Jump to content

Star Wars Episode 7


Recommended Posts

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..

Have you ever read even a synopsis of the early drafts? They are godawful bad, and he was right, they would NOT have worked. Even after AMERICAN, it amazes me he could have gotten much seed money for SW. I really think that while he got the structure right (after a fashion), the film wouldn't have worked without the outside rewrite dialog punchup, which gave it some life and fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I have.. in fact indirectly I lost alot of money by convincing my old man not to shoot the first Mad Max.. as the script was really crap.. and he had been offered a percentage of the box-office as they had no money to pay a decent wage.. although I do regret that now.. and he wasn't happy with me for a number of years after .. when he couldn't retire..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

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.. !

Don't hold back Robin, preach! Let Bartlet Be Bartlet (Google it). :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went for Dinner at David Watkins house just me and him . He had turned down Star Wars because it had to many shots at sea ! He didn't like working at sea . He said to if he had met me two weeks earlier I could have down the sea stuff ! and he would have taken the job and stayed safe and dry at Elstree . I never saw that script so if anyone here did can they confirm that it was set on a water planet ? This would have been in 1974/75.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
everyone working on it thought it was a kids movie

 

In my view this was an absolutely accurate assessment. I've never been a huge Star Wars fan, personally. Technically interesting, of course, but I'm fully behind the idea that Lucas is an appalling hack and the films are, overall, mediocre at best.

 

 

 

 

and would be total flop

 

Unfortunately, this was not an accurate assessment.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

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..

Well, it's true. JJ is a one trick pony. His films all have the same over-the-top look to them. He over-stylizes his films, using jibs/cranes and steadicam's to build tension through camera moves. He colors his films with a blue tint and adds digital/fake lens flairs when they weren't created in camera. His editing and story telling style leaves no down-time, no moments for the audience to relax and think about a scene before he hits you on the head with the next one. He also makes a big stink about shooting on film and using set pieces, yet has no problem making complete sequences in the CG world AND then taking a 2D film and converting it to 3D, which is utter blasphemy considering all the millions spent on that conversion could have been spent on shooting the film in large format 5/70 or 15/70 like Nolan did with the Batman films and Interstellar.

 

Ohh and Lewis Hamilton is a one trick pony as well. But that's another story for another thread.

 

Not real ???? its set in a galaxy far far away.. not Pittsburgh damn it.. now we cant even have CGI done digitally.

Nothing wrong with digital tools for compositing. Interstellar had some of the best visual effects in film history. They made everything look real because mostly everything WAS real. Yet all of the visual effects shots in the new star wars trailer look too glossy, to over the top, to "fake". Filmmaking is about telling a story and putting stupid-ass sequences in films to make up for your lack of story telling is what's KILLING cinema. The scenes looks like a video game, so fake, so uninteresting, it's just poor filmmaking.

 

 

there is a million hours of fantastic footage shot on Alexa/RED/ F65..

Not really. All of the digital cinema footage is heavily altered before being presented. Heck, you can't even watch it without applying a LUT of some kind. Color correction with digital cameras is a lesson in futility, I know, I do it every day of my life. Even if you light perfectly, you still need to generate mattes and I'm constantly doing small composites to clean up minor things. So no... there isn't ANYTHING shot on those cameras that's "fantastic", it's a good base to work from, but so is film. Only reason why people shoot big features with digital, is because they want instant dailies and a video village. How any filmmaker in their right mind could make a $10M+ film and consider 2k digital distribution/finalizing BETTER then S35mm is just uneducated. Isn't the whole point to deliver something good?

 

Hateful Eight in 70mm looks better then ANY digital movie made and it didn't even touch a computer. It makes the last 20 years of digital technology worthless. Maybe the next 20 will be better... but not with most cinema's projecting 2k. 1950's technology STILL TO THIS DAY trumps ANYTHING we have using one's and zero's.

 

Digital technology is just another tool and the only reason it exists at all, is to make things cheaper. But in reality, all it did was make things FAR more expensive. Hateful Eight cost $44M to make, all-star cast, huge location's, 5/70 acquisition and distribution?!>! I mean give me a break, shot digitally that film would have cost the same or MORE and no way would have looked anywhere near as good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Well, it's true. JJ is a one trick pony. His films all have the same over-the-top look to them. He over-stylizes his films, using jibs/cranes and steadicam's to build tension through camera moves. He colors his films with a blue tint and adds digital/fake lens flairs when they weren't created in camera. His editing and story telling style leaves no down-time, no moments for the audience to relax and think about a scene before he hits you on the head with the next one. He also makes a big stink about shooting on film and using set pieces, yet has no problem making complete sequences in the CG world AND then taking a 2D film and converting it to 3D, which is utter blasphemy considering all the millions spent on that conversion could have been spent on shooting the film in large format 5/70 or 15/70 like Nolan did with the Batman films and Interstellar.

