ST Rian Johnson to write and direct Episode VIII (and also new SW Trilogy - see page 194)

Not a concern as so much as it's something to consider (when you take into account Kershner' effects knowledge going into TESB). They will have a big enough team around them that this will all be considered/managed as part of pre-production. If anything, it may mean that the director's focus is more on characterisation and story.

 

Darth PJ Great point on Kershner and look how good ESB turned out.

 

i looked up his IMDB profile and there doesnt seem to be much material. but if he did write some breaking bad episodes then he must have a talent for darker themes which makes sense for the middle film of the trilogy. abrams makes sense for VII because his material seems to be more fun, rather than dark. good way to kick off the trilogy.

 

The issue is most of the people who make the argument against too much CGI in Star Wars prequels have no problem with the amount of CGI shots in Avengers. Iron's Man armour is CGI most of the time, and yet no one seem to have a problem with that. Yet at the same time, the same people seem to have a problem with EP 7 using CGI for the stormtroopers.

True, but let's not forget that the setting is a key story telling element as well. The difference between a film and a book is that the story must be told in a visual format, so the ability of a director to dream up wonderful worlds and sequences is crucial for a SW movie.

Without the opening shot of ANH, would SW have the same wow factor? Bearing in mind that some of the best scenes in SW are purely visual-based as opposed to dialogue-based.

 

A Star Wars movie directed by other directors who are far more imaginative in terms of storytelling and use of visuals? It's weird how you bring up JJ in a thread about Rian Johnson.

 

That goes without saying... but take the story and the characters away from that particular film and you've just got some great visuals. It's of course relative.... ANH is still, IMHO, the purest/best version of SW... and when compared to the others, it has the least amount of effects (although not taking away from the fact that it seemed effects heavy at the time)... Yes totally with you - let's not underestimate the power of visuals (cinema is primarily a visual medium), but those visuals still have to hang off a good story with some interesting characters and concepts. I think it's very much possible to make a great sci-fi/adventure film without wall to wall special effects (practical or digital)... but I think it's lot harder to make a great film without a good story, characters and situations.

 

Ray - this isn't an Avengers forum, or an Ironman forum. And you're also forgetting the balance issue.

Can you please just admit, just for me, that some people might just genuinely prefer their SW to be less less digital in places without them being bitter haters? Is that so hard? Especially when JJ, KK and RJ seem to feel the same?

Is it really that weird a concept that some people may prefer a slightly different aesthetic while still wanting every tool available used? And that doesn't mean telling a worse story, or a less exciting film?

 

Again...

 

according to imdb Rian Johnson directed this one:



it he brings some of that look & feel to SW

 

Indeed, he did direct Ozymandias, which was a great episode. Never seen that trailer for it before. Cool that it contains the poem that this episode was titled after:

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

 

Still can't believe Johnson didn't get an Emmy nomination for Ozymandias.

 

Yeah, that was quite a surprise.

 

As somebody who never got into BB, was it a particularly unique episode, directed different? Or was it merely an interesting episode, written well (obviously without the involvement of Rian)

 

Not very different but It is a very tense episode, great acting, it's hard to describe it without giving spoilers away. An episode that he also directed that is very unique and shot in a different way is the "Fly" episode.

 

It is arguably the best and most important episode of the series. It was the episode we were all waiting the entire series for. In reference to its importance and his hiring he said "Yeah, sorry, I'm the one who gets to **** the prom queen."

 

Fly is a rather self-contained (oddly, by / for Breaking Bad standards) that is really great, one shot, that actually anyone can kinda watch and get a full experience outta it. I highly recommend anyone who has only seen "Looper" to check it out for Johnson's unique style (also, once again people, watch Brick, dammit!)

Ozymandias is pretty damn...

 

Speaking of the Rian Johnson Breaking Bad episode "Fly" it's on, like, right now on AMC. Like literally just half of it is left! Go watch, people looking for Rian Johnson goodness!

 

I liked Ozymandias (the other episode he directed), but Fly spent too much time outside of the larger BB narrative for me. It's kind of fun, but overall it just puts the brakes on the momentum of the show's storyline too much, IMO.

 

Try re-watching it without the anxiety of expecting drama and interesting plot developments. In retrospect, that episode is a triumph in character development and symbolism.

 

True, I can see that. I haven't gone back and watched this particular episode again since finishing up the series in full.

 

I've never really understood this video game look thing. What does that really mean? Does it mean that the images are too fantastic and "obviously" not real? How is this any different from what someone would have said about the various OT images back in the day? The attack on the Death Star was obviously not real nor was the battle of Hoth or Death Star II. How exactly are the various images from Marvel films or PJ or Avatar or any other number of today's films and films since TPM not "real" in their incredible imagery?

Yes I can but you don't seem to be of the same mind. I still really don't understand what the issue is though. I can only say over and over again that some people seem to have confused visual design choices with technology and think one is totally locked in with the other.

