ST Episode VII is the first Post Star Wars Movie

I just don't think it's ever been "story" that has made Star Wars in the past stand out so much from other movies. Part of it has been a visual spectacle that hasn't been achieved elsewhere. And the path to that kind of visual spectacle has been creating visual effects that no one else could duplicate.

But maybe it's true that such a feat is no longer possible and James Cameron will remain in perpetuity the last filmmaker to have done it (although I'd also include more recently Cuaron and Gravity).

And there's also the kind of groundbreaking visual spectacle that a movie like Mad Max: Fury Road offers. It's possible to create that in the context of effective storytelling.

 

Story didn't put SW on the map, but it's what allowed it to endure.

 

I think it's been the timelessness rather than the originality of the story which has been a strength of SW at its best. It's about hitting those fundamentals really well rather than coming up with something which is necessarily worlds apart from the rest. If you have good, well developed characters and a story which resonates with people, you're well on the way to a good film. If the bells and whistles are competently executed, they don't need to be revolutionary to give the film appeal.

 

ill watch the movie before determining whether or not ep 7s visuals are revolutionary or not.

but honestly what more can they do at this point? then again, im sure thats what we have always asked before any big advancement.

in my lifetime the revolutionary movies for visuals to me have been Jurassic Park, The Matrix, LOTR, and Avatar. Ep VII can be added to that list if they can flawlessly seam practical and special effects together like we have never seen before, and I fully expect it to.

 

So, basically Robocop?

 

I think the next trailer will have a lot more money shots to judge the scope of the effects. One of the big appeals of TFA trailers are that they are not just selling the effects. From what I seen this year so far the most visually striking movie was Mad Max and while I liked the Avengers the effects was not groundbreaking. I think Supreme Leader Snoke's look might change your mind because he might end up being the best mo-cap ever along with Maz Kanata. I disagree about the trailers being bland visually it looked like what they have been advertising to us about using more practical effect. The shot of the Falcon going into that star destroyer was awesome! There is a space battle we have not seen yet. There is two super weapons we have not seen yet. Creatures and Places we have not seen yet. I think it is a little early to assime we wont see anything groundbreaking. A big difference with the OT technology advancements and the PT technology advancements was the PT CG elements was in almost every shot. The OT technology advancements was use in a more restrained way to greater effect. TFA has the advantage of meeting the PT and OT right in the middle for a spectacular visual experience. What goes around comes around and what was old becomes new again. I am way more interested in what the story will be than the effects. I am confident that the effects will look great but I hope the story is great too.

 

Mad Max: Fury Road is probably the best possible example of what I'm trying to get at. I think fans have come to expect that they'll come out from a showing of a new Star Wars movie with the sense that they've never seen anything quite like it before. That was definitely the experience with every single one of the OT movies and with TPM despite the other flaws of the PT.

The appeal to nostalgia with the TFA trailers works inherently I think to undermine that sense of visual novelty and wonder. I hope you're right that the next set of trailers offers something different.

 

Jabbadabbado I think the advertising campaign has been building to that Oh snap! moment of awe.

 

I think that the next movement in special effects, maybe to the disappointment of the original poster, will be focused on devising ways to achieve a greater degree of authenticity by combining practical, CGI, and camera technologies. The result is a subtle but effective one.

Perhaps the best example of what I am talking about is Gravity. While there's clearly a ton of CGI all over that movie, the most spectacular aspect of what we saw on screen was the result of the extremely long takes, which were made possible by Cuaron and Lubezki developing elaborate rigs to suspend the actors and camera. They didn't necessarily invent "new" technologies, but they certainly pushed the limits of what had been done before. And much like Lucas on the original film, they imagined shots that didn't have an existing methodology for creating.

But the Star Wars saga has historically been shot in a classical style, and one that is not too far off from what Abrams has done in his existing films. I can't imagine the director of a Star Wars film doing something as bold as a 22 minute long take, or even crafting a film with such a subjective point of view.

We are at an age in cinema where artists can craft any image that we can imagine. The other trilogies emerged at dramatic turning points in the evolution of special effects, whereas the new trilogy is coming at a time where audiences have reached a saturation point with over the top, CGI spectacle and are responding more favorably to films that ground the viewer in a more authentic-feeling experience.

 

I'd argue it was characters and a classic story made totally immersive by cutting edge special FX (which supported that story rather than swamped it), plus the designs and Williams' score that put SW on the map AND allowed it to endure. Jar Jar Binks was cutting edge/ innovative but will only endure for all the wrong reasons. Story and character has to come first.

 

True, Satipo. Look at the Walk of Fame day with the droids and Vader. Everyone loved the characters instantly.

 

I don't like the idea of Star Wars being basically a tech demo.

 

Until special effects become indistinguishable from real life there is still plenty of ground to plow.

TFA might go this way despite their allusions to the contrary, but the fact that it isn't being mentioned as part of the marketing and goals of the film makers is a deviation from the OT and PT. We'll see.

 

It's an interesting question, but could have been worded better.
Unfortunately, I'm unable to reply as I'm hopelessly underqualified to comment, but I have faith that Lucasfilm will push the boundaries once more.

In regard to the quotes above, and in particular, the red bits. Are you saying that without stuff like effects and music then ANH = Into Darkness? TESB = Hunger Games?
I completely disagree there.
I think the story and characters have a little bit more to do with it than you are giving credit for, and it's nowhere near as black and white as you are making it out to be.
I would bet that the Anthology films, without JW and using standard Hollywood blockbuster effects, will be considered true Star Wars films. (Provided they are good )

I get what you're saying, with his bill like mouth and lack of a shell, but I have to disagree. The eyes on stalks are clearly proof of his direct lineage, and if he slides on his butt he does leave a trail.

