Jump to content

Star Wars Episode 7


Recommended Posts

 

This whole Carrie Fisher hasn't aged well thing that people are saying is really strange. We have seen very little of her in the trailers so far. Of course all the original cast have aged quite a bit, it was all long ago in a galaxy far far away now. The thing is that the movie is going to be about the characters being much older anyway so the fact that the actors look older shouldn't be a problem. Carie Fisher has been through a lot of stuff in the intervening time but keep in mind that Princess Leia has also been through some very bad stuff in the story.

 

With regards to people not aging well, did you see Harrison Ford? It may not help that he is standing next to Chewie who looks about a couple of years older than before but you could say he hasn't aged well either.

 

All of the original cast are older although you might not notice as much with R2, chewie and C3PO but I think that will really work well. I think Mark Hamill is going to be great if JJ doesn't mess up the direction as he is a very much underrated actor. I'm a little worried because the voice over in the trailer isn't right and they should have done another take on that but it's less worrying than the performance that Harrison Ford gives in the trailer. Given that we have seen work that isn't the best from both of these members of the original cast then why do we have such doubts about Carrie whose work in the film we have seen virtually nothing of yet?

 

I really believe that if there are problems with the acting in this movie it isn't down to the acting talent who are great but down to the director.

JJ is lucky to be working with talent of that calibre.

 

Freya

 

The entire original cast in old. Look at Harrison Ford's performance in the last Raiders movie. Maybe it's time to hang up his blaster and whip and pass the role to a younger hero.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a tradition of the aging gun slinger in films, life is multi generational, so stories can also reflect that. The orginal Star Wars series had this aspect.

 

Yeah, but there comes a point when the actor can no longer deliver the physical performance needed for the character. Pathetic that the performance in the first Raiders movie had to be delivered by a younger actor in the last.

 

"Sonny, would you please swing my bullwhip around that tree limb? My arthritis is hurting me something fierce today.."

 

Was on-set with Charles Durning in one his last roles. Very sad. Better to be remembered for your best performances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

Yeah, but there comes a point when the actor can no longer deliver the physical performance needed for the character. Pathetic that the performance in the first Raiders movie had to be delivered by a younger actor in the last.

 

In fairness, Harrison Ford just turned 73. I'll be happy if I'm still around maintaining a good quality of life at that age.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, but there comes a point when the actor can no longer deliver the physical performance needed for the character. Pathetic that the performance in the first Raiders movie had to be delivered by a younger actor in the last.

 

 

The last Raider film was what William Goldman termed the whore movie.

 

How succesful the Han Solo character will be in the new Star Wars film depends on what he's expected to do. Presumedly the charater has changed with the years, but there's no reason why he couldn't be a hot pilot. There are some aerobatic pilots in this age range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

In fairness, Harrison Ford just turned 73. I'll be happy if I'm still around maintaining a good quality of life at that age.

Most us would be happy if we look that good when we turn 63...

 

This talk about older people "not aging well" is somewhat distasteful, particularly if the actor isn't trying to play a character who is 20 years younger than their actual age.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one thing that makes a difference (between Episode 7 and the original trilogy) which nobody has commented on, but which I feel was partially responsible for people percieving the original films as more "beat up" and "gritty" looking, and that's the filmstock. Looking at these new trailers I notice how much film technology has changed over the years. This becomes more obvious when we see familiar sets and characters on screen, with an 40 year offset in film technology development. Even though the Millenium Falcon is made dirty again, everything just looks so much "cleaner" now, than it used to with the old filmstock. Cleaner shadows and highlights, smoother tone scale etc. There is so much more subtlety in color reproduction; we are talking Vision3 family of stocks vs. the old Eastman 5247. So we should be fair when comparing these two trilogies. We can't expect them to look the same even if they exactly replicated everything, including the lighting style.

I really dislike the look of filmstocks from the last couple decades, as they seem more about delivering a digital look than a film one, with respect to what I guess I'd call image snap. Then again, I think most exteriors should look like Kodachrome unless you're doing a stylization with a PURPOSE behind it (postnuclear or SIN CITY.) I'm sure the new SW will still bear more of a resemblance to the OT than, say, the BARNEY MILLER IN SPACE look of PHANTOM MENACE, but that's still not exactly ideal. But I'm not their target audience, to be sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people enjoy the look of older filmstocks, including myself, but I think we have to be fair and say that the very characteristics we love about those materials are a product of technical limitations. We cannot blaim Kodak for correcting and improving their products over time. If you have color crossover issues, increased grain and other such problems, and you are an engineer at Kodak, it is only logical that you would attempt to correct them, even if there are a lot of people that like the look your current products are giving. The new stocks make a more objective photographic medium. The reason they look more like digital images, is because both the digital medium and film have been progressing in the direction of this objectivity in capturing light. So eventually they have to cross paths and meet somewhere.

