ST Disney, Star Wars and the "Industry".

But those are rational arguments, so they can't possibly be the reason you're not pumped; the real reason is because you secretly want to be a kid again. Haven't you heard?

 

​

 

Right, but have you ever seen Mission Impossible 3? If so, then you'll know why that I'm concerned about the ST, especially if JJ decides to use his go-to DP for the next few sequels.

As for the "second childhood," imo I think some of us try to see Star Wars as the way we saw it when we were young. I think I'm reading you guys wrong, but I try to watch Star Wars (PT/OT) with a child-like mind, because Star Wars meant a lot to me, and it still does, when I was young. I don't know how that will play out when I watch the ST since I'm older now, of course, and I'm more critical of what I see on the screen.

 

The whole childhood argument is just an offensive reductionism.

 

Hmm "the real reason is because you secretly want to be a kid again." Who knows and we are a small group compared to the world of Star Wars fans. Maybe Chorus met someone or knows something that we don't.

 

Great, I'm sure your stepson isn't alone. But I think MOST (even if its 52%) of fans weren't happy with him.

I like most (if not all) of Abrams past work, and Iw ould expect him to bring in the poeple he likes to work with. As for the HD Filming, I would be if they didn't make that announcment, no one would know how it was filmed.

 

Sluggo, they are going to film in 35mm, if that's what you meant by saying "no one would know how it was filmed." I think that's a bad move by JJ, especially because we're in the age of HD and IMAX. Since AOTC and ROTS were the first two SW movies to be filmed in HD, I would like to see JJ take the next big step toward IMAX. After all, Star Wars in IMAX format would be orgasmic imo.

I'm not a fan of the mixture of 35 mm and IMAX because of the aspect ratios going all over the place and the clarity of the picture.

 

Like its been explained before, 35mm film contains more optical information than HD-cameras and better color resolution (there was a thread about this topic if you search the forums). Therefore it is the superior format at the moment. It is more costly but using the superior format can hardly be a mistake.

IMAX has the disadvantage that imax-cameras are very loud and large and you have to redub everything. This can of course result in a loss of quality.

 

Absolutely not. IMAX cameras offer far broader advantages than the anamorphic 35 mm film format. The camera's loudness doesn't detract the picture quality that IMAX cameras give. All of the redubbing can be fixed during post production, which shouldn't be a problem for a studio like LFL.

 

If you resync everything I do think that could result in a loss of quality, audio quality or quality of line delivery.

Maybe the picture quality is great, but that isn't the only important thing in a movie.

And I am sure that using a huge-butt IMAX-camera can result in shooting-delays and all that.

Because of the great hassle, it is often only used for action-scenes.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see SW on the really big screen, but only as long as the IMAX-look doesn't compromise the rest of the movie.

 

Gentlemen, please: http://boards.theforce.net/threads/filming-techniques-and-technologies-for-the-st.50014589/

 

Yeah, I know, Ganger, but we're going all over the place here (it does connect with the industry title ). One last thing:

Picture and clarity, depending on what story you're trying to tell, is extremely important. To say otherwise goes against the fundamentals of film. Filmmaking is evolving and IMAX gives filmmakers new techniques that haven't been used years ago.

 

I know, he is goign to use film and then have it transfered to digital. I would bet if you didn't know that, you wouldn't have known the difference. But since they made that publiclly known its an issue/problem.

 

Well, then we agree to disagree, because I tend to think that the audio and the acting is just as important. Film is not just moving pictures. If it were we would all only watch silent movies.

 

You're missing the point, but it's all right, we'll move on.

 

But "trying to watch [the film of your choice] with a child-like mind" isn't the same thing as saying "I watch this film because I want to feel like I'm back in my childhood again." I think a lot of us can and have watched films with a child-like mind, and many of these films are those we didn't personally grow up with. The Wizard of Oz and It's a Wonderful Life aren't films I grew up with as a child, but they're films I can watch with the heart of a child on my sleeve; not because I want to relive a childhood experience of watching them (which in my case never happened), but because they appeal to that part of you, the viewer, regardless of your age. There's a ton of films that aren't Star Wars, and which I didn't grow up with, that I can like and watch with a sense of innocence; I didn't grow up with Avatar or the Lord of the Rings films, but I felt that sense of wonder watching them nonetheless.

