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

Hopefully, that was the point

 

No sorry, i can't really say much more.....but he's played a cyber-terrorist, a crime scene investigator and listens to The Ride of the Valkyries

 

meps.

 

[/quote]

Sam Jackson is back!!!

Or is that Larry Fishsticks?

 

That is a big worry if directors would let physical sets dictate what kind of story they can or cannot tell. The point of making a fantasy or sci-fi movie is to ensure that you can tell a story beyond the constraint of shooting it in an actual environment. You should not be making decisions like making more sequences that don't call for heavy digital effects just because you preferred to use a physical prop.

Considering that Lucas and ILM made massive amount of effort to ensure that modern filmmakers are no longer limited by physical sets and budgets required to built them, it would be a disappointment if a SW director would cut scenes from the script because they couldn't build enough sets or some of those locations/battles cannot be achieved without CGI.

Even one of the most famous blockbuster director that loves practical effects, Nolan, did not let his imagination be limited whether he needs to use special effects or not. He tasked his team to use every possible way to create those scenes via practical effects, only when they told him this impossible did he use CGI. At no point did he indicate that he have to cut or limit scenes that rely heavily on CGI.

 

I'm not saying don't use GC when needed or when it is the best tool for the job. My personal preference is the Nolan take on it. As much in camera as possible. CG where needed. What I find more worrying is the idea you need vast swathes of CG to tell a great story set in the SW universe.

 

Yeah, but if what you said above is true, that there was a very deliberate attempt to limit scenes that rely heavily on CGI, then it is going to bad filmmaking in my opinion. The idea that you need to decide what kind of story to tell based on what special effects preference shows that you are not really a good storyteller.

Directors shouldn't be afraid of making a new battle on the scale of Genosis, Naboo, or Coruscant. A director that could/dare not dream big should never be offered to direct a SW movie.

 

Well, as you say, that's your opinion. I take your point - that a vision should be unfettered if that is what the creator wants. But not every one wants to create stories and use sequences that can only be achieved through total CG. So , people of a certain taste may want to incorporate human forces or locations we could actually film on earth. Obviously George didn't want to go that route and that's fair enough, but if people are saying they have a problem with the over synthetic feel, it'll be sequences like that they are talking about.

I'm certainly not saying don't dream. I'm saying do overdo the CG and keep it as grounded as possible, where possible.

But it's kind of irrelevant anyway, George could have used practical more than he did regardless (despite the vast amount he did use), so he clearly didn't have a problem with the aesthetic (and not did many others). What does seem clear though, is the current crop of film-makers seem to share the preference for as much in-camera stuff as possible. So it can't just be a bunch of disgruntled haters on here who feel that more tangible is not a bad thing.

 

Agreed. Finally got around to watching Pacific Rim, and I was very pleased that a director who's often lauded for his practical approach didn't feel the need to limit his creative tool set in this instance. Great stuff. But yeah, as always, I think there's room for more than one style even in a single franchise. In the future I would like to a see a throwback/practical-looking Star Wars film, a full CGI movie, as well as styles that strive for a balance between both of these approaches.

 

Sam Jackson is back!!!

Or is that Larry Fishsticks?

[/quote]
You're so racist.


It's Denzel Washington. He was so great in those Nutty Professor movies.

 

However, you aren't making a movie set on earth. You want to see a galaxy far, far away, not a place that is recognisable as a set or an actual real world location. There is countless sci-fi and fantasy movie set on modern day earth, but not Star Wars.

But what do you mean by overdoing CGI? There has been many other films set on earth that use even more CGI, and yet few people actually complaint about the use of CGI and actually like it. Films like Avatar and Life of Pi used even more CGI and yet audience seems to have no problems with that.

The only movies that seem to have complaints about the overuse of CGI is the PT and The Hobbits movies. Which makes me wonder if people are judging the movie based on nostalgia or actually judging the films on its own merits and flaws. I don't think that trying to make a Star Wars movie as grounded as the OT is good in the modern context. We have seen far too much CGI to return to the 70s and 80s.

Moreover, the idea that keeping it as grounded as plausible kinda goes against what Star Wars is trying to achieve. This is a world with magical knights, spaceships and weird aliens and planets. It is hard to showcase all these if your goal is to keep the movie as grounded as possible. The grounded look is a side-effect of the limitation of budget, and was never the main goal of what the OT is about.

