Rogue One

[Max Field]

The post 3D conversion never feels like it works all the way? Like on action scenes it gets blurry and I start seeing the illusion lines. Anyone else notice this? Is this a result of the method or just poor 3D conversion?

[George Ebersole]

Tyler Purcell; have you thought of producing your own scifi pic? You seem really dissapointed with this film.

[Tyler Purcell]

Tyler Purcell; have you thought of producing your own scifi pic? You seem really dissapointed with this film.

 

Ya know, I dislike 90% of the crap in theaters today, I was just hoping Rogue One would have been "acceptable" rather then space trash. The Force Awakens was tolerable, but that's because we already knew the characters. I for one am not a big JJ Abrams fan.

 

I do have a bunch of fantastic SciFi stories, but unfortunately they all cost money. So I have shelved all of them for a day in the future. In the meanwhile, I will stick to making smaller films and becoming recognized so one day I CAN make those bigger movies.

[KH Martin]

I'm very far from being an Abrams fan, TFA is the only thing I've ever seen of his that i got all the way through AND rewatched and enjoyed.

 

The thing about developing SF stories is that you can't just go off in the basement and do it yourself, at least not the way you could 25 years back, which is about when I started sliding into writing rather than trying to do zero-budget stuff. One thing that takes the enthusiasm out of my sails is when somebody actually manages to do something like what I've had in my own mind ... and while it is good or great, nobody sees it. FIREFLY is very very close -- in style and execution, though my version had MUCH better science -- to an idea I worked up in the early 90s, for which I have a whole file cabinet drawer of treatments and scripts and notes on how to shoot the thing. The fact FIREFLY and then SERENITY both failed to catch on, despite the Whedon cache, made me think that my thinking is far too 'niche' to be successful.

 

Then again, a lot depends on the folks you are pitching to. When I pitched at STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION, i tried not to go too 'hard science fiction' because they had a tendency to just use that aspect as a hook rather than an in-depth approach, and I assume that is because they weren't dedicated SF readers. Out of about a dozen pitches, the one story I pitched that WAS 'hard science fiction' got shot down with, 'we don't do fantasy' -- which proved to me that the woman taking the pitch had no business being in that chair. I mean, she can say, 'picard wouldn't do that' and that's her opinion, and in a position of authority that op carries weight. But dismissing this one pitch as fantasy would be akin to dissing BATTLE OF ALGIERS because it was too glossy and melodramatic and didn't have enough musical numbers. (25 years ago this month and I'm still ticked about that.)

[George Ebersole]

 

Ya know, I dislike 90% of the crap in theaters today, I was just hoping Rogue One would have been "acceptable" rather then space trash. The Force Awakens was tolerable, but that's because we already knew the characters. I for one am not a big JJ Abrams fan.

 

I do have a bunch of fantastic SciFi stories, but unfortunately they all cost money. So I have shelved all of them for a day in the future. In the meanwhile, I will stick to making smaller films and becoming recognized so one day I CAN make those bigger movies.

 

 

Well, I think you'll find that through history trends come and go, and then occasionally someone tries to revitalize them. You had a whole laundry list of things you didn't like, which is why I thought maybe you might consider producing a short with things that you actually do like.

 

My opinion is that this film was made to update and rope in the young male gaming crowd who are increasingly gravitating away from scifi films and just films in general, because they want to be part of the fantasy and not just watch it.

 

However, I think if you're story is good enough, then all the props, sets, costumes and extras you want to spend money on, probably aren't needed, and you could produce your basic story and show us, Disney, and even George Lucas how it's done.

 

My other personal opinion is that the golden age of scifi cinema in the 80s (starting with SW in 1977) is petering out. But that doesn't mean you can't still make good scifi stuff. I wasn't overjoyed with Rogue One, but nor did I hate it. I understand the techniques and how and why it was shot the way it was, but I feel no need to respond to it.

 

You, however, seem to have a lot of angst pent up in and against this film. So maybe you can show us your production.

