Discussion in 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens - Spoilers Allowed' started by Momotaros, Aug 22, 2013.
Didn't want this to get lost in another thread..
Well, that's too bad.
So, is this an elaborate lens flare joke?
Abrams shoots all of his movies and tv shows on 35mm.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with 35 mm film. It doesn't appear to me lens flares were even mentioned in regards to Episode VII other than how they're created. But I'm sure many first knee-jerk reactions will be Episode VII will be so full of lens flares that people will be coming out of the theaters staring at the sun and saying "not nearly as bright as Star Wars!"
At least it isn't 48fps
Lens flares could occur in a movie shot digitally too... so that doesn't really seem like a totally relevant part of the article unless I'm missing something.
If Abrams figures out how to do lens flares digitally, he'll be happier than Anakin when he discovered he could choke people without touching them:
For those who need reference info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film. Not sure why this is the end of the world.
It should also be noted that Dan Mindel and 35mm is exactly who and what were used on Abrams Star Trek films.
Episode II and III were shot digitally.
I know. So what?
...and this is news, why? Four out of the six existing Star Wars moves were shot on film.
That's right, folks. Celluloid still exists!
Rumors are pretty much LIES at this point, :/
Grain of salt treatment!!!
I'm happy with this. Film worked fine for the OT & TPM.
Liked the look of a lot of John Carter as well.
I like the look of film better. I'm no Film Major, but the grainy, natural look of film looks better than digital to me. But I still enjoy digital to an extent.
Yah that's the main problem. I pretty much loathed the shooting style on the new ST films. John Carter was much better. I would have loved to have seen David Tattersall back or an even more exciting choice would have been Peter Suschitzky coming back who shot Empire but mostly works with Cronenberg now (they are shooting a few blocks away from me as I type this). I just hope they ditch everything they were doing in ST cause to me it borders on unwatchable.
If this is true, this is very disappointing to me. This was one of my biggest worries about JJ coming aboard to direct. I love the crystal clearness of digital cinematography and digital projection. While the new Star Trek films look gorgeous, they don't have the sheer spectacle that Prometheus, Avatar, or Revenge of the Sith have. This is a big step down IMO.
Also, as a 3D enthusiast, this means that Episode VII won't be shot in 3D. We'll have a post-conversion, and ILM won't have nearly as much time to do that as they did with the 3D re-releases.
So yeah, I really hope this isn't true.
That's insane. It's 2013. Star Wars has tons of digital effects. I can't imagine why they would do this. Film is dying.
35mm film makes perfect sense when you want to connect the new movies to the OT.
Actually celluloid can also carry more optical information than digital film (as it swallows many, many, many terabytes and there is only so much information you can save on your computers). The only big drawback is that it degrades.
Not that I feel too strongly about film VS digital, after Star Wars pioneered the use of digital photography in II and III, going back to 35mm for episode VII just seems... backwards.
Its Dan Mindel I'm more worried about. He's pretty much exactly who I wished *wouldn't* get picked to be the Director of Photography. I just hope that this report is false, or that he actually tries to direct the photography this time out.
JJ's direction of the Star Trek movies is brilliant; it's the frenetic flair from the chuckleheads he works with that drive new Trek apart from the old. I don't want them to make the same mistakes with Star Wars.
Into Darkness was also shot on 35mm according to Pro Scoundrel and it looked gorgeous.
Sooo... we're freaking out about what type of film they're using now? Okay, I'm in... AAAAHHHH NOOOOOOO!!!! DOOM... WORLDS EXPLODING!!!