ST The Cinematography of Episode VII

I agree, I really dislike Bay's movies. (BTW he's done some fun commercials though, youtube 'em.) But at least he has a style that's uniquely his own, gotta give him that.

 

I give Bay nothing.

And PLEASE no teal-orange color scheme for the ST! There are a ton of bad cinematic trends out there, but that one may just take the cake.

 

A balanced color palate is a must for a Star Wars film. Hopefully JJ got all of his "EVERYTHING MUST BE BLUE!" wiggles out while making Trek 2, because there's no room for that kind of shenanigans here. The colors on screen in a Star Wars film have always been strictly informed by the enviroment of the shot (the sterile grey walls of the Death Star, the overbearing red heat of Mustafar), not by some arbitrary digital adjustment made in post production because someone thought it would "look cool".

 

What is a colorist?

 

I just watched Trek 2 last night (it's on Netflix now) and figured I'd share a few shots that could give us a clue as to where JJ will be going with Episode 7 from a cinematography standpoint. For the most part, JJ and Dan Mindel do their own thing with the Trek films, but I'm assuming that for Star Wars they'll adapt their sensibility to fit the franchise. Here's some shots that give us an idea of what that would look like:






This shot reminds me of Peter Suschitzky's lighting of the Imperial scenes in ESB:







(Combining a matte background with good lighting isn't always the easiest feat.)




JJ's films have been criticized on these boards (myself included) for the "over the shoulder" dialogue shots, but Star Wars hasn't always strayed away from such techniques:









Just thought these four looked vaguely Star Wars to me. No real rationale.

Oh, and most importantly:




I kid, I kid.

It bears repeating that these were "needles from the haystack". The majority of this film very rarely touches the usual Star Wars aesthetic, and even the shots I selected here are smothered in Trek 2's ubiquitous blue tint (which, as I posted earlier, has no place in a Star Wars film). But, if JJ and Dan Mindel can stay mindful of Star Wars's visual past (something they are certainly capable of) then I think we could be in for a treat. Hopefully.

 

I would like the cinematography to stay true to SW episodes past, but also be appropriate to the tone of the film. One of the things I liked about ROTS was it's desaturated look, which helped create a sense of deadness to the film.

 

What's more important, cinematography or the mise-en-scene?

 

Yes.

 

That's the shortest post you've ever made.

 

I don't remember super 8 looking overly blue but maybe it did. I think Abrams respects the color and style of Star Wars and he will replicate that. Star Trek IMO was filmed in a style that fit that series and he will adjust for Star Wars

 

You seem disappointed. Let me try to rectify that.

How many paragraphs would you like?

 

Yes I think so too. I also think he never thought he'd direct a Star Wars movie, so put a few ideas in ST II that he wishes he hadn't. A few moments feel very Star Wars-y. But he must have many more, and he will most definitely try to avoid comparisons between the two franchises by going extra gritty on Star Wars. That's what I think. More weird locations. As far as cinematography goes, he might restrain on some extreme tilted shots, but the camera will be fast and moving. But I'm guessing more stable shots overall. Pure SW tradition. But just imagine what they can pull off today. They can smoothly approach the Falcon's cockpit from far above, turn around it, and stop right beside Han, and why not even follow him through the Falcon in a single shot, revealing family behind. Abrams is keen on tricking the viewer anyway. There will be cool moments. There will be lens flares, because he likes them and I've seen plenty in movies for 30 years, from McTiernan to Jan deBont (which is essentially the same, hm), from Ridley Scott to the PT even, and nothing wrong with that, but he will try hard to make things look different from his Treks I'm sure.

 

The difference, as I see it, is that this example from ESB is a perfect example of character dictating cinematography. It's a gorgeous shot.
Vader looms black and massive, almost swallowing Lando. The slight lack of focus makes him seem worryingly close to the viewer on a big screen. It highlights the villain's menace and the hero's bravery in standing up to him.
The shot from ST doesn't serve such a purpose, it's just a cinematography faux pas. My worry is that JJ has a tendency to go for "cool" with no understanding of how to make those techniques mean something.
The same could be said for Carol Marcus being stripped (figuratively and literally) to eye candy in the reboot vs. Leia being objectified against her will - which she responds to by strangling her captor to death with the very chain that held her.