[Tyler Purcell]

Well, I think you'll find that through history trends come and go, and then occasionally someone tries to revitalize them. You had a whole laundry list of things you didn't like, which is why I thought maybe you might consider producing a short with things that you actually do like.

Related to Star Wars? Honestly, I've never much cared for the franchise outside of the 4 and 5. I'm much more scientific and "logic" driven, rather then pure "fiction" for the sake of fiction. Star Trek is my cup of tea, but honestly even Star Trek got too big for it's own britches.

 

Earlier in this thread, I posted a comment with how I'd start the movie and what changes needed to be made. It took me 20 minutes to think and write it. I assume the original filmmakers shot it all and Mickey Mouse cut it out because it wasn't "entertaining" enough.

 

My opinion is that this film was made to update and rope in the young male gaming crowd who are increasingly gravitating away from scifi films and just films in general, because they want to be part of the fantasy and not just watch it.

The only reason Disney bought the franchise from Lucas was to make billions and that's the only reason they paid for 'Rogue One' to be made. The point wasn't to attract young people to the series, that's what JJ Abrams did with 'The Force Awakens'. The point of 'Rogue One' was to make money pure and simple.

 

This is the problem with modern movies, they don't need to be good, they just need to fly poop at your face so you'll tell your friend it was "cool" and they'll go see it.

 

However, I think if you're story is good enough, then all the props, sets, costumes and extras you want to spend money on, probably aren't needed, and you could produce your basic story and show us, Disney, and even George Lucas how it's done.

Honestly, with the SciFi genre, I personally believe selling the environment is more critical then story. The filmmakers can muck up the story a bit, if the audience believes what they're seeing. If you don't believe it, then it doesn't matter how good the story is. 'Rogue One' is hardly what I'd consider typical SciFi anyway, it's an action film set in space, there is no "science" in it.

 

I have a phenomenal SciFi series that I'd love to produce. In fact, "production" wouldn't be that costly at all, since it takes place in the desert. However, the prop's, sets, costumes and actors are all super critical to selling the environment and those are the expense. I've developed the pilot episode and have some ideas for the next few episodes, but it's something that COULD be made in pieces to eventually turn into a feature length piece. The problem is, even if I pull every single string I have, it would cost around $5k to make and when you're working freelance, it's hard to throw-away $5k. I'd much rather invest in better equipment that will allow me to nab better jobs, which earn more money, then simply spending $5k on a single 7 minute pilot episode for a new SciFi series. I am unfortunately a slave to money and it's why you don't see a lot of my work posted here. Busy as I am, I rarely get to make the stuff I want and when I do, there is never any money involved, so it's never really that great. Give me a few grand? Well... I can make quite a bit of magic, even if there is no personal financial gain. Unfortunately, I don't know enough people willing to risk the money in order to crowd fund the $5k I need to get started on the short. Maybe in a few years $5k will be a drop in the bucket, but for this second, it's two months worth of living expenses covered. It's also a lot easier to get a feature off the ground then a series of shorts, which is why I'm still focused on making a feature. And no... it's not SciFi, it's a crime drama to be shot on Super 16. :)

 

My other personal opinion is that the golden age of scifi cinema in the 80s (starting with SW in 1977) is petering out.

The truly great SciFi films of the late 70's and 80's, they will never be seen again. It's a simple economic condition because audiences these days wouldn't be wow'ed by a movie like 'Blade Runner' or 'Alien' as they were when they initially released. Today's largest audience group (male teenagers) need to have their minds blown in order to make something successful enough to recoup it's budget. It's a catch 22... you either focus a product for adults and make it super low budget, OR you focus it towards teens and you have to spend more in order to make more in the back end. The more you spend, the more the studio has control over the finished product. So real great SciFi, needs to be made on the cheap in order to stay a live and that's hard when small-time production budgets are so low. Most feature-length productions are made for less then a million dollars today and that's down from the mid 2000's height of 5 million. It's HARD to make a movie like 'Alien' or 'Blade Runner' for less then a million dollars. Again, you could have the best story in the world, but if people are convinced in the environment, they simply won't care and the product will be a flop.

