ST Filming Techniques and Technologies for the ST

You miss my point then... the move by Fett to stop and scan, is something that Fett's character does to come across as Fett. It's a move we've seen elsewhere in the saga and thus is part of his character's body language.

If that wasn't a move already defined previously for the character, it might stick out more IMO, but since it's a very Fett like move, it fits perfectly. It's the move the filmmaker chose to use to draw attention to him. It was very in character. If it wasn't a very character like move, then it would seem as others pointed out... the character drawing the attention instead.

I feel like I'm talking myself in circles... my head is spinning...

 

It's not about what's 'in character' for the character, but rather how the filmmaker treats/depicts that character. For example, compare how Boba Fett is introduced in TESB, he's static... Vader/the camera comes to him. Same with his re-apperance in ROTJ (well the original version), then look at the scene in ANH SE. So I think the distinction here is that where his inclusion/introduction in TESB/ROTJ is organic and natural, his appearance in ANH is much more forced (obviously) and ultimately redundant other than as a nod to fans... which is why it appears kind of false. Now if Jabba had refered to Boba... 'next time you disappoint me it will be Boba Fett coming looking for you' etc. and then a close up of Boba, then that would have been much more natural... but obviously Lucas couldn't really do that because Boba was erroneous to that scene. So whilst it's not a huge thing for me, I understand why some think it's bordering on breaking the 4th wall, because it's edited almost like a wave to camera.

 

This is a misunderstanding of what I'm saying. You're being too literal.

PJ is spot on. Is it a crime against humanity (or even cinema?) of course not. But it personally bugs the Hell out of me. I think it is indicative of latter day GL - it's a moment that draws me out of the story because it's a moment that is drawing attention to itself, which is where my 4th wall talk was coming from). But if it works for people, that's great.

 

I don't view it as simply a nod to fans. When watching the saga in order, I think it's good that they take that opportunity to let you know that this character is still around and will become a player again down the line. Maybe that isn't how it was originally intended, although I have a feeling Lucas was already planning on introducing that character in the PT when he made the SE's.

 

Yeah, that's fine, but there are better ways to achieve that focus on him that work organically. PJ mentioning the gunslinger stillness is spot on. You can have a cut away to him looking cool and intimidating, which would still feel organic and subtle. But like I say, I can't argue against taste, if it works for people, it works for people.

 

I think the reason that Boba's appearance in ANH doesn't work (and when I state 'doesn't work' I obviously mean 'doesn't work' for me) is that he's added in after the fact. So it's always going to look artifical regardless of intent. Sure, having a scene in ANH with Boba in is a great idea in and of itself, and I agree that it could have worked to foreshadow his appearance in TESB... but ultimately Boba is being forced into the scene rather than the scene being crafted as an introduction for him... so that's why, from a technical level, I don't think it works. I personally think the scene in the 80's radio drama is far superior because not only does it keep Jabba more mysterious (because it's Jabba's major-domo who is talking to Han), but it name checks Boba without the need for him being in that scene.

 

The musical and sound cue also ring the gong a little hard. But as you say, it's part of the nature of these kind of changes.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-force-of-Britains-visual-effects-talent.html

 

Except that how is that any different than the early days GL doing a moment that draws attention to itself?

The answer is nothing except the subjectivity of the viewer looking for it.

So in this case Boba Fett doing a Boba Fett move is distracing but Boba Fett doing a Boba Fett move in another scene isn't.

Think of the people that complain about the Senate scene in TPM which I think lasts 2-3 minutes if that. Think of the people that fixate on that scene and make out like it's half the movie! It's a far more interesting visual scene than most any other scene in all of Star Wars which is basically a dialogue scene to shift the plot but similar scenes in the OT which aren't anywhere near as interesting to look at they don't mind at all.

To relate this to this thread let's say it's about technique in terms of information and exposition. There actually is lots of exposition in the OT but as with the PT movement covers it up. Pure expostion where it's simply cutting dialogue is the last thing GL wants to do and so he always do his best to add something to it like the opera box scene which was first meant to be in Palpatine's office. The location change adds so much to the scene without changing any of the dialogue at all and allows for far more interesting lighting choices.

