7 ms·

Photos from the making of Empire Strikes Back

168 points by fogus 16y ago

conover 16y ago
If you click the print icon the upper right, all the pictures will be displayed on a single page vertically.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- bemmu 16y ago
  Maybe exclusively on the web, as in not in the printed version of Vanity Fair.
aw3c2 16y ago
Single page: http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/features/2010/10/the-making-of-the-empire-strikes-back-201010?currentPage=all http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/features/2010/10/the-mak...
jmcnevin 16y ago
Yawn. Wake me up when these photographs are re-released in 3D.
- hartror 16y ago
  Ssssh George will hear you, haven't we had our childhood raped enough as it is?!
  - sigzero 16y ago
    Unfortunately...it is coming whether we like it or not. :-(
- minalecs 16y ago
  they're already working on it http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/29/star-wars-release-coming-soon-theater-near/ http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/29/star-wars-release-...
hartror 16y ago
Damn I forgot how roguishly good looking Harrison Ford was back in the day.
- kmfrk 16y ago
  He looks a lot like a young David Duchovny.
  - jtbigwoo 16y ago
    I read an article about the X-Files once where the author talked about how the show flipped the usual formula for television casting on its head. In most television shows, the female lead is hired primarily for her looks while the male lead is supposed to be the one the audience can identify with. In the X-Files, Duchovny was the tall, slim model-ish one while Gillian Anderson was short and basically normal looking. It seems like X-Files fans have a better gender balance than most sci-fi shows. I wonder if having a more normal female lead helped in that regard? Something similar seems to have happened in Star Wars. It's easy to forget since they've been around for so long, but Harrison Ford and Billy Dee Williams were ridiculously good looking guys. Mark Hamill was a teen idol from his time on shows like Eight is Enough and The Texas Wheelers (I had to look that name up.) By looks alone, Carrie Fisher might be the least likely of the four to get a magazine cover. (Don't tell my twelve-year-old self, though.)
    - scott_s 16y ago
      The flaw in your theory is that Carrie Fisher looks absolutely stunning in this picture: http://www.vanityfair.com/images/hollywood/2010/10/esb08.jpg http://www.vanityfair.com/images/hollywood/2010/10/esb08.jpg
      - jtbigwoo 16y ago
        Don't get me wrong--Carrie Fisher is pretty. She could have easily been the homecoming queen at my high school. As long as she wasn't too busy doing coke with Tony Bennett or whatever children of famous actors did in the 70's. I'm just saying that she wasn't Daryl Hannah. (For those of you born after 1985, Daryl Hannah was the Megan Fox of the late 70's/early 80's.)
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
Brashman 16y ago
This was a reminder to me that special effects weren't always done sitting in front of a computer.
JunkDNA 16y ago
This is a great set of shots. Having watched a ton of "Making of Star Wars" specials on PBS as a kid, I really thought I wasn't going to see anything new here. There were a couple of surprises: I'm a little embarrassed to admit that until seeing the first photo just a few minutes ago, it never really occurred to me that they would have had to film the opening crawl that way. Having seen the sequence where Luke falls from the catwalk a million times, it's quite jarring to see all those mattresses below him. Even though intuitively you're aware that they did not film that scene hanging above a thousand foot drop, the visual effects really do allow you to suspend disbelief.
- barrettcolin 16y ago
  "I'm a little embarrassed to admit that until seeing the first photo just a few minutes ago, it never really occurred to me that they would have had to film the opening crawl that way." I recently discovered (from browsing around the bonus material on the DVD on a lazy Sunday, naturally) that the multi-layer CG starfield effects created by ILM for Star Trek III were put on film by pointing a camera at a computer monitor and recording the output.
zandor 16y ago
Some other one's which were published in Maxim, http://www.starwars.com/fans/media_news/maxim_esb/index.html http://www.starwars.com/fans/media_news/maxim_esb/index.html
- daten 16y ago
  This link is work-safe. At least with noscript. I don't know if there are any racy ads I'm not seeing.
  - scott_s 16y ago
    Note that it's starwars.com, not maxim.com.
gaius 16y ago
You don't really see this in the films, but in a still it's amazing how detailed the X-wing is.
brandnewlow 16y ago
So why can't we get more films shot with awesome matte backgrounds like that anymore? Is it really that much cheaper to do a background via CGI than to have it painted?
- icegreentea 16y ago
  Often the "CGI" background is a combination of "true" CGI, manipulated photos/footage, and digital "hand" painting (at least for the deep backgrounds). It's much more flexible than physical painting. For one thing, there's undo, and versioning, not having to wait for paint to dry, etc etc. For example, if you want a castle in the mountains in the background, the mountains might be a composite of a photo, and some extra CG. A castle is then rendered "in the rough" ontop of the mountain, and then details hand painted in. And then the whole thing gets another CG/painting treatment to make sure everything fits in and to create more atmosphere. Every matte painting is different. If you're interested, you can poke around cgsociety's (sorry it's blocked at work) forums in the digital matte painting section. It's really just a huge grab bag of techniques.
asmithmd1 16y ago
I remember watching Empire Strikes Back in a theater and being very disappointed -- I thought they should have flashed To Be Continued at the end -- I had to wait 3 years for the next episode.
whatrocks 16y ago
Lucas is so scourged for Jar-Jar and those late 1990s remakes that I often lose sight of how innovative and influential he's been on special effects, movies, and our lives in general. Lucasfilm and its subsidiaries (Pixar, ILM, THX) should be considered among the great start-ups of our time.
danielnicollet 16y ago
I was really fine with the painted figures, cardboard sets and resin armors. I wonder why the saga of Star Wars could not continue and if it wouldn't maybe be cheaper to do the next without CGI (classic style). Maybe time for Indian Bollywood studios to show us what they can do to make us dream! ;-)
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  What makes you believe that Bollywood studios don't use cgi? They do.

