute the idea that this scene was impossible to film without green screens and CGI. With a telephoto lens they could have flattened the image and made it appear like horses were zipping right by Kit, when they weren't that close at all, and you'd have the benefit of your hero being out in the field of battle, instead of the studio. It would have required more effort and choreography, but this is the defining set piece of the season, why not go all out! I appreciate that they were going for some complicated shots, but I'm disappointed that they took the easiest methods of accomplishing them. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveyJoe on Jun 26, 2016 1:02:04 GMT
Look how much more exciting an action scene is when both characters are in the same location, instead of composited via green screen: |
|
|
|
Post by boojam on Jun 26, 2016 15:31:22 GMT
Rewatch Braveheart's cavalry charge at Stirling to see how to use horses convincingly in a gritty, violent battle. Gibson was even investigated by the The American Humane Film/TV Organization because they were convinced that horses were harmed or killed in that scene. I refute the idea that this scene was impossible to film without green screens and CGI. With a telephoto lens they could have flattened the image and made it appear like horses were zipping right by Kit, when they weren't that close at all, and you'd have the benefit of your hero being out in the field of battle, instead of the studio. It would have required more effort and choreography, but this is the defining set piece of the season, why not go all out! I appreciate that they were going for some complicated shots, but I'm disappointed that they took the easiest methods of accomplishing them. I did re watch that , that is done really well, I do notice in the initial collision they finesse the angles so there is more space , in the real, than the perceived spacings , but thats ok , good cinematography. Looked like those wooden spear were rubber when the horse got on top of them. After that it was the same tight shooting I was last Sunday night when the hand to hand was laid too, look good in Braveheard looked about the same in BOB. Braveheart did not have a helicopter shot like that in BOB , in fact I don't think I have ever seen in the cinema a shot like that. I know it's all CGI but one can see horse mowing down infantry , at least I don't remember a long framing shot like that anywhere. That really looked unique and good to me. |
|
|
|
Post by breakfest on Jun 26, 2016 15:56:02 GMT
This thread.
World: The battle scenes were great.
Davey: Nah.
|
|
|
|
Post by DaveyJoe on Jun 27, 2016 0:10:39 GMT
Hey, I put a lot of effort into explaining what I didn't like, and why!  |
|
|
|
Post by breakfest on Jun 27, 2016 0:29:59 GMT
I know you did. It's funny, and kind of impressive, that you spent so long putting your case forward when everyone seems to disagree. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2016 0:41:41 GMT
Hey, I put a lot of effort into explaining what I didn't like, and why! damn i want to see zootopia lol |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2016 0:45:43 GMT
I know you did. It's funny, and kind of impressive, that you spent so long putting your case forward when everyone seems to disagree.  |
|
|
|
Post by DaveyJoe on Jun 27, 2016 0:56:56 GMT
I know you did. It's funny, and kind of impressive, that you spent so long putting your case forward when everyone seems to disagree. Well it started out pretty basic: "I thought it was cartoonish." everybody else: "I didn't think so!" And Nezzer hit it earlier how the things that bothered me, and the things others liked were largely subjective. So I thought I'd explain a bit why I found certain elements cartoonish. And I've never been so disappointed in a GoT episode before, so it helped me kind of work through my feelings on the battle. Hopefully some of the visuals I provided helped people understand where I was coming from a bit more, and I think they did. When you're in the moment, you don't notice how Jon isn't making much forward progress during his tracking shot, and the reason he keeps dodging backwards is because it's a green screen effect, and he doesn't have as much room to move in the studio. I recognized it right away so it wasn't an exciting shot for me. Besides, my reviews are usually really long winded anyway, the difference here is that instead of my usual gushing, I was disappointed. |
|
I, for one, am hoping that the good guys win this thing in the end, so I'm expecting a few more hard won wins. They have to make some progress toward that at some point, and there isn't that much time left to wrap this thing up. War is horrible and horrific; it also plugs into the same human drives that make us fuck and scream, which is why people got so incredibly pumped. 
I think that shot looks fine, but now that you point it out, yes I see that. 
My knowledge of filmmaking and editing probably makes me more sensitive to these types of visuals. And in this particular instance it's not an editing issue, but the blending of Kit's green screen work with the background. I grew up watching epics like Spartacus, Lawrence of Arabia, The Longest Day, The Fall of the Roman Empire, Alexander Nevsky, the list goes on. I was amazed at the excitement they could create on such a large scale through the power of filmmaking, clever editing, tons of extras, and beautiful cinematography. CGI is best used as a tool to enhance great filmmaking, and take it to further heights, but it is too often used as a shortcut to bypass the hassles of managing large productions that require a lot of extras and choreography, and that's what I think happened here.
The Knights of the Vale charge was definitely not the first use of aerials for a shot like that, they did it back in season 4 with Stannis charging the Wildlings.
