ST So J.J. Abrams wants Star Wars to feel real.

Ratio of practical to non-practical effects is irrelevant. The only measure is: "Did those scenes feel, to you, like they took place in a real location, with real beings?" And for many, the PT was full of scenes where the answer was "no."

You feel differently.

That's great. We live in a diverse world.

Now let's move on to other subjects that haven't been beaten to a microscopic pulp.

 

I think that's true, but there was so much digital stuff crammed in and it was in the early days of shooting digital that it didn't matter. I like how JJ is doing things like shooting in natural light (which makes a big difference, as least to me) and doing as much in-camera as possible with real Stormtrooper armor, etc. They're obviously doing some pandering to the PT-hating crowd by pushing the practical effects thing but overall they are doing much more than they did in the PT, which pushed the envelope technologically and did it quite well.

 

I really cannot blame PT fans for having any degree of anger towards JJ, TFA or the Internet's attitude towards those movies in particular. I get a real vibe of contempt towards the PT and it's fans from some of the TFA marketing and in every single article about SW you read online there are swipes at it. It's beyond old.

It helped drive George Lucas away from Star Wars, and it's going to turn Star Wars into a generic corporate tentpole series. It will never be the same again because it is no longer controlled by an artist. SW is no different from Marvel or DC Comics or Star Trek, or any other series. I guess the only fantasy series that is a big thing and has true integrity now is Harry Potter.

 

What attitude might that be? Abrams has only said positive things about Lucas and his advance of film-making technology via the PT. As for "vibes," frankly I think that's projection from bitter fans.

And as for "every single article about SW you read online there are swipes at [the PT]," what do you want Abrams to do, demand editorial control of every site that reports about the film? Seriously, how can you think this is a valid reason to have "anger towards JJ"? Please explain.

If there's contempt and bad feelings between Abrams and PT fans, it seems to me to be coming from one direction.

 

JJ's attitude towards the PT is well known, and the constant swipes at the PT and it's fans are never hard to find. I don't blame JJ for that, but the fact that it's never stopped and probably never will stop-I couldn't blame any fans of it for just washing their hands of the entire thing.

It ticks me off too, but I just try to ignore it. You would think they'd like to have a less splintered fanbase.

 

Oh, I don't know. I mean, below is an image of Abrams reacting very poorly to Jar Jar, who's just giving him a friendly thumbs up. Seems like an unnecessarily rude response, and a clear swipe at PT fans.

 

You didn't offer any actual example there of JJ's "well known" hatred of the PT. And once again, the opinions of others isn't Abrams responsibility.

 

Abrams can go stuff himself. This film will have as much poor CGI as others Disney has put out before it.

 

But what should he stuff himself with? I need answers to this question.

 

Ironic how many Star Wars fans give into fear, anger, and hate.

 

You'd probably have to be fans of the PT to understand how many of us feel. Some of it might be paranoia, but when you have been told since 1999 that something you enjoy is garbage and you are an idiot for liking it, paranoia happens easily.

And I am not exactly speaking for myself here-I love all 6 movies, I have mixed feelings about TFA, but my point is I can't blame PT fans for feeling very angry and insulted by the way they are promoting TFA. And JJ has been diplomatic at best about the PT.

 

CGI and lens flare probably.

 

I like a lot about the PT. I haven't felt insulted by the marketing of TFA. Sure there's discussion of practical effects, but fans are being unfair when they don't give credit to JJ. He's always insisting that there will be tons of CGI alongside these real sets and droids.

 

People have been reminded about Abrams' positive comments regarding the PT, his lack of negative comments concerning them, and his constant insistence that the film would be chock full of CGI, which by all means looks fantastic from what we've seen of it and, combined with the emphasis on going practical when possible, will probably result in the most realistic depiction of the Star Wars universe we've yet had. People just want something to be mad about. Let them stew in it.

 

Wow. JJ can't even make a Jar Jar joke without offending the Zealots.

 

Interesting points have been made on this topic, i will reiterate some of the recurring opinions such as the actors putting a decent effort into it and that the camera angles/special effects are done correctly, and to some lesser degree a script. I agree with those ideas bring a form of realism to a story.

The problem is very rarely is a director the writer, director, and producer as Lucas was on ANH. Sometimes when the stars align, a guy writes a story that he gets to film and guys like spielberg and lucas can tell great storys if the story is just right and the cast is just casted excellently. In my experience a lot of good writers such as for example stephen king has written great stories but rarely do the films ever do it justice....but you get the right actors, director, and prodcuter you might get a stand by me or a shawshank redemption or even a green mile.