 

And he's one of the most successful filmmakers out there. Filmmaking is all about the man behind the curtain, with Spielberg being the current wizard.

 

Hateful Eight in 70mm looks better then ANY digital movie made and it didn't even touch a computer. It makes the last 20 years of digital technology worthless.

 

Tyler, if anyone can appreciate your love for film, it's me. But when you make over-arching statements like this - fueled by emotion rather than objectivity - it gets rather ridiculous. You're the one who made a video touting the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera as "the future of portable cinema." Now, The Hateful Eight has made it worthless?...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I take a moment to defend George Lucas? poop on his writing all you want but he's about as good as any other director at creating the illusion that the world of the film extends beyond the framelines.

 

Carry on hating JJ and 2K. I watched the first ten minutes of each of his shitty action movies with Star Trek trademarks thrown in - that was enough JJ, for one lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

A lot of people like to beat up on Lucas, but I think anyone who can create not one but two classic movie franchises has to be something of a genius. I remember reading the transcript of a recorded brainstorming session between Lucas, Spielberg and Kasdan when they were fleshing out the Indiana Jones character, and it was Lucas who had all the good ideas, the other two had nothing. He may have had a tin ear for dialogue, but calling him an appalling hack is beyond ridiculous.

 

Of course Star Wars was a kids movie, it never pretended to be anything else. I first saw it age 11 and it blew me away!

 

It's so easy to sit back and blithely criticise people who have managed to turn their ideas into reality and somehow become successful, perhaps it helps overcome ones own sense of inadequacy, I don't know, but I sometimes wish a forum that should be about helping people achieve their creative potential didn't have so much negative energy being thrown about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people like to beat up on Lucas, but I think anyone who can create not one but two classic movie franchises has to be something of a genius. I remember reading the transcript of a recorded brainstorming session between Lucas, Spielberg and Kasdan when they were fleshing out the Indiana Jones character, and it was Lucas who had all the good ideas, the other two had nothing. He may have had a tin ear for dialogue, but calling him an appalling hack is beyond ridiculous.

 

Of course Star Wars was a kids movie, it never pretended to be anything else. I first saw it age 11 and it blew me away!

 

It's so easy to sit back and blithely criticise people who have managed to turn their ideas into reality and somehow become successful, perhaps it helps overcome ones own sense of inadequacy, I don't know, but I sometimes wish a forum that should be about helping people achieve their creative potential didn't have so much negative energy being thrown about.

Sorry to sound the negative notes further, but are you sure Lucas wasn't just regurgitating more of the stuff that Phil Kaufman originally brought to the proceedings? It was originally a Kaufman project with Lucas as I recall (derived from Talbot Mundy stories, I think?) and Kaufman wound up having to take some kind of action to get a decent back end on the thing after Spielberg came into the picture. And we're talking about Kaufman when he was at the top of his game with BODY SNATCHERS, too (though now that I've read most of his STAR TREK treatment, it wasn't all roses.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went for Dinner at David Watkins house just me and him . He had turned down Star Wars because it had to many shots at sea ! He didn't like working at sea . He said to if he had met me two weeks earlier I could have down the sea stuff ! and he would have taken the job and stayed safe and dry at Elstree . I never saw that script so if anyone here did can they confirm that it was set on a water planet ? This would have been in 1974/75.

Never seen anything like that, in the early drafts, she is imprisoned in a cloud city instead of deathstar, but I don't recall anything about it hovering over the ocean. MAKING OF SW by Rinzler didn't have anything like that I can recall, and that is supposed to be the definitive account (though it DOES miss completely on ILM's brief closure late in 1976, when virtually no VFX had been finalled.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. All of the digital cinema footage is heavily altered before being presented. Heck, you can't even watch it without applying a LUT of some kind.

 

 

 

 

Now your having a laugh .. have you tried viewing film directly from a camera .. its fairly heavily altered before viewing sir.. alot more than a digital file has to be to view it.. you can view a DC footage straight from the camera if you want to actually.. if this is a criteria for one being better than the other..

Applying a LUT to footage is relatively easy.. look at all the alterations that will happen to a film neg footage. until its presented.. I not sure what rabbit your chasing here..