 

All that beings said, visually I get much more satisfaction in watching older films, because the image has more "character" to it. But I also have to give kudos to people at Kodak on improving film technology the way they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Premium Member

Arclight is the only major theater with all it's 35mm projectors still in tact. However, I haven't seen any lists of 35mm projection available. IMAX 70mm isn't coming to L.A. right away, however 'Interstellar' did play at our local science museum after it was in the major theaters. So MAYBE a print will show up after the hoopla is over.

 

The film was NOT shot in 3D, so seeing it in IMAX Laser 3D (the only way to see it in IMAX Digital) is going to deliver a crappy experience, probably similar to 'Jurassic world' where buildings and characters were on top of each other in some scenes because of the 3D conversion.

 

The other frustrating part of the whole experience is the whole film went through heavy digital post processing, so even if you did see it on film, it will have heavy anti-grain filtering which makes it look like crap. This is unlike 'Interstellar' which didn't have much clean up work and had a photochemical coloring and blow up process to 70mm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The movie has ONE sequence shot on IMAX, I don't really see the point of seeing it on 70 MM IMAX if possible (although it'd be cool), plus, the movie was shot on 35 mm, how good can a 70 MM IMAX print really look ? (I'm seriously asking, it's going to be a blow up, so I'm curious)

Edited by Manu Delpech
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, if you want to have an idea of what this will look like, check out the last Star Trek movie. Although shot on film, it will be done all DI. So, a 35mm print of Star Wars won't be anything like a 35mm print of Interstellar... all photochemical.

 

But... If your local digital theaters aren't very good and/or only do 2K projection, then a 35mm or 70mm print laser produced from the 4K source will look better. If your local theaters are true 4K projection... and actually good projection... you're better off seeing it in 4K digital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, if you want to see an amazing 70mm film projection, find one of the locations that will be showing an actual Super Panavision 70 print of the Hateful Eight on Christmas Day. I have a feeling the movie itself is going to be crap, but the cinematography will likely be fantastic and an experience to behold. I'll be going to the showing at the Somerville Theater, just outside Boston, MA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

From what I read.. the whole UK crew gave Lucas a really hard time.. and the actors too.. Young Luke was called a Wanker.. by extra,s !! everyone working on it thought it was a kids movie and would be total flop.. and worst offender with Gil Taylor.. very old school E type jag driving .. grumpy type.. their working relationship totally collapsed ..

 

I believe Haskel Wexler was first asked to shoot the film after American Graffiti ... shame he turned it down.. although it really sounded like a not very happy shoot..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haskel Wexler wrote on the script he had been sent.. this will never work .. and sent it back to Lucas !! wonder if he framed that..

 

I dont know why there is all this hand wringing over a film.. none of them were any good except #2... Lucas is a businessman and why not..he very cleverly got the marketing rights for merchandise .. I also read that the return of the jedi dir..Richard Marguand really fought to not have Ewoks ..(the begining of the end) but was told it was a good marketing character.. so it stayed..

 

Hopefully this one will be a good escapist film.. people will pay their money.. go off from their own lives for a couple of hours and have great fun.. fantastic.. whats to argue about.. all this bollocks about it isnt real if its not shot through a coke bottle with a hand cranked camera, by a guy in plus fours .. and the crew should all go home in a horse drawn wagon..

We have a guy saying JJ Abrams is a one trick pony.. which is comparable to someone without a drivers license saying Lewis Hamilton can only drive fast on the straight bits.. its pure Python .. .. what did the Romans do for us .. please google..

Not real ???? its set in a galaxy far far away.. not Pittsburgh damn it.. now we cant even have CGI done digitally.. well unless its Roger Deakins .. he could do it by teleportation and it would be ok.. lets get a grip here.. there is a million hours of fantastic footage shot on Alexa/RED/ F65.. all this pixel peeping.. it doesnt matter.. that isnt what makes a film good or bad.. script.. acting.. direction.. if they are drawing pictures on a piece of slate with a rock.. it will be real.. and great.. and Quentin can do it on a huge piece of slate.. !

Edited by Robin R Probyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's that about Lucas backstopping Gil Taylor? I always thought that guy knew next to nothing about film-making but that takes the biscuit.

Regardless of how on his game GL may or may not have been, Taylor also ran afoul of producer Gary Kurtz repeatedly, and you'd better believe Kurtz knew filmmaking nuts&bolts from inside to out after going through the Corman factory. Taylor was protecting the studio's interests (and that may have been the case on CONAN also, where he was replaced early in shooting.)

 

Having said that, I gotta say the GL concept of putting heavy diffusion all through the film (instead of the selective use they employed, mainly on the desert planet stuff) sounds ten kinds of crazy to me, ESPECIALLY given the heavy VFX load. Maybe they could have made it work when they planned to do the cockpits with front projection, but since that didn't fly, they did everything bluescreen, and bluescreen with diffusion in optical era ... nuh-uh. That approach DOES tie in with the notion of David Watkin being approached, though ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...