ST The Force Awakens Teaser Trailer - Thoughts and Observations

Yeah, but there's a Targaryen in the new Terminator. Which means DRAGONS.

 

I'll take Linda Hamilton & Michael Biehn. She can go back to Westeros & Jai can just... go.

 

When the Falcon faces the TIE-fighters, are there lakes in the distance, or is it just lens flare?

 

If it's a lens flare at least it makes sense with the sun pointing directly at the screen as the ship goes past it.

 

the Scene in the trailer with the Storm Troopers in the Troop Transport, A lot of people think it is Shaky Camera work which they cite as an Abrams Staple, but I Think it is just the way they Edited the Trailer, the way it was cut together. I think the final Product/film will look Different ?

I think to cut from scene to scene in the trailer they cut to black screen throughout the trailer but I don't think that is how the final movie will look?

 

Cutting to a black screen between every shot for the whole movie? No, they probably won't do that.

 

well yea there have always been clever star wipes and fade to blacks in-between scenes in every star wars movie, but it seemed excessive and intentional like they edited the trailer that way on purpose and the fade to black scenes in the trailer are not indicative to how it will look in the final movie?

 

Right... it was surely a stylistic choice for the teaser, and not something they would repeat in the movie. Swipes between scenes, probably, but nothing this jarring between every shot.

 

Abrams loves Spielberg, and Spielberg used shaky cam for the troop landing sequence in Saving Private Ryan. Could be a stylistic homage.

 

George Lucas used shaky cams and zoom in shots in attack of the clones.

It's honestly nothing new. It works in this scene particularly well.

 

Right, it's shaky because actually being on that ship would be... shaky.

 

Even though we've only got a quick glimpse of it I love the Stormtrooper scene. Shaky cam makes sense.

 

Camera shake is fine if it's actually involving a scene with movement... but the problem with some contemporary directors is that they include it even in a sedate scene of 2 people talking sat at a table. This is notable in Abrams Star Trek films. He's by no means the worst offender, but moving the camera in this way is a very cheap and faux method that more considered films directors would avoid.

 

The dreaded shaky-cam is as legitimate a technique as any, depending on the situation that is being depicted. Many contemporary movies tend to take this to the extreme when action scenes are concerned, where you get to the point of having one desaturated blur punching another desaturated blur. That's silly and pointless.

However, if it's an action scene like the ones from, for example, Saving Private Ryan - then yes. It not only works to have a bit of camera shake but it adds to the overall feel of being right there in the middle of the action, while at the same time still being able to see what actually goes on.

It's not about the tool, it's about how they choose to use it.

 

When does it happen in "non action" scenes in those Star Trek movies? I don't even recall in the action scenes.

Quantum of Solace sticks out as a bad use of "shaky-cam". It was overdone in a way that really took away from the fight sequences - the camera shook way too much.

 

Bourne Trilogy - best usage of 'shaky' cam
Star Trek - solid, moderate usage of 'shaky' cam
Quantum of Solace - worst example of 'shaky' cam in recent memory

 

Kinda a non issue if you are complaining about shaky cam in scenes where there would be no shaking when in the teaser the only scene with it is a shaky transport.

 

Off the top of my head... even in the talking heads shots e.g. Kirk and Pike talking in a quiet bar (ST09). The use of camera shake like this (and Abrams is by no means the worst offender) shows how the filmmaker has lost sight of the wider context of camera movement, and what he/she is trying convey to the audience... because even if Abrams is trying to draw attention to the physical act of something being filmed (for a sense of faux’ realism’), the amount of movement works against the authenticity, as a documentary camera operator would be much more steady (unless he/she had some sort of physical disorder). In truth, this style of shooting is a very unimaginative (and now ubiquitous) shorthand for ‘real/gritty’ and ‘authentic’, when this cannot be done by other more complex means.

 

I personally have no problem with shaky camera movements In Movies and I dont think Abrams does it all that much. and yes there is only one shaky cam shot in the trailer so nothing to write home about so to speak

 

I'd have to take a look at the movies again, but just trying to recall the scene in the bar I'm picturing camera movement, but not shaky-cam.

To be fair, the clip in the teaser barely qualifies as shaky-cam, and it may not actually accurately represent the whole scene. It seems to be showing a rough landing, and could be the only point in the film were it occurs.

I remember the zooms, but not the shaky-cam.

 

There's nothing wrong with camera movement and 'shaky, shaky' per se IMO. I just think it should reflect what's going on in the scene (either physically of narratively)... and to be fair to Abrams, I think he pulls back from that amount of camera shake in ST:ID.

 

Which is why I'm saying JJ used it
In a part that makes sense in the trailer. Let's not pre-judge his Star Wars movie when it was applied for the right moment

 

You realize you just asked the impossible right?

 

A man can dream lol

 

Don't ever tell me the odds.....