Elvis Gump wrote:
> David Ranney wrote:
>>
>> That's an interesting question. Was the ultra-cheapness of the
>> lighting in SOTG intentional or not. I don't recall ever seeing
>> shadows on the sky in Bonanza, but I guess that doesn't mean it never
>> happened.
>
> They had the same cyc backgrounds, but had the advantage of obscuring
> them with lots of 'vegetation' or papier-mache rocks.
>
> But the ultra flat, multiple lighting sources, multiple shadows was
> exactly the same.
Not half an hour after writing my response an episode of Bonanza came on
TV Land. I watched it and I've got to say I now have a new appreciation
for how truly bad the lighting is on those soundstage scenes. Even when
they managed only one shadow it was so harsh and at such a poor angle
that nobody would mistake it for the sun.
>
>> Certainly the facade-only sets for SOTG were intentional. It seems
>> reasonable that the ultra-artificial lighting would be too, as they
>> would definitely both support a theme of a completely artificial
>> environment.
>
> If they had a real budget they would have just gone out and used the
> Bonanza street on the lot, that is if Bonanza wasn't shooting. The SotG
> sets were someone's bright idea that turned into an embarrassing execution.
If that's the case, then I would classify the sets on SotG as a happy
accident. The episode would not have been as powerful, IMHO, if they
used conventional western sets, or if they more competent lighting.
>> Intentional or not, I would assert that in the end it works, and if it
>> were possible to change it, it still shouldn't be changed. I always
>> liked the odd dreamy atmosphere of SOTG. The lighting is a big part
>> of that. The harsh shadows, the unconvincing lightning flashes, and
>> everything else all contribute, in my opinion.
>
> Well, what if the people involved want it changed? A version of it will
> always exist on DVD which is better than it ever looked on NTSC tv before.
For me that falls under the same heading as Lucas constantly messing
with Star Wars. It was accepted and loved as is. Modern technology
might allow you to glue the arms back onto Venus Di Milo, but that
doesn't mean you should do it.
If you want to release a special "Director's remastering" version,
that's fine. Just don't *replace* the original.
>
> They aren't messing with a Picasso after all. It's just some job William
> Shatner had for a few years. Get a life!
So, are you saying I should pay more attention to the movies?
