Discussion Doug Chiang and Iain McCaig returning for future films

To me the script is the most important. I dont want SW7 to be some movie where the visuals are great but you can obviously tell the movie was much more focused on showing off the special effects/visual stuff than telling a good story. Script should be #1 cause I'd rather have a movie with a great story/script with decent visuals than a movie with great visuals but a horrible story/dialogue. Also script should NEVER take a "back seat" to visuals, unless we want another Transformers or heck even Avatar *cause we all know what that movies true purpose was*.

 

A script is only a blueprint. Its how you direct that script and edit that direction together that can make or break a film.

You can't make a great film from a bad script but you can make a bad film from a great script.

 

Visuals are absolute key when it comes to Star Wars. They should be directed as if they're silent films after all.

Just look at the set designs in Sunrise, City Girl or Metropolis... yeah... visuals in Star Wars = important!

Chiang and McCaig are brilliant. The Phantom Menace remains one of the most beautiful looking films out there and a large part of that falls at the feet of these guys.

 

"Decent visuals" is a really broad term that doesn't just mean stunning visual effects action sequences. It could be something simple yet effective as the way Yoda was shot and lit while Luke left Dagobah in The Empire Strikes Back. Stuff like this isn't in the script for a director to just put cameramen in two positions and say action.
People unclear about what all is involved in direction should check out some DVD behind-the-scenes features. Good examples would be the ones on the DVDs and Blu-Ray discs of the Indiana Jones movies, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Pirates of the Caribbean, and The Godfather, Life of Pi, just to name a few. Even the behind-the-scenes footage of Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back show a difference between the oh-so-great scripts and the release.

 

Sorry Sir, How can a script or story line take a back seat? Its what held the OT together. Regardless, the movies you have mentioned don't match up with any of the Star Wars films already made. Lets compare oranges and oranges. The new Star Trek films are probably the way that the ST will go and in both of the new Star Trek Movies they had pretty strong plots. They weren't just Special Effect happy! A bit drunk on lens flares but I don't think Star Wars will have that! (Crossing Fingers)! Anyway, all the movies I mentioned were great! Just cause they weren't made back in the 60's or 70's doesn't diminish their greatness. They are modern classics and if you can't see that, I truly feel sorry for you. As for Chiang and McCaig their confirmation is important but there are many other design artists that can do the same job just fine now if not better. I think that at this point of the game a strong Script or Storyline combined with better acting is what the ST requires. Remember, Hayden Christensen was weak as Anakin Skywalker because of his acting not his looks and that's really what we are debating here isn't it? The Reason the new Star Trek are working is cause all the actors are at the top of their game. If not the franchise would have not gone past the first reboot. Just about every flick has great visuals now. Its basically a given. They can create just about anything on screen. The new "Man of Steel" proves that. The only thing that separates one movie from another these days is strong acting and a strong Script. The only way that the ST will measure up with the OT is if they hold both of these elements. Nothing else will suffice!

 

Script, not storyline. Read any review of the originals, it wasn't the scripts that wowed audiences and critics. It was Visual and Special Effects.

 

Visual and special effects that furthered the story. Even in the SE we see a digitally added character in the "musical scene" at Jabba's palace that does NOTHING to further the story. So much of the visual effects in the PT didn't further the story. Seriously, the WHOLE Gungan battle was nothing more then a diversion, both plotwise and to the audience. Most of the PT was about cramming as much **** on the screen at once, nevermind if the story called for it.

 

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the space-robot movie, Slash.

 

I hate gungans with a burning passion, but I have to admit that those laser shields they had in that battle were quite cool.
It would be absolutely awesome to see a Jedi or Sith use something like that in combination with a standard lightsaber. It would look badass and would give a whole new dynamic to the duel.
Damn, I love that idea.

 

Star Trek TMP , Black Hole , Dune and Legend , all had great visuals and FX , didn't go down too well with audiences or critics tho ..