 

Special effects are great but it was the designs themselves that were more important. Stop-motion wasn't the most impressive or new special effect when they made the AT-ATs, but AT-ATs looked so cool it didn't matter. I'm very confident that they'll execute the practical and CG effects far better than any prior movies. But can you come up with something as cool as an AT-AT? Yoda? Boba Fett? Darth Vader? That's the real trick.

The rest I liked because it was a sci-fi twist on a classic adventure story, the cast was cool and had chemistry, and the music was great.

 

why is this a topic?

 

That's exactly what I'm saying. But I listed the intellectual property (including story, characters, the unique iconography of Star Wars, "the Force", etc) as one leg of the tripod holding up Star Wars.

John Williams SW music and groundbreaking visual effects without the story/characters would be every bit as meaningless as a Star Wars movie without John Williams or without startling and unique visual effects.

 

" would be every bit as meaningless as a Star Wars movie without John Williams or without startling and unique visual effects. "

A Star Wars movie without John Williams wouldn't necessarily be "meaningless" though. Star Wars evolves and is about many things, both on screen and behind the scenes. Any future Star Wars film (Rogue One, I imagine will be the first) will need to be mindful of the importance of music to Star Wars, but there will eventually be memorable, appropriate Star wars music that is not written by Williams. In fact, there already has been in video games.
I remember on first listen thinking Duel Of the Fates just didn't sound Star Warsy at all, but its just about taking the time to accept something that changes how we think of something.

edit rather than adding a post:

Looking at the original post

"1. The intellectual property created by Lucas and people like Ralph McQuarrie
2. The innovative visual effects advanced by the likes of John Dykstra
3. The music of John Williams"

they don't really work as having equivalent weight, and aren't actually really analogous with each other: the first point is what "Star Wars" as a franchise actually is, while 2 and 3 are broad or specific referrals to the way in which "Star Wars" is brought to life on screen - you could just as credibly add "costume design" or "Ben Burtt's sound design" or "varied climates on a range of planets" or mention of the cast.
For me, the first point is the crucial one - it's a vast IP that contains all sorts of possibilities for stories. There are some aspects that we'd miss more than others were they not present - I mean, look how many people thought the prequels weren't really Star Warsy because of a lack of Han Solo archetype, despite them having all three of what you stated as being crucial foundations of star wars - but overall, the only thing that will, in the long term, be crucial to Star Wars is the universe in which it is set.
It's totally fine for people to decide that they've had enough, and will opt out now that Lucas has, but I the creator of the IP is willing for others to play in it, then Star Wars becomes about the setting as imagined by those it's entrusted to.

 

You're absolutely right. I picked the wrong word. Not meaningless. But also not Star Wars.

Maybe if Disney makes a very clean break with the saga after the death of Williams and declares everything from that point forward ancillary material or spinoff, then that would be a respectful way to carry the series forward.

 

You're right that those three things got SW to where it is. However, I'd say the following behind-the-scenes people were all crucial to setting up SW as the viable franchise it is:

• George Lucas
• Ralph McQuarrie
• John Williams
• Gloria Katz and Willard Huyck
• Joe Johnston
• John Dykstra
• Dennis Muren
• Stewart Freeborn
• Lawrence Kasdan
• Norman Reynolds
• Ben Burtt

Plus, of course, the main cast and supporting actors. Seriously, every one of those people contributed something that made ANH and ESB special.
But the heavy lifting has been done. The look and feel, and musical language, of the SW universe is fairly well established at this point. Williams defined what SW sounds like musically, but others can now build upon that.

 

"Maybe if Disney makes a very clean break with the saga after the death of Williams and declares everything from that point forward ancillary material or spinoff, then that would be a respectful way to carry the series forward. "

I'm sorry but that's just not a reasonable thing to expect. Music helps tell the story, but it would be absolutely ridiculous to somehow expect Disney to say in their promotion for future films something that would be akin to "er, this one didn't really happen within the timeline because we've got Michael Giacchino doing the music, so y'know - watch it, but remember that it isn't really official"

I find Luke's hair in the first half hour of ROTJ pretty jarring, but I don't consider that the hairdresser for Luke's poor choices to be a reason to effectively decanonise Jabba's palace

 

I...... would not.

 

We'd all acknowledge that the PT is terrible, but there's a certain level of awe about the scope of Lucas' digital ambition. It was a very impressive failure.

 

I COMPLETELY disagree. The visuals in the trailers so far have been nothing short of stunning, IMO. I just saw the trailer in the theater again last night (saw Tomorrowland... kinda meh). The visuals of this movie are the best in Star Wars movie YET, based on what has been shown so far.

Having said that, it would be very hard for the ST to have the same kind of impact on visual effects as the OT. Technology is just so much more advanced. And I'd say that many fans (myself included) feel Lucas went too far with "innovation" in the OT, to the point that a lot of the movie felt artificial (to me). And one mistake I think Lucas made in the PT was feeling that he constantly had to top himself. More and bigger is not always better.

I absolutely do not think that in order to be a Star Wars film, the movie has to be an orgy of new techniques that don't really serve the story.

As movies like the Transformer series show, the technology exists to produce some mind blowing visuals which actively detract from the success of the film as a narrative vehicle.