To me JJ isnt a guy who brought me films like Raiders, Star Wars, Alien, Terminator, or other timeless films of that caliber to the table at all yet. I liked star trek, i liked the tv stuff and other movies he has done....but its still someone elses stuff. But to be fair i like a lot of what he has done especially Fringe. Hes put more on the table than Lucas has if you want to get technical so hes qualified to do a star wars movie and got the first one. Somewhere along the way an ESB director and story will combine to create a masterpiece. As for JJ Im not sure he is spielberg yet and since they are going to mutliple directors i think that might create a competition of who can direct the best star wars which i rather they didnt do. But if the TFA story is right, the actors give it their all, and the FX guys do their homework and jj directs it masterly then we have a winner blockbuster.

 

Fringe was definitely awesome. I get the fanboy hate; I really do, and even though I post here, I am not one of them. JJ is OK bk by me.

 

The idea of making Star Wars look or feel "real" or realistic is a problem. Star Wars isn't real. Star Wars is a fantasy. Star Wars is not sci-fi. There is no scientific basis for Star Wars. The movie or the ideas in the movie may have inspired/does inspire people to create scientific and technological advances in real life, but the movies themselves are fantasy and high romance. The basic underpinning of Star Wars is the Force and Force users, which is mythological and mystical in nature. What makes Star Wars or any movie feel "real" is the emotions they invoke within the audience and has nothing to do with whether the movie or images look realistic/true to life. If absolute realism was the standard of "real" in movies, many classic movies wouldn't continue to hold up today. I hope the new Star Wars movies are real in the emotive sense. I hope I feel an emotional connection to the characters and the storyline in these new movies (Episodes and Anthology pictures). Because if the emotional connection is lacking in these films, then it won't matter how photo realistic the movies looks, or how many practical effects it has, or how much they borrow from the OT, the films won't feel real.

bran

 

There are different aspects of realism.
1) Camera movement - Does the camera do anything to draw your attention to the cinematic construct, or is it more passive and objective?
2) Design - Does the design of the architecture and evolution of the creatures look like something that could actually happen in the real universe?
3) Lighting - Is the lighting highly designed and stylized, or is it more naturalistic and documentary-like?
4) Visual Effects - Visual effects are done in post, as opposed to special effects. Is there the fingerprint of the visual effects craftsman on screen, or are they obviously animated, CGI or composited in? Would Jar Jar fool you in real life, or would you go looking for the holographic projector?
5) Special Effects - Are the special effects seamlessly merged with real life, or are they obviously puppets and animatronics? Would ESB Yoda fool you in real life, or would you go underneath him looking for the puppeteer?

 

the tech we have now with CGI is really, really good. the PT days were really pushing boundaries at the time, which, for better or worse, was the product we have. and yes, it doesnt look as good when you watch them back from todays standard. but thats just progression and should be accepted going in. the whole CGI vs practical effects argument is so redundant. this is freakin fantasy. theres going to be things that need cgi to look real. unless you want to go back and look at some of the OT characters that you see within the movies... they have also aged poorly. its something to just accept really. CGI vs practical effects argument is something that fans focus on, but dont really know all too much about. which is hilarious, honestly. but its also annoying. whether or not CGI or practical plays apart in JJ wanting star wars to feel "real" is not really the point at all. all the movies have had CGI and all the movies have used practicals. as said, its fantasy, and i echo _thatjediscum's sentiments on the subject of JJ apparently wanting star wars to feel real... which is next to impossible in a visual sense, but maybe not in an emotional sense. buzzwords such as CGI or lens flare, mainly come from people who dont know what theyre talking about and try to push their opinion, with an agenda behind it, usually to discredit whatever made up OT vs PT purist bull.

 

What it comes down to, is would the effect fool you in real life? I know if ESB Yoda and TPM Jar Jar were in this room right now, I would instantly know both of them were not living breathing creatures. My imagination has to fill in the blanks for both.

As for the film itself, lighting and cinematography can be an indicator of non reality as well. Even though the masks in the cantina look incredibly fake, the documentary lighting and camera technique sell it. There is not much in the way of slick camera movement or highly stylized lighting that we would not see in real life. This is what makes it real, not the masks. Even the design of the masks can be very unrealistic in this scene, but it still comes across as believable due to the filmmaker's choices.

A movie like Gravity may have very realistic design, but we feel it is fake because Alfonso Cuaron is a highly stylized director. All his films look like fantasy, regardless of the subject.

 

completely agree.

 

... LENSFLARE

 

Did you really just compare ESB Yoda and Jar Jar??

 

I'll tell you what's ironic. Prequel lovers that are worried about TFA. Lol