 

You don't fix the problem of too many expository scenes by transposing them to more visually engaging settings (to put it kindly). You fix that problem by coming up with more dynamic ways of getting that information across than simply dumping it out through dialogue. It's a visual medium, "show business, not tell business," to quote Guillermo del Toro. The story should be related and the characters defined through their actions. In a series like Star Wars, I do recognise the need for a few exposition scenes, and the way to make them engaging is through great acting from someone with the range of Sir Alec Guinness. The PT had too many scenes where people sit around and dump the story out through dialogue. If you didn't know what people were saying, you would wonder what the heck was going on. Can't really say the same about TESB or even ANH.

 

Well I don't nesersarily disagree with you... but that's somewhat simplistic. Theartre is also a visual medium but is often underpinned by expositional dialogue too. The PT has a complex socio-political narrative that runs parallel to Anakin's more dynamic story. This, for better or worse, often requires the exposition. I think Lucas could have better crafted expositional dialogue that avoided the too often table and landing platform dialogue... but I think this is kind of a neseresary evil given the story being told.

 

On the contrary, I don't think that story necessarily demanded such hefty amounts of plot talk. That story, the story of the galactic political arena, could have been kept in the background and merely hinted at. A throwaway line about Palpatine's ever expanding power here, a reference to growing corruption there, but just a few snippets. Think about how quickly ANH tells us that the Emperor is basically Hitler: The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away. Boom! Done; and on to the next thing. Relegating such things to the level of background information, things that flesh out the world without overshadowing the story, would have allowed the human part of the story to come more into focus.

 

Well that's a bit like saying The Abyss could have been done with less sea...

Of course the PT could have been done with less world building of the socio-political elements, but it is what it is. It's an imperfect trade off. I think there's a richness to that cinematic version of the Republic and the Jedi order that's now and forever part of Star Wars. There's certainly a more direct and exciting version of the PT in an alternate universe (and I think that could have been achieved quite simply for what it's worth), but it's largely hypothetical as we'll never know unless it gets remade.

 

I think the human part of the story came into incredible focus and quite honestly at a far greater level than the OT achieved but that is simply a subjective view.

The larger point I've made many times is that in terms of overall storytelling the OT is intentionally severely lacking because George specifically did it that way. He cut out as much of the actual larger story he had to focus on a few characters while the actual scope of what was going on was only touched upon. This was done in large part because it was simply impossible to realize Corsucant, Clone Wars, the Jedi Order or any of the other things he had in his imagination.

This ties into the point of this thread in terms of technology.

The PT characters aren't rebels on the fringe but Jedi and Queens and Senators and leader of the Republic etc. The individual story of Anakin is the prime focus and the other things are in the background in comparison but they are also tied together. TESB for example really has little to do with Rebels vs Empire as much as Vader wanting to get Luke. AOTC is about Anakin personally but also ties into the start of TCW of which he is tied into via the Jedi Order and Senator Amidala.

 

One could argue that technology allowed George to do whatever he want, and that with this newfound ability, let the movie sorta run away from him. In the OT, he HAD to limit himself...had no other choice, either because of budget, publishing power, technology. With the PT, it was his story, his movie, his show. This could be seen both as a negative or positive. Positive in that he can fully realize his vision...but maybe negative in that possibly he didn't know when to quit, and it became different from the same thing people loved about the OT. It's like they got a different product, and I think that turned a lot of people off.

I'm not trying to make this about the OT vs PT (which one is better is irrelevant to my point), I'm just describing how people reacted to them, and that technology played a part in that (but freedom did too...Lucas having the freedom to do WHATEVER he wanted). Technology allowed for elaborate scenes, super human feats, screen filled with CG wonders and characters. And quite frankly, that turns some people off.

JJ has a difficult job ahead of him. He has whatever tools he could possibly want at his disposal, but from what we can gather, he seems to be showing some willful restraint to some degree. I'm sure he wants the power and gravitas of the PT, and the personal nature of the OT that started this whole thing off.

 

The same criticism/ observation applies to the changes in Jackson's approach from the LOTR films to the Hobbit movies. While both trilogies feature state of the art FX and are filled with conceptual marvels and technical genius and innovation, there is definitely a different feel to them, and while I can enjoy and appreciate both, I will personally always prefer the more tactile feel of the earlier films, as with SW. What the feel will be in the ST will be very exciting to see.

 

Relatively speaking, I think Lucas had the same amount of freedom with TESB and ROTJ as he did with the prequels. Both the OT and PT are, somewhat contradictory, constrained and freed up by their respective available technologies. By today's standards the PT looks positively subtle when compared with other modern effects heavy movies. And of course what separates both the OT and PT from their contemporaries is the amount of 'imagination' on display... and the effective world building that Lucas establishes... and all 6 movies have that in absolute spades.

