ST JJ Abrams to direct Episode VII

Myself, I prefer real locations and backdrops to artificially-lit CGI screensavers.

 

DarthLightlyBruise


^ Yes yes yes yes. It's all about preference. Lucas wants to make use of all the technology, okay that's fair but JJ recently said it best. There's so many tools out there but that doesn't always mean you should use them. You gotta use what makes sense for the film you are trying to tell or the scene you are trying to make. It's not the quantity of what you're trying to do. It's the quality you're trying to achieve. If it looks better to put CGI ships in the background then go for it, if it doesn't then don't.

JJ upped the bar in one area, using an IMAX camera for a legit scene!

 

I agree. I'm also not against good CGI. Game of Thrones has a lot more CGI in it than people think, for example, but it's usually so seamlessly integrated with real locations that it works (plus, the camera doesn't do wild things, which often exposes CGI). Bottom line: CGI should serve the story, AND preserve suspension of disbelief.

I thought the beginning of TPM made great use of CGI. In fact, that film generally is the most restrained in that respect (barring the gungan stuff). I bought most of the locations, and the space battle was fresh-looking. And then it started to go downhill in AOTC, with ROTS topping the pile with overblown, overwrought, "it's so dense" scenes...By the time Obi-Wan was riding that lizard, I had already checked out.

 

Star Wars has always been about more though. Each and every time.

What anyone subjectively thinks of that doesn't matter. What I am always talking about is simply and strictly George's (and therefore Star Wars) narrative drive which is based in visual storytelling. For George it was always about more. He wasn't going for "less" with Star Wars ever. He was always going for more. It only seems like less in retrospect but it isn't really because with the technology he pushed it to places movies had never went before. He didn't deliberately choose to go "backwards" in his overall aspect.

"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.

That again is a different approach because for George it's all one and the same thing. The universe and the characters are all working together. Each informs the other and then the music informs everything.

 

Yeah, well here's the thing about that.

I get that George's vision is to use technology till it's dry but that isn't what everyone took away from the original movies. You don't have to agree with the artists vision. I could say Godfather 1 and 2 were great but they make 3 and it's awful. I don't have to be like, well this is what they envisioned apart of this saga. If I think it's horrible, or if I think it missed the things that made the originals great than that's okay.

The point is, people take away from movies what they want to take away. Not everyone thinks more is what makes star wars better. In fact, a lot of people think the opposite. There's a reason people mocked George Lucas with that George Lucas edition of the force awakens teaser.

We take away what we think is special from the series. As JJ Abrams said, there's a ton of CGI used in the new film but that doesn't always mean he needs to use those new technologies for every moment. When something could be built for practical means they would do that. That's how it should be. Use the tech that best suits every scene.
CGI isn't the answer to everything.

 

Not every scene has to be chock-full of people, aliens, droids, weapons, buildings, nature landmarks etc. Sometimes keeping things simple is the best course of action. Focus on the characters. All of those extra details can sometimes take away from the characters. I love seeing how vast the galaxy is in scope but we need time to breath sometimes. That scene with Rey felt good to me.

 

Force Smuggler


Exactly. Why did the scene with Luke and the binary suns work so well? A quiet moment, nothing in the background but the suns... You don't need an overabundant use of CGI to make powerful moments in cinema. That is still one of Star Wars greatest moments, one of the most iconic scenes and it's also one of the most SIMPLE.

 

It's all about taste, in the end. Below, I think, is a perfect example of our differences in taste. The first scene, in my view, is so vastly preferable to the second, that I hesitate to even make the comparison. But I love naturalism in film. The cinematography in Terrence Malick's and David Lean's films, for example, are the height of what I think film can capture. But that's me. And you're you. No problem.

 

Exactly.

The first image real, whereas the second scene looks fake. Reality matters a lot to most people. It allows you to believe the characters exist more and relate to them more. I think of countless horror movies that now rely on CGI effects over practical and I always think.....they will never compare to those old practical effeft horror movies.

 

It probably would not have worked as well if there were ships, aliens, people, terrain etc in the way. That scene truly works. Especially after listening to one of my teachers from several years ago talk about it.

 

I like the use of CGI in ROTS, because it manages to show us how grand in scale the Star Wars universe can be. Again, it depends on how you want to tell the story. If your aim is to tell a story that is much smaller in scope, with most of the attention on scenes between characters that are set indoors, you will not need to use too much CGI. If you need to tell a story set outdoors, showing the vastness and alienness of a setting, then you need to use a lot more CGI.

For me, I dislike the Dagobah scenes because it always reminded me that they shot it in a soundstage. It doesn't feel like this is an actual outdoor scene. The same can be applied to the scenes of Metropolis in Superman Returns. They built real sets, but it does not make it look as if this is an actual city.

Without CGI, we will not get the battle of Genosis, or the battle of Coruscant. CGI should not be avoided if your story needs those kind of scenes.

What I fear is JJ would aim to be "cheap" by minimising the use of CGI, which limits what he could show us. It may make his planets seems more fake and artificial if he couldn't make the planet seem vast to the audience.