I think that any plan to keep things as practical as possible or as grounded as possible is inherently a bad idea because you are trying to chase after something that was never the intended goal of the original films. It's like trying to recapture the comedy of an old movie that is only funny because it is so horrible.

What I fear is that the new filmmakers, because of their age, are so heavily influenced by nostalgia like you have that they are all chasing the wrong tree in an effort to recreate the 'old' Star Wars. Either that or they have been influenced by the opinion of a loud minority of fans who have always make the same old complaint about the prequels.



What I am saying is that I think your argument is based on nostalgia, an attempt to see your childhood movie being recreated on screen as opposed to being objective about the techniques filmmakers should use in making a space opera. If guardians of the galaxy can make itself feels like a Star Wars movie according to a number of people with plenty of CGI, then it should be possible to make a really good Star Wars movie with as much CGI as possible.

 

Lol at this thread.

 

I keep asking questions like that and the answers keep changing. When they learn of all the vast practical VFX of the PT then they don't like practical anymore. Only a certain kind of practical.

http://www.fxguide.com/featured/vfx-roll-call-for-the-avengers/

Having supervised the visual effects on Iron Man 2, Janek Sirrs was well suited to return for Joss Whedon’s The Avengers. Along with producer Susan Pickett, the visual effects supervisor oversaw the creation of approximately 2,200 shots completed by several vendors. These included ILM, Weta Digital, Scanline VFX, Hydraulx, Fuel VFX, Evil Eye Pictures, Luma Pictures, Cantina Creative, Trixter, Modus FX, Whiskytree, Digital Domain, New Deal Studios, The Third Floor (previs and postvis), with titles by Method Design.

Revenge of the Sith 2,151 vfx shots
The Hobbit 1 2200 vfx shots

Man I know that so many people complained about all the VFX shots in Avengers. It was complaint after complaint after...oh wait... that didn't happen.

I don't know why.

 

Exactly. It really becomes nothing more than an attempt to recreate Star Wars they way they remembered it to be. It's similar to people who argued that Godzilla movies should always make use of a man in a suit as opposed to CGI. That kind of argument is extremely exclusive based, because it is only trying to appeal to people who saw the OT in cinema while they were growing up.

It's rather ironic that considering that the major theme of EP 7 is all about passing the torch to a younger generation, the generation that grew up with the OT refuse to hand over the torch to a new generation of fans.

 

No, we just prefer less sequences that look like video games (to us). Same crit applies to things like the Hobbit. I totally appreciate you feel differently and love that look (or indeed not even agree with idea certain sequences do even feel like that).

Can you not appreciate that others may feel differently from a taste POV (including the current crop of film-makers, it seems)? This is not a right or wrong issue.

 

Sometimes I wonder if these people really want JJ and his crew to fail just to prove their point. I will be very interesting to read what type of movies do they want.

 

I think there is definitely an element of that vinsanity

Of course bias plays into all this sometimes, but I think it's coming from a taste (as in preference) angle and this idea that only more old school fans are guilty of it is funny.

People like what they like. It's cool all round.

Also, was thinking this last night having recently watched Jedi and Clones with the boy - at the end of the day, while of course people will prefer certain techniques and looks, I think what is far more important is the script - if the story and characters are great, it won't matter at all.

The film is going to look amazing whatever. It's going to look like a SW film, whatever. There is some top drawer FX and the odd dodgy shot in each of the films. I'm sure this will carry on that tradition.

 

Well exactly... the story comes first... and that's essentially why the way effects are realised aren't (IMHO) half as important as some would like to believe. Start with the story, the plot, the characters... and then build upon that.

 

Can I like this twice please?

 

Ha!

Yes. The FX (however realised) only become a real problem when there are deeper issues. It's why no one really cares about garbage mattes. And it's why people criticise Jar Jar's CG but not Watto's.

 

Theres so much going on in SW right now, its amazing how its exploding again, but with a lot of debate and rumours to take in with the upcoming ep7 I thought I'd check on to the ep8 director rumours, which actually turns out to be doubling as a cgi vs practical thread too

Interesting rumour about Laurence Fishburne though.

 

Without really wishing to jump in on the cgi v practical debate........ I just checked out Rian Johnsons career and by the looks of it very few seem to have aspects of a lot of massive effects or CGI. Is that a concern with a SW film?

Add to that the fact he's quite a new director too, of course that can work both ways as he may offer something new and different.