 

So maybe you can show us your production.

Ohh trust me, when I go onto production on "Girl and the Robot" my SciFi short, there will be many posts about it. :)

[George Ebersole]

No offense, but I disagree with you on the production side of things.

 

I think if you look at footage of today's hot FPS games like "Call of Duty", "Battlefield", "Counterstrike" and so forth, you'll find a lot of shot similarities between them and "Rogue One". It's therefore my belief that there was a fear that Star Wars was or might be losing its standing in media with popular youth culture. Because otherwise I really can't see anyone being inspired to artistically make this film for the sake of itself as a profit driven film unto itself.

 

All that being said, and in response to your many reasons of why you won't be able to shoot a short, I do have some money, gear and time to shoot a scifi short either in my condo or on a stage. But, for me personally, seeing the really horrible previews of films for teenage boys that accompanied "Rogue One" ... it's really soured me on the genre, and therefore I just don't see anyone today, young or old, buying into a fun or semi-serious scifi film.

 

If we look at original 1977 Star Wars, you could shoot that film on a shoe-string by doing away with a lot of effects' shots. Don't do the opening space battle. Don't do the fire fight at the beginning. Start with C3PO and R2 wandering the desert, then have the Jawas pick them up in a tractor trailer rig dressed up as some offworld exotic vehicle in place of the sandcrawler-- just keep the entire movie on the desert planet. No death star, no space dogfights, and so forth. Luke would have to bust Leia out of a prison on the world, and instead of the death star maybe the desert locals have to take down a super tank terrorizing the desert or something.

 

It's the same story, you're just keeping it on one world.

 

After "Star Wars" came out I was really elated because I thought maybe there would be more of the same coming to both movies and TV. Well, kinda-sorta, although it took forever. And perhaps like you I had a desire to take those filming techniques and translate them to something that had more punch to it. Things might have headed that way in the early 90s, but trying to come back to the industry after ten plus years of being gone ... I'm just burnt out.

 

You, on the other hand, seem to have some real passion for the subject. Which is why I suggested it.

 

Me, I grew up a Star Wars aficionado, and a die hard Trekker / Trekkie. I kind of understand both those properties a bit better now, and the production and story telling techniques that I learned from them I wanted to apply to some of the scifi books and games I grew up with. I'm not really passionate about that though, so it's not going to happen.

 

But someone who does ought to try and find a way to make it work. I guess that's all I'm saying.

 

I started a thread in the off topic area expressing some concern for the genre because of films like "Tomorrowland" and "Guardians of the Galaxy" and so forth. And just thinking about it now I'm fairly convinced that studios are convinced that the genre is or needs to be strictly tailored for teenage boys. Which is why you'll never see another "Alien" or "2001 Space Odyssey".

 

I think Lucas said many years ago that "Star Wars" was essentially a childrens' film; an update of the Flash Gordon seriel format, but with a soap opera story skeleton. I personally think that that's why it appealed to so many people.

 

These days ... I saw "Rogue One" and shrugged my shoulders at it. "It is what it is", to coin a phrase. Who knows? Maybe we'll see more spinoffs. Either way you're not going to see what you want unless you shoot it.

[Tyler Purcell]

If we look at original 1977 Star Wars, you could shoot that film on a shoe-string by doing away with a lot of effects' shots. Don't do the opening space battle. Don't do the fire fight at the beginning. Start with C3PO and R2 wandering the desert, then have the Jawas pick them up in a tractor trailer rig dressed up as some offworld exotic vehicle in place of the sandcrawler-- just keep the entire movie on the desert planet. No death star, no space dogfights, and so forth. Luke would have to bust Leia out of a prison on the world, and instead of the death star maybe the desert locals have to take down a super tank terrorizing the desert or something.

Well, there is a reason they didn't do that. There is a reason most SciFi films from the very beginning, are more complicated then a few people walking around on a planet. Heck even 'Forbidden Planet' one of my favorite movies, still has space scenes and spaceships. I do think general audiences need to see more, especially today. If you made something that simple, I think it would be a complete failure. Maybe that's ok, but generally if you fail, you don't get to try again. People are scared to fail due to this reason.