168 points by fogus 16y ago

conover 16y ago

If you click the print icon the upper right, all the pictures will be displayed on a single page vertically.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

bemmu 16y ago
Maybe exclusively on the web, as in not in the printed version of Vanity Fair.

aw3c2 16y ago

Single page: http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/features/2010/10/the-making-of-the-empire-strikes-back-201010?currentPage=all http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/features/2010/10/the-mak...

jmcnevin 16y ago

Yawn. Wake me up when these photographs are re-released in 3D.

hartror 16y ago
Ssssh George will hear you, haven't we had our childhood raped enough as it is?!
- sigzero 16y ago
  Unfortunately...it is coming whether we like it or not. :-(
minalecs 16y ago
they're already working on it http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/29/star-wars-release-coming-soon-theater-near/ http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/29/star-wars-release-...

hartror 16y ago

Damn I forgot how roguishly good looking Harrison Ford was back in the day.

kmfrk 16y ago
He looks a lot like a young David Duchovny.
- jtbigwoo 16y ago
  I read an article about the X-Files once where the author talked about how the show flipped the usual formula for television casting on its head. In most television shows, the female lead is hired primarily for her looks while the male lead is supposed to be the one the audience can identify with. In the X-Files, Duchovny was the tall, slim model-ish one while Gillian Anderson was short and basically normal looking. It seems like X-Files fans have a better gender balance than most sci-fi shows. I wonder if having a more normal female lead helped in that regard? Something similar seems to have happened in Star Wars. It's easy to forget since they've been around for so long, but Harrison Ford and Billy Dee Williams were ridiculously good looking guys. Mark Hamill was a teen idol from his time on shows like Eight is Enough and The Texas Wheelers (I had to look that name up.) By looks alone, Carrie Fisher might be the least likely of the four to get a magazine cover. (Don't tell my twelve-year-old self, though.)
  - scott_s 16y ago
    The flaw in your theory is that Carrie Fisher looks absolutely stunning in this picture: http://www.vanityfair.com/images/hollywood/2010/10/esb08.jpg http://www.vanityfair.com/images/hollywood/2010/10/esb08.jpg
    - jtbigwoo 16y ago
      Don't get me wrong--Carrie Fisher is pretty. She could have easily been the homecoming queen at my high school. As long as she wasn't too busy doing coke with Tony Bennett or whatever children of famous actors did in the 70's. I'm just saying that she wasn't Daryl Hannah. (For those of you born after 1985, Daryl Hannah was the Megan Fox of the late 70's/early 80's.)

