Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cinematography of “Andor”

pushing-pixels.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 424 posts

Re: Cinematography of “Andor”

#411

Post by hulitu »

meowface wrote: post #3

The cinematography, editing, writing, and overall feel of this show far exceed any Star Wars movie I've seen. I had long since written off the Star Wars franchise as a shameless cash grab since the original movies but they proved they could do something cool with it. I'd definitely watch a new movie if it were handled by the same team that made Andor. Prequel, sequel, side story, or re-telling of the originals.

> The cinematography, editing, writing, and overall feel of this show far exceed any Star Wars movie I've seen.

Yes, but by sucking big. The story is nonexistent, the scenes with children do not blend in the story, the story is boring as hell.

Re: Cinematography of “Andor”

#412

Post by gsich »

ahoka wrote: post #367
gsich wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, even a standard 30-33cm pizza is barely enough for 1 person depending on hungry state.

A regular pizza of that size have about 2000 kcal of energy and an average male would need 2500 kcal a day (less for women), so unless you only have a single meal a day, which is unlikely, then it must be enough.

No, more in the 1000 kcal range.

Re: Cinematography of “Andor”

#413

Post by toyg »

throwaway422432 wrote: post #321
toyg wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there is no conflict, no interest, in exploring a building site. What are you going to talk about, contractors installing pipes? How they get the best canteen food? It's actually better for the Death Star to be unseen, so that its full horror can only be imagined - and hence, becoming greater - in our minds.

We already have the building site scene. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5lDKjA_7I0

This is the sort of reference I winked at - or any of the other derivatives of the infamous Clerks dialogue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQdDRrcAOjA

Re: Cinematography of “Andor”

#414

Post by meowface »

lupire wrote: post #84
meowface wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes me wish it were the actual start of the franchise and then they made Rogue One and the trilogy de novo. In that counterfactual I think there's a good shot it'd be far better than the originals, and the Star Wars story would be considered not just a classic but a masterpiece. (I don't think the original trilogy is bad exactly, but the trilogy with the Andor look/feel/style/writing/acting could've been some of…

As a matter of language, "classic" is far higher status than "masterpiece".

Probably true, in a sense. But being both a classic and a masterpiece is better than just being a classic. One can think of many classics that aren't masterpieces and many masterpieces that aren't classics.

Re: Cinematography of “Andor”

#415

Post by themadturk »

MangoToupe wrote: post #102
fettel wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a lifelong Star Wars fan, fell in love as a young kid. I remember being in 8th grade and being so excited for the prequels, and then walking out of the theater after Ep. 1 and feeling like something was just... wrong. I knew that it was junk, and not the Star Wars I fell in love with. And from there it was pretty much further and further downhill, with occasional glimpses of hope that were quickly dashed. I tried…

I actually greatly prefer the prequels to the original trilogy. I suspect it has to do with the fact that I was a child when episode 1 came out and I was still a child when the prequels concluded. A big part of the problem is that these movies were written, basically, for 12-year old boys. You're not going to be able to get that spark back as an adult, and it's not easy to make a movie that appeals so strongly to bot…

A New Hope came out between my junior and senior years in college, and I was totally blown away (as I had been ten years earlier with 2001: A Space Odyssey). When my youngest son told me the prequel trilogy was his favorite Star Wars I couldn't believe it, but he pointed out that it was the Star Wars he was raised with, and saw for the first time in the theater; it was formative for him. My oldest son first really saw Star Wars when the Special Editions hit theaters, so he comes somewhere in between his younger brother and me.

I've never given up on Star Wars, though obviously there's little good to be said about the sequel trilogy and much of the Disney output. It took me a long time to even see Rogue 1, but I recognized it was something special, and Andor even moreso. (Though I will admit I like eps. 2 and 3 of the prequel trilogy more than I did at first.)