I felt that way because I watched those films with the heart of a child, not with the wish to be a child. And the only reason I even could feel that way was because those films communicated to me properly. If a film is working so well that you effortlessly suspend disbelief and simply immerse yourself in the viewing experience, that's watching it with a sense of innocence because you're not being distracted by anything, neither the outside world nor any flaw in the film itself. You're simply taking it in. That's the experience I'm looking for, not the experience of being five again. That's the experience ANY audience member is looking for. And films do that all the time, across all genres - when they're made well and functioning properly. When they're not, they don't deliver that experience, and I don't get what I'm looking for. The reason I don't is because of the decisions the filmmakers made, which resulted in their product, their film, not working well enough for me to suspend my disbelief, not because I was bummed about not being magically transported in my mind back to when I was still in short pants.

Frankly, even to assume that we liked our childhoods so much that we'd even want to go back there is presumptuous. I spent much of mine on the business end of a drunken pair of parents with grudges. But that's not why I take offense to the childhood argument; it's because I take offense at the idea that my supposedly intelligent decisions about which films are good and which are not, made by me, with my perfectly functioning brain, aren't decisions at all, but are merely based on some entirely-false subconscious need to suck on a pacifier. Sorry, but no thanks. I won't suffer having myself, or those who think like me, made out to be this forum's equivalent of the food critic from Ratatouille (which is another sore spot since Peter O'Toole just died), who watches Episode VII and then feels exactly like he did when his mom made him some nice, fresh Star Wars in the kitchen to cheer him up when he was a sad little boy. The entire premise of the argument is ridiculous, and it's also a gross insult.

 

Youth was the worst time of my life. The older I become, the more I can appreciate life. I definitely wouldn't want to go back to the time when I fell in love with the OT.

I think I got what you were saying. You want them to use revolutionary visuals like Lucas in the prequels, move the whole industry forward?

But well, that just doesn't interest me. I mean new techniques and visuals are fine, but it's just a bonus. We got a whole trilogy with revolutionary visuals and I didn't care for it very much. This time it should be story first.

 

That's part of it, yes, but the other part is determining what film camera to use after knowing what story you're trying to tell. I'm not understanding the point of using 35 mm for Episode VII. I believe that that they're trying to mimic the success of the OT, but, of course, that's my opinion. Saying "story first" is great, but since this is film, knowing which camera to use is important.

Pfluegermeister I don't think it's a sin nor something wrong, unless you disliked your childhood for personal reasons. I'm sure some would like to revisit their childhoods with Episode VII or start fresh with a new one.

 

I'll be honest I like the PT. The only part I want removed from it AOTC. That movie is a major snooze fest.


You received this Ninja message from Tapatalk

 

On its own, shorn of any bearing it has on the Saga, no, there's nothing wrong with it. But people are saying that's the reason that we a.) didn't like the PT and b.) won't like the ST, and in fact have already made up our minds not to like it. We're perfectly capable of making our minds up about things, particularly things as trivial, in the grand scheme of things, as a film, without being guided by such things. That people should suggest that we are that shallow, and that our opinions are so shallow, when we're not and they're not, THAT'S the sin here. THAT'S the something that's wrong.

 

I partially agree with you. I think it's even simpler. Not everything with the Star Wars logo has to be liked by everyone. We should be celebrating the fact that our fandom is so diverse and that most people here are respectful and friendly enough to discuss different opinions with taste and humor.

It's easy to call someone a "basher" just because they dislike something, but you really have to make an effort to become a mod here and genuinely "bash" someone through passive aggression and state it's against the rules to share an opinion.

 

Its just what Abrams wants to use, thats the point. As I said before, I bet if they hadn't made a public statement about it, you'd never have known.

 

Why not use 35mm? It is the best format right now. Since when do you need to give reasons for using the best tool available?