ST The Cinematography of Episode VII

The Rebellion had really great janitors!

 

When people talk about JJ's lens flares, they're not talking about the shots you showed where the light source is IN the frame, they're talking about the unnatural blue lines he adds to his shots, completely ignoring the mood of the film and the integrity of the shot, it's just a cheap way to make an audience say "oooh". Lens flare is part of how JJ's movies look but Star Wars isn't his work, Star Wars came before he even started directing films. And most important, Star Wars has it's own unique look and feel/grain to it (closest thing I can relate to it right now is how Tarantino did Django and Inglourious Basterds with the same look).


This^ upsets me so much, it was supposed to be a really good movie but all these lens flares completely ruin the shots, and I'm sure it's not just me...

 

He does use them excessively, he is Hollywood's biggest offender and it makes his films look arse...

 

Who cares about the stupid lens flares? I mean seriously?

 

Well stop caring now!

 

I'm just saying, if he manages to keep it toned down to Star Wars level lens flares (and not new Star Trek level lens flares) it'll be all good.

 

I don't mind a few lens flares but the only place horizontal blue lines have in Star Wars is the scan lines in holograms.

 

I don't think this thread is the best place for this, but most of the "effects" posts are archived, so this will have to do:

I'm a diehard PT and Special Editions supporter, but even I have some issues. One of them is the "censorship" of "laser-blasts" hitting folks:

These scenes were removed from the original Star Wars (ANH):




I also could swear some of the blasts on some Stormtroopers were removed as well. Anyhow, I wonder if J.J. will go back to the 1977 style and put them back in? I don't find them any more violent then Luke getting his hand cut off, or Luke cutting off "dream Vader's" head. Or any of the carnage in ROTS. These actors/stuntmen went through a lot to have their chests explode, their work should stay on screen. I hope the EP7 has this type of detail.

 

Yep - they were removed, but I always thought that they were inconsistent effects that looked overtly like squibs. So I'm not sure they were removed because they looked too violent, but rather that Lucas didn't think they looked great...

 

Well, actually, the first was a rebel ship pretending to be a ambassador's vessel, so...

Bespin imo is comparable with Saudi Arabia. Lando and his companions have (had?) lots of moneys, I'd guess.

 

That change really pissed me off. It's just so damn pointless and nitpicky. Especially since in the same prison break-in scene, you can still clearly see one officer getting blasted, when the others are removed. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Lucas but these kind of pointless changes really piss me off. Like those idiotic walkie-talkies instead of shotguns in ET.

 

Never heard of, Noticed, or knew what lens flares were until i came to this site. If you pause right on the flare and take photos of it then of course it looks out of control. Quit nit-picking. >.>

 

Hate to get in on the beating a dead horse game but IMO JJ does overdo the lens flares.

Pretty much throughout the recent history of movies (1970's onward) just about every feature film or genre film has a shot or two with a nice lens flare. I think this was done or at least kept as an insiders way of saying, "See I can make a feature film," I know all the tricks; sorta like the "Wilhelm" or the "universal focus." BUT, as I said, it was a shot or two at most. JJ uses lens flares, especially in both Treks and Super 8, as a STYLE choice. It worked for Trek, but not for Super 8.

Lastly, it should be said that JJ isn't the only one who does it. I recently watched the Total Recall remake and you get the same lens flares style choice.

 

He said himself that he's aware he overdid it and I'm quite sure he'll adapt his overall shooting style to the SW style and feel.

I'm no fan of shaky-cam but to be honest I find the argument of "I can't tell what's going on" to be somewhat blown out of proportion. It's just what's popular today and like any other stylistic element, sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. I've watched dozens of movies where it fits in perfectly, and since I have no concentration problems I don't really find it distracting
On the other hand, a few days ago I saw a random Chinese festival flick, which was a rather dull affair of an everyday story which featured shaky-cam for no reason whatsoever. There it sticks out like a sore thumb, but not in the manner that I found it "distracting" or that I "couldn't tell what's going on" but that it simply didn't fit in with the overall feel, pace and atmosphere of the movie. It was just a bad "artistic" call, just like choosing a poor angle to shoot a certain scene.

Say what you will of the AOTC Geonosis battle scene, but those "handheld" shots of zooming in on swooping gunships, rockets and artillery fire were damn effective and cool looking. It works well where it's used and I think people in Abrams' team and Abrams himself are smart enough to realise that you don't make a Star Wars movie with just handheld cameras. And, to the absolute horror of quite a few people, I'm sure, I'm actually open to even giving it a chance if it's filmed in a somewhat different manner than the six we've had so far. Believe it or not, new approaches can sometimes be positively surprising. I won't judge it until I see it.

 

I think the lens flare thing is only really noticeable when you consciously think about it. Unfortunately when you do so, you can never look away and by the end you go "Holy ****, what's the matter with this guy?!". Still, the guy knows how to make a movie and his visual style is to be respected IMO. I for one I'm really glad this guy's in charge instead of an overrated hack like Zack Snyder or Joss Whedon. My ideal scenario involved Del Toro or even Spielberg but as Mick Jagger once said, you can't always get what you want.

Still, I'd rather have a lens flare overdose than Lucas's flat PT cinematography.

 

I hope the lens flares are so distracting that everyone in the theater starts a riot.

 

The thing is that, for me anyway, camerashake has become as ubiquitous as a drum and bass soundtrack. It's too often used lazily to imply 'movement/action' and 'drama' by blasting out volume and disorientating the eye instead of actually taking the time to write and shoot action and drama.

 

That's a fair argument, but I would just point out that in some cases it works and in some it doesn't. It's not a bad thing by default. There have always been artists of all sorts using all kinds of "lazy" tricks, not all of them are necessarily bad. It's not so much as to which trick you use at is how you use it.