 

Lewis Hamilton a one trick pony !!! now there I have to draw a line in the sand :) .. 3 time world champion

 

I totally agree with you.. plot,acting .directing make a good movie.. Ive been saying that all along.. but to say a good film can only be originated on film is nuts to my way of thinking.. new technology is to be embraced .. same as you I went from 16mm to now 4K digital .. playing with LUT,s .. Log footage and all that stuff,and Im loving it.. I wouldn't go back to 16mm .. let alone what the likes of Deakins ,Storaro can get out of digital camera,s

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

A lot of people like to beat up on Lucas, but I think anyone who can create not one but two classic movie franchises has to be something of a genius. I remember reading the transcript of a recorded brainstorming session between Lucas, Spielberg and Kasdan when they were fleshing out the Indiana Jones character, and it was Lucas who had all the good ideas, the other two had nothing. He may have had a tin ear for dialogue, but calling him an appalling hack is beyond ridiculous.

 

Of course Star Wars was a kids movie, it never pretended to be anything else. I first saw it age 11 and it blew me away!

 

It's so easy to sit back and blithely criticise people who have managed to turn their ideas into reality and somehow become successful, perhaps it helps overcome ones own sense of inadequacy, I don't know, but I sometimes wish a forum that should be about helping people achieve their creative potential didn't have so much negative energy being thrown about.

 

Really.. I dont think it was ever made with the idea of it being a kids movie... Ive never thought of it as one..I guess that was part of its success... a very wide appeal .. but i think you have to admit they did become pretty crappy.. and the merchandising side was very obvious .. The Dir of Return of the Jedi was specifically told that Ewoks would be a good money maker.. and thats why they stayed when he wanted them out.. I dont think its any big secret Lucas is a businessman at heart.. and why not.. its only a job.. film directer is not some divine path.. Star wars was a good romp.. Empire was better.. then they started to go to poop in a hand cart as business side too over..

I thought American Graffiti was a great film.. maybe if there had been no star wars he would have made more great films.. but be a few hundred million poorer.. :)

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

  • Premium Member

And he's one of the most successful filmmakers out there. Filmmaking is all about the man behind the curtain, with Spielberg being the current wizard.

In 20 years, nobody will even remember JJ's movies. They're pop culture, with very little longevity to them. Reminds me a great deal of Micheal Bay, which isn't flattering. I'm torn because part of me like's his ideas, the other part of me dislikes what he does with them simply due to LACK OF STORY! Super 8 was his best movie in my opinion because it was well made and stuck to some serious ground, even though it has an alien in it.

 

Spielberg has lost much of his luster in my opinion. Even though I enjoy his current films, they don't have the staying power of his "classics".

 

Tyler, if anyone can appreciate your love for film, it's me. But when you make over-arching statements like this - fueled by emotion rather than objectivity - it gets rather ridiculous. You're the one who made a video touting the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera as "the future of portable cinema." Now, The Hateful Eight has made it worthless?...

The Hateful Eight hasn't changed my opinion at all. All it did was prove what I already knew: film projection when done right, is far, far, far superior. Since I launched my school's fundraising campaign and have been sitting down with top industry professionals, learning about the destruction of celluloid distribution, my frustration level has tripled. If you were in those meetings, you would probably get even more angry then I am. So yea, I'm emotional... and I get even more emotional when I see 50's technology BLOW AWAY billions of dollars worth of research and technology.

 

Things are changing though... you just wait and see. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Now your having a laugh .. have you tried viewing film directly from a camera .. its fairly heavily altered before viewing sir.. alot more than a digital file has to be to view it..

Yes, in fact I use to shoot exclusively in reversal. I even had prints made of the reversal so I could edit with a flatbed. On negative films, I'd do a one light print for cutting on a flatbed and viewing. We'd cut the negative and most of my stuff didn't need much tweaking, just evening between shots.

 

you can view a DC footage straight from the camera if you want to actually..

Really? Its all magically colored properly out of the camera?

 

Applying a LUT to footage is relatively easy..

LUT's are generally the first step in many. However, without a DIT on set (someone monitoring the levels), the LUT won't really help. Exposure and color balance on set, really determines what the files look like. This is why our modern films require a video village and DIT to insure what's captured will be even/balanced for the colorist. It's an extremely time consuming and expensive process that's REQUIRED when shooting digitally and NOT when shooting on film.

 

look at all the alterations that will happen to a film neg footage.

The only alteration comes when striking the IP.

 

but to say a good film can only be originated on film is nuts to my way of thinking..

