ST The Cinematography of Episode VII

^^Making an obscure Harry Potter reference on a Star Wars fan forum? Somewhere out there, Chris Hardwick just got a boner.

 

I am the internets of course.

 

I guess it's the difference of "real life violence" vs "cartoon violence".

But I agree TCW was pretty violent. Many times while watching it I was like "this is for kids?"

 

You're right... Cartoon violence and 'live action' violence can't really be compared. I don't think Star Wars, in any of its mediums, (especially the films) sets out to be 'violent'. It's about context... there was a narrative reason to see the corpses of Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen just as there was a narrative reason to witness Anakin's burning. Star Wars also doesn't glamorise violence in the way most action movies do (or did)... there's always a consequence... and I think that it something to be celebrated. It never feels overly sanitised, but remains easily accessible to kids/families and is one of the reasons for its unwavering popularity - IMHO.

 

No Chris Hardwick reference would be complete without a hashtag: #ITalkAfterShows

 

Is his real name Hardwick? And you said he got a boner? Ah, Chris Boner.

 

JJ Abrams is right up there, too, and I mean that. That's what worries me, especially now that his favorite cinematographer is returning. Mission Impossible 3 and the two Trek movies give me such a headache and it's not just the lens flares.

 

I agree... but I do think KK will keep him in check... mostly...

 

Which one? There's about six producers on Episode VII alone. The last two trilogies had only three, if you count Lucas.

 

While JJ's camera movements don't offend my sensibilities quite as much as Bay's for some reason, I do agree that he tends to overdo it a lot. I'm just hoping that he has an innate understanding of what a Star Wars film should look like and has studied the camerawork in the previous films in order to keep as much congruence as possible.

 

Pretty cool news (at least for me because I adore well done puppets):

http://episode7news.com/star-wars-e...er/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

I have no problem with CG creatures, but one of the great things to me about the Star Wars saga as a whole is the variety of techniques used to accomplish different effects and creatures, so I'm definitely on boards with some more puppetry. I think it would be lame if they left CG creatures out of the mix entirely though, since they're now in all but one movie.

 

With amazing attention to detail, such as that shown pictured in the link, I don't understand the need for all-CG creatures. It seems like someone could just take any one of those puppets, and then add a touch of CG to give them liveliness, and presto...they'd have the pluperfect combo of special-practical effects laden creatures. Of course, I could be mistaken, and there'd much more to it then that, dunno.

 

Sock puppets are the most realistic due to facial movements and whatnot.

 

I think it's more the practicality of it... it's easier to do one or the other. I personally thought the Neimoidians looked great in the PT... as did digital Yoda, Watto etc. I think the best solution is just to mix the style and have the best of both (which they've generally done).

 

I think its easy to forget just how far CGI has come since the time of the prequels. I just watched TPM last week, and it struck me how pleasantly tame the amount of CGI in that film is compared to Man of Steel, Star Trek, and The Hobbit. I think some of the CGI in the prequels stuck out like a sore thumb simply because CGI wasn't quite there yet. It still had that low-res, shiny "cartoon" quality that has been mostly ironed out in the past 14 years, and will be even better by the time 2015 rolls around. I think there's still a role to be played by practical sets, old fashioned creature effects, and model-making, but I'm more confident than ever in the ability of CGI to "fill in the gaps" with things that otherwise wouldn't be possible.

 

Agreed, CGI has grown by leaps and bounds. One of the very first times I remember ever having seen CGI displayed on screen was in Jurassic Park. That combination of special effects and animatronics remains to be...just wow...spellbinding. Star Wars has always had that fusion of CG-practical effects, as well as that wow feel to it, and hopefully with the growth of CGI, JJ can find the perfect balance between the two elements, and create for some unforgettable moments.

 

The CGI in Gravity was especially stunning.

 

I love what CGI does with scale. The landscape, cityscape, the ships, planets and space. That's the tops for me. Still not completely sold on digital characters, unless they're played by Andy Serkis.

 

I kind of like the more cartoony CG characters in Star Wars actually. To me, they fit in with the established style nicely. After all, many of the physical creatures and puppets are already cartoony as hell.

We should probably get back to the cinematography though.

 

I hope Dan Mindel and JJ Abrams do what Janusz Kaminsky and Steven Spielberg did for KOTCS, which was to copy the style of Doug Slocombe, the cinematographer who had worked on the three original Indy films, but had passed away in the interim, in order to give the film its proper stylistic look. Apparently the studied Slocombe. I hope Mindel/Abrams studies Lucas closely. I would love to hear/see Lucas spitballing ideas to JJ. George saying, 'Hey, use my idea(s) if you like'.

 

Whilst I don't think Kaminsky quite captured the look of the earlier Indy films, he did (IMO) successfully capture the look and lighting of 1950's technicolor movies... to the point that certain shots I'd swear were filmed decades ago. I do agree that I don't particularly like the washed out palette of some modern movies... I like my modern films to be rich in colour and tone.

 

Hmm... I don't think I get that much of that "green-blue (teal) shadows" effect when watching my 2004 DVDs.

Or are you saying these are not actual DVD or Blu-ray screen shots, but rather shots you made by modifying the colors yourself to what you think is commonly used in new movies these days?