I will once again state it to make it totally clear. Some people associate practical effects with the OT and CG with the PT and think that the way the films look is due to that difference. ie the OT is "real" and practical and the PT is "fake" and CG. This is both misleading and false. The reality is that the OT was analog composition and the PT was digital composition.

Both trilogies used sets, costumes, props, puppets, animatronics, green and blue screen, locations, matte paintings, models, miniatures, animation, special effects (on set explosions) and anything else you can think of. The PT used who nows how many times more practical effects than the OT? 10x the amount? I don't know but many more than the OT could dream of. That work was composited in digital not analog as the OT was. Digital allows you to compose images that you can't possibly do analog.

The PT though also used CG which is used in many places to enhance shots of models and miniatures. Most obviously the use was for fully interactive CG characters like Yoda, Jar Jar, Watto, Grievous, Sebulba etc. The other obvious major use was for various spaceships and vehicles not all but many and the line between models, fully or partially built props was dependant on various factors they determined at the time. Various sets were completely created via digital means while others we see were the actual sets digitally recreated for reshoots. In a sequence of shots we can go from an actor on a totally built set save for the windows to a digital recreation of said set to an actor walking through a miniature or matte painting or the real set but with parts of any of the former added or changed in post production all in the space of 60 seconds.

If VII decides to go to more "mudane" parts of the Star Wars universe than the ones in the PT then that will be their choice. I guess that means not going to places that aren't "pretty" or whatever exactly anyone means by that. Of course considering that we are talking 50 years after the formation of the Empire and possibly some kind of ongoing struggle since ROTJ with various factions etc then lots of places are likely to be beat up and economically on the downside.

What people? What exactly do you think JJ and RJ are going to do? They are going to use tons of practical effects just like the PT did. They are going to use tons of CG just like the PT did and like all major films today use. You don't think they are going to make Star Wars films that don't match up to the industry standard do you?

For example. As a director would you use a 12 foot model of the Tantive IV or a digital model of the same ship except one that in the digital realm is the equivalent of a 1:1 scale model?

JJ for Trek:

ILM model supervisor Bruce Holcomb stated the Narada was six miles (ten kilometers) long, while Post Magazine mentions it is five miles (eight kilometers) long. The film's Blu-ray gives a final estimate of the ship's length at 30,737.3 feet (9,368.7 meters). Regardless, the ship was one of the largest digital models ever built by the company: according to Roger Guyett, the detail required near 1:1 scale.

I really think that as I said before some people confuse design with technology. The OT avoided going to any of the core worlds because they knew they couldn't do that. So they went to outer rim worlds that were basic and barren like Tatooine, Hoth, Endor, Dagobah, etc. These were not high tech worlds. The PT was able to realize Coruscant, Naboo, Utapua, etc and when they went to more run down places they were able to make the environments truly alien like Mustafar or Geonosis or expand Tattoine visually. If they could have gone to these worlds in the OT then they probably wouldn't look exactly like the PT versions. After 20 odd years of being in the Empire Naboo would still look like a paradise compared to Tatooine but not the shining jewel in the pre-Empire era that we see. Same for Coruscant. It'd look more like the run down areas we saw in TCW. Again not as bad but the shine would be off it. If we had seen it as Had Abbadon in ROTJ I think it'd be a more run down and sinister place.

Of course story comes first but that doesn't mean words do. In this case it was images that came first as Lucas is a visual storyteller.

You'd really endorse ignoring the way in which Lucas actually made 6 films? He was making a movie. Not a book. It was not meant to be simply read. Everything is a part of the story in his movies. Of course the story comes first but they are not just words but images in his head. He has to write them down in letters on paper first. The point was the translation of images in his head and trying to get them into word form that he could then sell other people on. Part of the selling process was creating visual images. Strictly based on the script alone he would have never sold it because other people couldn't possibly see the grand vision that he had in his mind.

The visuals themselves shape the story, plot and characters in the whole process which rebounds on the script. Look at The Star Wars from Dark Horse. That is what Lucas had in his head when he wrote that first draft. It was totally impossible to film that but he wrote down in words and story what was in his imagination.

 

Jesus. I don't have the strength for this. Agree to disagree.

 

I'm not really sure what your point is in relation to mine... There's been too much thought expended on whether digital or practical is better (IMHO). My point is that the story has to come first. Then the filmmaker can decide what level/type of effects to apply and build his/her worlds with... be it digital/practical, or in SW case, a very good mix of both. Of course Lucas wanted to realise his story with the best special effects possible. Originally he used everything practical/optical could muster and then discovered how worlds could be built with digital... but you’ve got to start with a good story/idea... and, IMHO again, SW was always a good story (albeit universal), and it’s world building built upon grand ideas. I'm certianly not asking that Lucasfilm/JJ/KK forget how Lucas created the first 6 films... and I'm not sure where you got that idea from?

 

No, you really don't.

 

It does get tiring...

Video games = digital creation
Scenes filled with digital stuff in a live-action movie = video game look.

Ears burning?