I think the challenge for Abrams is to ensure that TFA has the imagination and daring as the previous instalments... and where he of course has the advantage is that new technologies allow for much more seamless and convincing effects than they did 10/15 years ago (where the PT was pioneering). I doubt many people will complain about the effects this time around... be it practical or digital.

I fully suspect TFA will be a 'safe' SW film designed specifically to cause the least amount of contention. Invariably, IMHO, I believe something will be lost with that (as far as Episode VII goes at least), but I'm pragmatic enough to understand that 6 movies in, they probably need a 'safe' film in order to kickstart the ST and subsequent spinoffs.

 

I personally like both sets of films... but TLOTR has a much more powerful narrative, which goes a long way in making for a better more emotional trilogy. Ultimately I thought BOTFA was a superior film to FOTR and TTT... but with AUJ and TDOS being the weakest of the six (hope that makes sense)...

 

Agreed...I think that by striving to make a "balanced" film, JJ will probably end up making a "safe" one. Which is fine with me, for this first one. Everything about this movie is risky, in concept. Not financially, really...it's going to sell tickets no matter what, but there are risks associated as it relates to fan reception and what happens to the franchise going forward, staying power, things like that. Even the consequences (good or bad) aren't necessarily going to be apparent right off the bat, but may snowball down the line as this new beginning grows and grows. Time will tell.

 

'safe' equates to boring in my eyes. I'm of the thinking that there has to be something special about this opening episode. A certain something that is going to generate hype amongst everyone. Disney will be aiming for this scenario rather than the majority of people saying, "yeah it was ok, I guess." Other than the fact it's a new Star Wars film, the thing has got to be totally engaging story wise. It's got to make everyone care..

 

The thing is that Lucas was interested in the political machinations that lead to the rise of Palpatine. That's why he spent time showing how a government would give up everything for tyranny.

"This idea of a democracy being given up and in many cases being given up in a time of crisis, you see it throughout history whether it's Julius Caesar, or Napoleon, or Adolf Hitler, you see these democracies under a lot of pressure, in a crisis situation, who end up giving up a lot of the freedoms they have and a lot of the checks and balances to somebody with a strong authority to help get them through the crisis. It's not the first time a politician has created a war to try to stay in office."

--George Lucas, Lenoard Maltin interview, 1999.

"You have the personal issue of Anakin and his turn to the dark side, but then the children later bring him back to being a human being," Lucas says. "But the larger issue is that you've given up your democracy, and that the bad guys never took it -- it was handed to them. That theme was there 30 years ago which came out of the Vietnam War and Nixon wanting to change the rules so he could get a third term."

"I'm a big history buff and I was really into Caesar at the time," Lucas recalls. "I always wanted to know why the Roman Senate gave Caesar's nephew a dictatorship after they had gotten rid of Caesar. Why after the revolution in France did they create an Emperor? Why did the Germans after they had a Democracy after World War I, turn it into a dictatorship? Those were my initial questions 30 years ago."

--George Lucas, Star Wars Homing Beacon #142

It was different in the OT, because he was making one film was never sure he could do more. That's why the first two drafts of ANH had the political exposition explaining the rise of the Emperor and the fall of the Jedi. He cut it out not because it was boring, but because he was making a straight forward story that might not get another film made.

 

I think we are a bit off track here so just to talk of technology I finally bought a 60 inch Sony. My first HDTV.

Of course the first thing I put in was ROTS and good lord that opening is totally awesome in HD. The CG is spectacular. In fact all the CG for the PT is as just about as amazing as the first day people saw it on film in the theaters and of course the vast, vast majority of the audience only ever saw it in the theaters on film not in the case of AOTC and ROTS in their native video.

I can only imagine how great ROTS would look in IMAX. AOTC was stunning and that was in the cut down form due to the limitations of IMAX at the time. With the improvements in projection it can only be better as people who have seen the recent US screening of the 3D version have said.

One thing though to anyone watching Star Wars or any movie be sure to use the custom settings to disable the various cinemotion and motionflow settings. If you use the standard then the motion blur is cut down to the point that the images look like video. Now while that is an interesting effect it doesn't represent the way the movie is supposed to look and feel at the film look of 24fps as intended.