I'm confident that Abrams can decently imitate the visual style of the OT (as long as KK is there to keep him away from the teal and lens flares), and that'll make me happy - but to get me to love the ST in the same way I do the OT, the cinematography will have to have at least approach the same depth of meaning and symbolism. A tall order, I know, but there are quite a few filmmakers working today who are capable of it, JJ and Dan Mindel just haven't yet shown me that they are, IMO. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

 

That's an apt analysis, Abadacus . Though you make good points, I'm not entirely concerned because, in the franchises JJ and Mindel have worked on, there's never been a precedent for top notch cinematography, and certainly not the kind of moment-to-moment symbolic imagery found in the Star Wars saga. The Trek films have always thrived more on words than images (indeed, 2009 trek was the first film I felt didn't look like it was shot for TV), and Mission Impossible, despite Brian De Palma's well-shot first film, is no where near the kind of poetic epic that Star Wars has. So perhaps this pairing of Director and Cinematographer we have here have simply never been given the opportunity or incentive to inject their images with the kind of meaning found in Star Wars. With episode 7, they have a legacy to live up to that wasn't there in their past films.

 

Plus, I'd say he doesn't have to hide anymore. He's always been noding at Lucasfilm/Amblin type of stuff, now it's actually the real deal, so he can go full power if you will. I figure he gets it's a one-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Now, will that translate to film is another thing completely.

 

Please to explain how the Khan/Kirk over-the-shoulder shot commits a "cinematography faux pas", IYO.

 

Dunno about that. Why would a snail be sexually interested in a human woman? That never made much sense to me.

Carol also wasn't just eye candy but a strong character when she saved the enterprise from her father.

 

As much as I dislike the writing in the Prequels, I thought the shots and shot selection were generally top notch. It's an area where Lucas and Tattersail really excelled in the PT and don't get far enough credit IMO. I rarely get the sensation that there's a filming crew on the other side of a shot in the Star Wars movies, OT or PT. In the new Trek movies and MI3, JJ and Dan Mindel make me feel like I'm watching from behind the camera, if not a post-production computer screen. It's not any kind of major, experience-breaking difference, but I certainly prefer something closer to the Lucas and Co. way of shooting scenes.

 

Aw man, I try being a film theorist and get shot down by a fellow theorist.

 

I, too, watched ST:ID recently and found that I enjoyed it a bit more than I had when viewed at the cinema. The one critique I have is the seemingly endless succession of crisis that arise one after the other in the last third. One thing I remember Lucas doing really well was slowing the action down in order for the audience to get a breather and to reconnect with the emotional and personal aspects of the story to the characters. In ST:ID I find myself on an exhaustive ride of frying pan and fire and it becomes tiresome because I haven't been given an opportunity to care about new Kirk enough to be sad when he dies in the reactor. I hope the ST holds to that methodology exhibited in the first six episodes, because it's fundamental SW filmmaking.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

It wont happen but since the movie may well be shot on real film---I would love love love to go all out David Lean style and shoot only true 70mm 2:35-1 Aspect Ratio.
Just a personal thing as David Lean is easily my fav director of all time. Hey he did use Sir Alec Guinness in Bridge on the River Kwai and Doctor Zhivago, only Star Wars
connection I could directly make off the top of my head. The man knew how to cast as well not a bad guy to imitate.
If anyone else has ever seen Lawrence of Arabia or Doctor Zhivago on a really big high quality screen in proper 70mm you would for sure understand where I am coming from.

 

So many good points but my Gods..........Alice Eve no need for any words really

 

The number one thing i'm most intrigued about is how J.J. is going to replicate or nod to the feel of the classic trilogy, when he's so well known for cutting between multiple cameras and using shaky cam as an emotional device. I don't think i'd like his signature style in Star Wars, i'm pretty certain he won't be doing that. I'd like to see more use of one point perspective combined with close ups as seen in A New Hope, forcing the plot and performances to dictate the pacing of the film, or just cut to more of a typical J.J. style during action sequences.