 

Both shots are gorgeous. The Anakin shot is at sunset, and later at night for thematic reasons.

The Anakin speeder shot is one of my favorites in all six movies, and Rey's speeder shot is better than the Falcon in the trailer.

 

I don't agree with the soundstage comment because to me you could equally say...CGI doesn't come off as real because it's computer generated imagery. It might look nice like the anakin on the speeder shot but I look at that location and it becomes very noticable it isn't a real place. To me there's a benefit of using real world locations with some CGI enhancements but all CGI takes me out of the experience. It's all about preference though. I think what made the original movies so cool is, it's an alien world but in very real world looking locations. You felt like you can relate better because of it. ( I freakin love Dagobah in those movies so......to each their own)...

 

Both the OT and PT placed great emphasis on the world building elements that established the universe that 'surrounded the characters'. This is something some often forget about the OT. I think what's often conflated,or confused, is the notion of characterisation versus emphasis on world building/special effects, and how that relates to creating relatable characters/situations. These things aren't mutually exclusive of course, but I believe the PT has bags of both... although I certainly feel that the protagonists aren't as easily 'accessible' as the OT counterparts, but I think that's more borne out of the complex and dark narrative rather than any lack of characterisation.

 

No, it's not about telling a story that's smaller in scope at all. That's not what I'm talking about. The OT told a huge story, and the battle for the Death Star (1 and 2) were pretty massive. And they looked amazing. My favorite films are huge in scope, such as Lawrence of Arabia.

It's simply about economy, and not cluttering up the screen with things that look false to me. That's it.

In that context, the first two images are much, much better, IMO, than the third and fourth. It's "expansiveness" and "simplicity" versus "cluttered" and "busy" that is at the heart of it for me.








I think the first two suggest a film with a greater scope and scale than the last two. That said, I agree on outdoor locations being shot on soundstages. I don't like that either. And it's why Degobah, as a location, is my least favorite across the OT.

 

What's your view on it Immortiss?

 

Yeah I hate the cluttered look.

I absolutely hate this idea that, if you use less CGI it's a lesser scoped movie. You don't need a million ships in the background to claim you are telling something grand.

 

Completely disagree. That particular scene, the battle above Endor, is about as "cluttered" and as "busy" as one can get. And I think you miss the point of the filmmaker if you think it's "expansive" but "simple". Both those scenes (from ROTJ and ROTS) are supposed to convey the scale, complexity and confusion of such an imaginary aerial skirmish. It's the same reason why there's so much detail/complexity in the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan. Spielberg is trying to depict the scale of activity and chaos of such an event, and not the beautiful simplicity of it.

 

But the start of Saving Private Ryan, though complex, looks so amazingly real. The same cannot be said for the bajillion pixels on the screen in the ROTS opening battle.

But again, this is about taste and different "triggers" that break suspension of disbelief. The triggers, for me, are:

1. Too much CGI - especially too much CGI in motion against all CGI backgrounds, and with a camera that follows the CGi into every nook and cranny (why I'm also concerned about the MF shot from the TFA teaser).

2. Outdoor locations that are either all CGI, or sets shot on soundstages, such as Degobah (I wish they had been able to film in an actual swamp, nearly-impossible though that might be). It's why I am so excited about Skelling Michael. It's a chance to capture Degobah-esque Jedi Master isolation, but do it in a real place, with natural formations and light.

These two elements just kill suspension of disbelief for me. It's not about OT vs PT, or other films vs. PT. It's about this. And that's why I'm only cautiously optimistic about JJ's TFA. There are visual choices from his films that worry me greatly.

 

I get your meaning

 

they all look great they're just different.

 

I do prefer the bottom two, TBH, and for the very reasons why you say you prefer the top two. Different strokes and all that.

 

They don't feel or look that different to me. I'll grant that the ANH Death Star battle doesn't feel as cluttered or chaotic, but then again there are several shots in that sequence that look like they were filming toys, so I can't say it's more "real" to me.

As for Episode VII, I expect a few nice character moments wrapped around a greater action spectacle. Just like any other Star Wars movie. I'm not expecting anything to wow me as much as the rumination sequence from ROTS though.

 

Yup. Taste. Subjective. Nothing really to debate about!

 

I actually think this is especially important in live action fantasy/sci-fi films, where people are already being asked to suspend their disbelief in the story itself. Tolkien's rule of the "green sun," basically. People can accept it, as long as it behaves like our sun. The binary sunset is like that. Looks very, very similar to our sunset, but its slightly elevated, because there are two. Makes you look at our own sun as if for the first time. Renews and refreshes your view of your own world. What Tolkien called "recovery." Very refreshing, and one of deeper reasons why I love the Star Wars OT, but can;t get into the PT. It's bordering on the spiritual.

But that said, it's subjective. I didn't grow up with a computer, for example, and spent a lot of time outdoors, so I am far more likely to reject computer-generated imagery than someone of the current generation. I don't begrudge them that. They are who they are. And they're the future of humanity!