 

Gezvader, my point was that professional critics lambasted the OT screenwriting and dismissed the visuals as excessive.

 

not as much as how the prequels were.

Unless you have some stats to back up that statement.

http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/originaltrilogyreception2.html

look at the conclusion of the study....


Original Trilogy vs Prequel Trilogy
Finally, in light of all of these stats, it may now be useful to compare the original trilogy during original release to the prequel trilogy for an overall picture of how the Star Wars saga was received in its original run. Of course, the prequels were very controversial, and not reviewed very well--Phantom Menace had the complete opposite situation as Star Wars, as this article shows, with its earliest reviews being the worst and then later reviews more tempered. Attack of the Clones received more enthusiastic reviews because it had the elements Phantom Menace was accused of lacking (more mature themes, the cast as adults, etc.), but it still scored poorly. Revenge of the Sith was received very enthusiastically by some papers, but it too had it's share of terrible reviews, the result being much like Return of the Jedi which averages in between the two polarities. I also offer audience ratings by internet users in the study below.
Below I present the comparison. Rotten Tomatoes' scores for the prequels are taken from its Top Critic filter, as the unfiltered results include many web pages and the like, which isn't a fair comparison--since many of these critics are just internet users with websites, they are accounted for in the audience ratings stats, which are taken from IMDB. IMDB offers 186,000 individual registered votes for Phantom Menace and 302,000 for Star Wars, making this an incredibly wide-reaching survey source. The ratings were out of 10, but I converted them to 100 for ease of comparison. The tomatometer and rating for the original trilogy are my own. The rating for the prequels is taken from Metacritic--their ratings and the tomatometer scores are two different sets of measurements in many ways, RT measuring recommendations, and MC measuring actual ratings. To clarify, I include the unweighted original trilogy measurements only.


Tomatometer
Rating
IMDB
Phantom Menace
39
52
64
Attack of the Clones
38
53
68
Revenge of the Sith
69
68
79
Star Wars
83
82
88
Empire Strikes Back
92
73
88
Return of the Jedi
76
64
83

We see here that only Revenge of the Sith managed to beat the lowest-rated original film, and only by a little bit--in tomatometer score, however, it still ranks lower. The context of these films' release also invite further comment: while Jedi was seen as disappointing because the previous two films were so good, Sithwas seen as impressive because the previous two films were so bad. This is not to take away from either of them, but it is an interesting inverse relationship. Also interesting is that IMDB users treat the originals as on generally equal ground, even though the first two films are rated higher; users rated the prequels fairly higher than critics as well.

 

Actually the script is essential for the visuals. The script contains symbolical descriptions that lead to visual decisions. A new character's spaceship design, for example, should be an extension of him or her. The different scenarios are also vehicles to telling the story through emotional sensitivity. In other words, the visuals serve the story.

Take the Star Destroyer for example. I'm sure it's design derives from that opening shot in A New Hope. The way it closes in and never seems to stop, it simbolizes the reach of the empire.

Following that, I think Chiang is brilliant. Personally I don't like Episode 1's design all that much but I appreciate it. I don't like anything about Episode 1's story or characters so it's natural for me to dislike the visuals as well. I don't care about this queen with no emotions or the stupid gungans so of course I'm not going to be engaged with her elaborate costumes or their underwater city but I appreciate the effort put into it.

Besides, the effort of creating the past of something is enormous and nobody will ever get it right. It's more subjective than creating a future, an evolution, just think about it.

That said, I'm confident about what Abrams may bring to the table and I'm sure he "gets" Star Wars and is a visual person when it comes to bringing a story to life.

 

Fair enough, Ganger.

 

I don't think they did , I mean I think I know what you mean , they would say things like it's hokey and full of plot holes , but they were also very praiseworthy of how it all worked and compared it to old fashioned Hollywood storytelling etc.

as for audiences - they loved the characters , those characters became instant icons , so basically its a mistake to try and compartmentalise SW , it works because all the elements - script , acting , tone , Fx , editing and luck all come together .