Cinematography ahead of its time


I don't know if it is the type of film stock used to shoot the movie, but the cinematography of Empire Strikes Back looks way more advanced than other films released in the late 1970s/early 1980s. It looks more like a film shot in the 1990s. It's amazing how high the production values are in Empire.

reply

Yep, another testament that film stock is better than digital. Also, this was shot on 35mm Panavision film stock.

However, keep in mind, Empire Strikes Back was re-touched several times and digitally altered to become the film it is now. But, indeed, the production values are out of this world.



What we do in life, echoes in eternity.

reply

Lucas putting that Star Wars money to good use.

reply

Yes, I agree.

reply

he financed the film with bank loans, not his personal money

reply

There wasn't much good cinematography in the 1990s. The 80s were the last great decade of movies and cinematography.

reply

One of the reasons why it's still the best Star Wars film.

reply

It's a quantum leap compared to the first movie, which very much looks like a dated 70s film while Empire looks timeless.

I'm not sure Lucas was impressed by it, though. He brought in another cinematographer for Return of the Jedi which means he didn't like it all.

Empire was a happy accident, the last time Lucas let other people make his movies, and lo and behold it was by far the greatest sequel of all time.

reply

I can't imagine Lucas not being happy about how Empire looks. I reckon from what I've heard about Empire going more than 20 million over budget, and with how poor the cinematography looks in Jedi by comparison, he just wanted the next one to be shot more quickly and cheaper.

reply

^^gets it.

reply

I can't imagine Lucas not being happy about how Empire looks.


I don't think he did like it. Lucas has said Empire is his least favorite of the originals. He even fired Gary Kurtz because he didn't agree with Ewoks and all the juvenile stuff in Return of the Jedi, using going over budget as an excuse. Same with Kershner. The cinematographer would've been an extension of all that.

reply

I'll take your word for it. How he can say that about Empire is beyond me.

reply

Lucas didn't like the dark tone, and thought it wasn't action packed enough.

I read one of his biographies (written by John Baxter) and I remember it said that Lucas had a hissy fit about how slow they were making Empire, so he took the film away and re-cut it himself then screened it to everyone, who were all stunned at how crap it was, with someone saying it just all action and quick cuts. They somehow managed to convince him to let them finish the movie and he acquiesced.

I think Empire was serendipitous. Lucas gave others the reigns and it worked perfectly. He never made that mistake again.

reply

He once complained that Empire didn't need to have been as good as it was.

Nerds can be quite fickle and perverse at times.

reply