 

Movies like 'Interstellar' and 'Arrival' have done a great job at defying the heavy effects driven, action SciFi movie of today. So it's possible to make decent SciFi and get people to show up, as both of those movies did ok in the box office. It really just comes down to the elements I discussed in my previous post, the money vs the risk. These kind of movies appeal to a more adult audience in the US, but they appeal to a wider audience in other countries. So it's all about understanding your audience and insuring there is some reason for your creation to exist. Remember, it's like any "product", if nobody wants it, then what's the point of making it? If you can't get the money and a few A- stars, then you can't get distribution and nobody will see your movie. "Star Wars" had Sir Alec Guinness in it, doesn't get better then that!

 

There are plenty of very cool SciFi series on television, 'Stranger Things' and 'Westworld' could both fit into that genre and were pretty decent. Neither one resorted to the kind of things you see in theatrical SciFi. Yet, both of them were very expensive to make, because the worlds were complex and impossible to make in your back yard. Again, people have graduated from the era where a backdrop and a few home-made prop's are "good enough". Heck, even an entirely green screen show, would be too unrealistic to modern audiences. So in a lot of ways, it would be cool to tell simpler SciFi stories, but unfortunately it's a genre that requires money. This is why genre's like Drama and Comedy are so much easier to make, talking heads in real situations... now that's something anyone can accomplish. Again, if you sell the environment, if you sell the actors, if you sell the characters, you can sell a weak story. This information is based on experience and dealings with sales agents over the years. Right now LGBT family drama's are what people want to buy and that's the genre I'm focused on.

[George Ebersole]

Well, we part company here, because if that were the case, then you'd not have ever seen "The Road Warrior" ("Mad Max 2") and whole host of other stuff.

 

If you look at the old 1960s Star Trek TV series, their space shots were iffy and so-so. That series came out after Kubrick's 2001 a Space Odyssey, and yet the Enterprise doesn't look anywhere convincing verse the shots of Discovery in Kubrick's film.

 

I think Lucas just wanted to set his story in "space" because that's what he liked. But he need not have, and the cinematography for the live shots, to me, holds up. It's exact, well staged, captures the environment and lets the actors act, as opposed to relying on rapid cuts, lots of action, juvenile dialogue and whirling CGI shots.

 

I'll be honest. Like you I don't like shakey cam. I hate CGI. I think there was far more characterization and intimacy that struck a good careful balance in the 1977 Star Wars film. It was classic film making. You'll never see that again not for want of it, but for a lack of people skilled enough to execute the same.

 

I'm almost tempted to stake your $5000 to see what you can do, but like I say, after seeing those abysmal previews before Rogue One ... I don't know. I'm really put out by that junk.

 

Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2? Where the big strong alien makes fun of the heroes sexual desires? A Transformer's movie that goes back to the middle ages? huh? In that regard I'm surprised Rogue One got made.

[Igor Trajkovski]

The problem is, even if I pull every single string I have, it would cost around $5k to make and when you're working freelance, it's hard to throw-away $5k. I'd much rather invest in better equipment that will allow me to nab better jobs, which earn more money, then simply spending $5k on a single 7 minute pilot episode for a new SciFi series.

 

 

It seems to me small investment if it will be picked up in full blown production. Imagine the return... :)

 

Why not some sort of a kickstart project?

 

...

 

I am disappointed at the quantity of non memorable films coming out.

I keep asking my self - is it "objective" observation or is it just me? :)

 

There was a period in my life when i watched all the new and popular releases.

These days my time is more valuable, i want meaningful spending of the 2 hours.

 

 

Back to SW and SciFi.

 

I remember Lucas speaking in one video that after SW and it's groundbreaking FX,

other productions - film and TV came out with same level of sophistication, but none

of them with the SW success and appeal. He said it was not the FX, it was the STORY.