 

Safe doesn't have to be boring, but by being safe it probably prevents it from being a very good movie. IMHO, for comparrison, Star Trek 09 was a very safe movie. It didn't expand upon the themes and characters established by the originals... it just made the characters younger and 'sexier'... to all intents and purposes, it just rebooted them but without the depth (IMHO). For all that though Star Trek 09 was entertaining... which is probably what most people want. Personaly speaking I want something more than that, something that keeps me thinking beyond the 2 hours and something I want to keep returning to...

 

That's what makes Star Wars such a great franchise. All of its films have much greater depth and strong themes, even if Lucas didn't manage to tell them in the best possible manner. For an action movie, it's something you can go back and rewatch again, and think about what the message of the movie is all about.

An action movie with simple themes would end up as something that people can enjoy during their first watching, but not something that people can always go back and re-watch again easily.

 

Which is exactly the point I've made

Don't know why you are quoting GDT. All you have to do is quote GL. He's the one that raised the visual levels of movies to it's current heights in the first place. He knows that which he does.

In the OT the Anakin and Palpatine scene couldn't be done in all that interesting a way in comparison. They simply couldn't do that opera setting. It was impossible. They would have to opt for doing it in the office or something that simply couldn't be as good as that. They just couldn't spend the time to do that in that way.

Look at the difference between all the dialogue scenes in IV compared to III 28 years later. In IV all the expository scenes are really just that for the most part.

Now remember at the time those were visually engaging settings for the most part even though it was simply actors on sets. The ability to transpose them to visually engaging settings always improves over time so unless it's going for totally cutting dialogue like the dinner scene in TPM or the engaging the Falcon scene in ANH then other things are put in the frame to keep some movement intercutting with the talking heads.

We'll simply have to disagree then. There are far more scenes of people sitting around and talking more than you seem to care to admit in the OT which in comparison to the PT now look extremely dated especially in ANH. That is fine by me as I don't hold it against them. I just state it as fact. That is what happens over time.

The PT took Lucas' visual style of storytelling to a level far, far beyond anything the OT could have imagined in terms of his "silent movie" technique. It's a bit odd though because even if I for a moment take your premise about the PT then who carried the dialogue of the opera scene? Ian McDiarmid who is every equal to AG in the grand old thesp tradition.

There is truth in what you say "If you didn't know what people were saying, you would wonder what the heck was going on" but that applies just as much to the OT as the PT. I would say possibly more to the OT in many ways because of the lesser visuals that it was able to achieve due to technology which limited the artistry. So just for a basic example. In IV R2 is scanning the Death Star and finds the Princess. That R2 is scanning the Death Star is only communicated verbally while in III that R2 is scanning the Invisible Hand is communicated visually.





Sometimes it had nothing to do with anything but the content of the scene. Compare these 2 and the more visually arresting is plain but that is related to the scene's emotion:







Now compare 2 more dialogue/exposition scenes which having interesting visual elements but also use the silent technique:




In the case of both scenes even without dialogue you can catch the core of what the scene is about. Now reading the two young people in love and denying themselves is far easier than trying to get the "Will the old alien train the youngster in the Force?" then add in that Obi-Wan's involvement in the scene is largely lost as he is a voice only.

To quote Lucas:

"I come out of abstract filmmaking. I like the idea of cutting together contrasting images and ideas so they flow one after the other. If you watch a silent movie, you can see how a story is told; if you watch abstract films, you can see that by juxtaposing images, you also tell stories, and, in doing so, the issue of cutting on one frame rather than on another becomes very important.

"On the editorial level, which is the cinematic level, movies are a mass of objects moving across a large surface. You're watching these little details, which are the ones that make the cut work, as they move through the back of the frame. You're orchestrating how these things flow, by deciding how you cut from one shot to another. The subtlety of the medium demands that a star break the frame at the right moment, because what reaction you get has a lot to do with spatial relationships: where things are in the frame, what color things are, where the bright objects are--and where you eye is going to be.

"When the movie cuts to a different shot, if your eye has to move a great distance to follow an object, it becomes a rough cut; if your eye stays in the same place, then it's a smooth cut. If your eye has to move too much, you're usually lost for two frames on a cut. You don't understand what you're seeing because you can't register it that fast. If you're just cutting dialogue, it doesn't matter; it's just talking heads and the emphasis is all on the dialogue. But in my films, the dialogue is not where the movie is. My films are basically in the graphics. The emotional impact comes from the music and from juxtaposing one image with the next.

"Cinema is about moving images. But it's moving from one image to the next that creates emotional impact