You said there are thousands of digital hours that look great and I said they're unwatchable. I've seen camera originals from hundreds of movies because I spent years working in BTS and trailers. We'd get our raw RED files in and I'd have to spend hours transcoding/correcting before anyone can watch anything. Then once cut, it would take me around a week to color in DaVinci, sometimes doing 10 mattes per shot to fix all the problems with the camera original. Mind you, when coloring raw film scan's to digital, it takes around half the time as raw digital. So right away, your post budget drops.

 

I've done budgets for 16, 35 (2, 3, 4 perf), 5/70 and digital for many projects. It's actually cheaper to shoot 10:1 on 3 perf 35mm then 4k digital, even with a digital (DCP) finish. It's FAR cheaper to shoot anamorphic 4 perf and do a photochemical finish and strike a few prints. The price difference is astronomical. We're talking $100k - $200k difference from 4 perf 35mm anamorphic photochemical finish to 4k digital. When you're working on a half million dollar film, those cost savings are huge. The cost difference from 35mm 3 perf to 4k digital evens around around 20:1 shooting ratio. So if you're one of those guys like David Fincher, who shoots 20+ takes, then digital might cost less.

 

But most films today are unmemorable, pieces of "spur of the moment" entertainment. Sure in the past we've seen lots of those movies, but at least we still have them today. People forget, a lot of the big historical pieces of cinema we hold up high today, at the time didn't do well at the box office. We shot them on the best technology available at the time and look what happened, hundreds of them disappeared because nobody cared. The industry spent billions making film better and the moment we finally have a decent long-term archival format, we change gears and we're back to the dark ages with digital. Mark my words, 50 years from now, we'll be watching RGB separation prints of our modern films. The smaller one's will be long lost because the cost to store master files is huge. Most people won't be able to afford the best storage method's and accidents do happen frequently.

 

So the way I look at it, why not embrace the technology we spent 100 years and billions of dollars developing?

 

new technology is to be embraced

Only reason I have anything digital is because I'm forced to. New technology is embraced because we have no other choice.

 

same as you I went from 16mm to now 4K digital

Actually, I'm done with digital. I'm going back to film.

 

I wouldn't go back to 16mm .. let alone what the likes of Deakins ,Storaro can get out of digital camera,s

Deakin's shoots digital because he is very nervous about how the dailies will come out. It really effects his life and as a consequence, he prefers digital because it's instant results. If he worked on a movie with a mobile lab, with instant results, I think he'd probably change his mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes you can view digital footage straight out the camera .. of course .. you can shoot Alexa with a 709 LUT burn in and it looks pretty good.. or your own user LUT ..if you really want to.. but most people would shoot RAW or LOG for more options in post.. but you can shoot WYSIWYG on a digital camera and you would have far more control than shooting reversal.. which still has to be processed right ?

Is reversal magically colored exactly as you want it..

 

Really do you know about digital camera,s .. you come out with some very weird idea,s.. lots of contradictions ..

 

You DO NOT need a video village and a DIT grading your rushes as you shoot.. where do you get these ideas from man really.. before you dis all digital footage you really should know about the work flow.. its not like your BM pocket camera.. EG do you really think you can just watch RAW files,as you complain about above.. with out some process.. they are RAW files straight off the sensor.. Im sorry but your really showing you have zero idea what your on about.

 

Deakins shoots digital because hes worried about his rushes.. LOL.. there is no answer to that..

 

Look all Im saying is this evangelistic approach you have.. judging some of the most experienced DP,s and directors in the business.. when you shoot with a BM pocket camera ..and display a very very limited knowledge of digital camera,s and workflow..is really farce.. its pretty entertaining but a bit embarrassing TBH..

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

  • Premium Member

Tyler, could you please stop derailing this thread with one of your patented anti-digital rants? It's really getting old. A lot of us just want to discuss the movie.

Sorry Satsuki, Robin attacked my belief's earlier in the thread. Like a religion, I feel like commenting when someone does that. Please, if you have something to comment, be my guest. Last time I checked, it had turned into an anti-film and anti-starwars thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Your not serious about Lewis Hamilton though right?..

Well... I mean, yea. But that's for a different thread. ;)

 

Roger said himself in a recent interview on his upcoming project with the Coen Brothers (Hail Caesar), his reason for not shooting film was simply being a worry wart. He's been that way his entire life and the solution was to shoot in a format that gave him instant results, so he could sleep at night on shoots. He didn't joke, the interviewer even said "really" and Deakins smiled and nodded yes. I also feel Arri media was heavily instrumental in Deakin's decision process, since he's only shot with Arri cameras, but that's just a guess.

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...