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

Brashman 16y ago

This was a reminder to me that special effects weren't always done sitting in front of a computer.

JunkDNA 16y ago

This is a great set of shots. Having watched a ton of "Making of Star Wars" specials on PBS as a kid, I really thought I wasn't going to see anything new here. There were a couple of surprises: I'm a little embarrassed to admit that until seeing the first photo just a few minutes ago, it never really occurred to me that they would have had to film the opening crawl that way. Having seen the sequence where Luke falls from the catwalk a million times, it's quite jarring to see all those mattresses below him. Even though intuitively you're aware that they did not film that scene hanging above a thousand foot drop, the visual effects really do allow you to suspend disbelief.

barrettcolin 16y ago
"I'm a little embarrassed to admit that until seeing the first photo just a few minutes ago, it never really occurred to me that they would have had to film the opening crawl that way." I recently discovered (from browsing around the bonus material on the DVD on a lazy Sunday, naturally) that the multi-layer CG starfield effects created by ILM for Star Trek III were put on film by pointing a camera at a computer monitor and recording the output.

zandor 16y ago

Some other one's which were published in Maxim, http://www.starwars.com/fans/media_news/maxim_esb/index.html http://www.starwars.com/fans/media_news/maxim_esb/index.html

daten 16y ago
This link is work-safe. At least with noscript. I don't know if there are any racy ads I'm not seeing.
- scott_s 16y ago
  Note that it's starwars.com, not maxim.com.

gaius 16y ago

You don't really see this in the films, but in a still it's amazing how detailed the X-wing is.

brandnewlow 16y ago

So why can't we get more films shot with awesome matte backgrounds like that anymore? Is it really that much cheaper to do a background via CGI than to have it painted?

icegreentea 16y ago
Often the "CGI" background is a combination of "true" CGI, manipulated photos/footage, and digital "hand" painting (at least for the deep backgrounds). It's much more flexible than physical painting. For one thing, there's undo, and versioning, not having to wait for paint to dry, etc etc. For example, if you want a castle in the mountains in the background, the mountains might be a composite of a photo, and some extra CG. A castle is then rendered "in the rough" ontop of the mountain, and then details hand painted in. And then the whole thing gets another CG/painting treatment to make sure everything fits in and to create more atmosphere. Every matte painting is different. If you're interested, you can poke around cgsociety's (sorry it's blocked at work) forums in the digital matte painting section. It's really just a huge grab bag of techniques.

asmithmd1 16y ago

I remember watching Empire Strikes Back in a theater and being very disappointed -- I thought they should have flashed To Be Continued at the end -- I had to wait 3 years for the next episode.

whatrocks 16y ago

Lucas is so scourged for Jar-Jar and those late 1990s remakes that I often lose sight of how innovative and influential he's been on special effects, movies, and our lives in general. Lucasfilm and its subsidiaries (Pixar, ILM, THX) should be considered among the great start-ups of our time.

danielnicollet 16y ago

I was really fine with the painted figures, cardboard sets and resin armors. I wonder why the saga of Star Wars could not continue and if it wouldn't maybe be cheaper to do the next without CGI (classic style). Maybe time for Indian Bollywood studios to show us what they can do to make us dream! ;-)

InclinedPlane 16y ago
What makes you believe that Bollywood studios don't use cgi? They do.