Re: Cinematography of “Andor”

#416

Post by themadturk »

nprateem wrote: post #363
meowface wrote: post #3

The cinematography, editing, writing, and overall feel of this show far exceed any Star Wars movie I've seen. I had long since written off the Star Wars franchise as a shameless cash grab since the original movies but they proved they could do something cool with it. I'd definitely watch a new movie if it were handled by the same team that made Andor. Prequel, sequel, side story, or re-telling of the originals.

[Spoiler-ish] It's just a shame the show largely fails to build emotional connection with the characters. When bad things happened I mostly felt nothing. The other thing that has always plagued SW is the fact they can travel through hyperspace, have the tech to destroy planets, but largely lack CCTV, autopilot, effective homing missiles, HD displays, etc. It's a weird mix of 70s tech and super sci-fi. It's like, if y…

The problem with this is that you expect tech in the Star Wars universe to echo the tech in our universe. First, of course, is that Star Wars is science fantasy, and second, why should technology progress through the same pathways ours have taken? Tech in Star Wars isn't explained, it just is, and it fits the world George Lucas created and the story he wanted to tell. Space fighters fly the way they do because WWII fighters fly the way they do; autopilots don't work because they weren't a thing in the Saturday afternoon serials of the era Lucas grew up in and was trying to emulate on screen.

It is a weird mix, but the best thing to do is just leave any desire for realistic physics or Terran historic progress at the box office.

Re: Cinematography of “Andor”

#417

Post by themadturk »

tecoholic wrote: post #46

Everyone seem like to be discussing the show and none the article. For someone who hadn’t watched the show, the article is a pain to read. The images are thrown in randomly, there is no relationship between the text and the images. Every images is pointlessly labelled “Cinematography of “Andor” by Christophe Nuyens”. The interview seems to have covered things in detail, like going into specific scenes and sets, and l…

Frankly, the best photo was Denise Gough grinning at the cinematographer. I love seeing actors in costume and out of character, and her playing of Dedra is so chilling, it's like whiplash seeing her being a real human in costume.

Re: Cinematography of “Andor”

#418

Post by themadturk »

lucideer wrote: post #257
jfengel wrote: post #139

I'm astonished at the sets. Some of them seem impossible even for The Volume. I'm sure it's a combination of techniques (locations, Volume, CGI, green screen, etc), because that's what keeps your eye guessing. But I'm continually blown away by how expansive it is in both the foreground and background (and moving between the two).

Afaik they didn't make any use of The Volume for this, but otherwise it's a nuanced combination of all 3 of CGI, locations & built practical sets.

The did use some Volume (it's mentioned in the article, but as "digital background" or some such), but there's a lot of painted backgrounds and practical sets.

Re: Cinematography of “Andor”

#419

Post by lucideer »

themadturk wrote: post #418
lucideer wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Afaik they didn't make any use of The Volume for this, but otherwise it's a nuanced combination of all 3 of CGI, locations & built practical sets.

The did use some Volume (it's mentioned in the article, but as "digital background" or some such), but there's a lot of painted backgrounds and practical sets.

I don't see it mentioned in the article?

I saw an interview with Tony Gilroy where he said he didn't make use of it, but I can't recall if he was referring to Season 1 or both, so it might've been introduced in S2.

Re: Cinematography of “Andor”

#420

Post by khazhoux »

greedo wrote: post #386
khazhoux wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The producer runs the show, not the director

It's much, much more collaborative than that. The role of a producer can be limited to managing the financial side of the production. Or they can be involved with coordinating the production itself. The director has the most say over what is shot, how it's edited, what the score should be like. A good producer can help make a film excellent, but if you have a bad director, or the "wrong" director, then nothing the pr…

You’re talking about something different. Certainly the director is the creative force. The sine qua non.. (Or.. cine qua non??)

But in the context of this discussion, the producer is the one that coordinates and brings together the huge complexity of the project. That is their defined role. It is the director’s vision and decision-making, but the producer ensures the execution across hundreds of people and many departments.

(Source: i worked in films)

Post reply on HN