 

The Joseph Campbell-ian Monomyth formula probably did the appeal.

And all wrapped in SciFi, or lets just say Space setting.

 

 

Which brings the question of what is important for the audience.

While the youngsters might enjoy the thrill of neck-breaking FX action sequences,

the adult want more food for thought, or the soul, exploring the human condition.

 

The target audience of 'modern' action/sci-fi/FX films is making them money,

but why not dedicate some modest, not-care-about budget for thoughtful film(s), which

might explore timeless topics, the human condition in present or future.

Their chance to leave in legacy some memorable films.

 

...

 

Can't understand - there is almost endless supply of SciFi material that can be filmed.

Asimov anyone?

 

And still nobody to fulfill the cravings of the hungry SciFi aficionados...

 

 

[Tyler Purcell]

Well, we part company here, because if that were the case, then you'd not have ever seen "The Road Warrior" ("Mad Max 2") and whole host of other stuff.

Yea, I've see'em, but don't really consider those films "SciFi" even if the industry does. Just because something is set in a dystopian future, doesn't make it "SciFi". If that were the case, films like 'The Road' and 'Children of Men' would also be "SciFi" and they are most certainly not. This is part of the problem, the definition of SciFi is kinda sporadic.

 

If you look at the old 1960s Star Trek TV series, their space shots were iffy and so-so.

Yep, but for that time period, there was nothing like it on television. It was unique, but it was also purposely made to be cheesy. Remember, it also failed miserably and was only successful AFTER it's death in syndication. It was only re-born thanks to "Star Wars" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", with successful feature films, made by good filmmakers with LOTS of money behind them. Ever since that first Star Trek movie, the franchise has been pretty strong and lots of money spent on the worlds, sets, props and the technical side of things that make it so interesting. Star Trek is TRUE SciFi because it's "science" and "fiction" mixed into one. There is NO SCIENCE in "Road Warrior".

 

I think Lucas just wanted to set his story in "space" because that's what he liked. But he need not have, and the cinematography for the live shots, to me, holds up. It's exact, well staged, captures the environment and lets the actors act, as opposed to relying on rapid cuts, lots of action, juvenile dialogue and whirling CGI shots.

It could have been a western, that's what it really is in the first place. It wouldn't have been successful though because frankly, Western's during that time period, were old hat. Moving his story into space, rejuvenated everything and it worked.

 

I'll be honest. Like you I don't like shakey cam. I hate CGI. I think there was far more characterization and intimacy that struck a good careful balance in the 1977 Star Wars film. It was classic film making. You'll never see that again not for want of it, but for a lack of people skilled enough to execute the same.

Eh, I felt 'Interstellar' did an acceptable job. It didn't resort to CG in order to tell a story, it did it through physical prop's and lots of clever slight of hand tricks like rear projection and being able to move sets around to create weightlessness. Now I absolutely loved 'Interstellar' and I understand a lot of people didn't. I think a lot of people couldn't relate to the characters, especially through the rushed character development early on. It's a great example of how you can muck up a story, but the net result can still be awesome. In my mind, outside of a few silly things like the big wave, it's one of the best and truest to the genre "SciFi" films ever made.

 

I'm almost tempted to stake your $5000 to see what you can do, but like I say, after seeing those abysmal previews before Rogue One ... I don't know. I'm really put out by that junk.

Well, $5k would produce a 7 minute (inciting incident) to a longer story. It's a way to get viewers hooked, so they'll watch the next episode or maybe find funding for a feature. I haven't even written anything more then 2, 7 minute episodes. Truth be told, I do have a "SciFi" trilogy that I'd love to produce someday, but because it's not something I can do right now, the concept sits in my "concepts" folder on my computer for a time where maybe I'll have a moment to sit down and develop it further. I, like many others who grew up in the 80's, absolutely love the "classic" SciFi Films and would love to bring them back. I do think there is an audience for them, but I think they have to be made very inexpensively and without heavy visual effects.

 

Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2? Where the big strong alien makes fun of the heroes sexual desires? A Transformer's movie that goes back to the middle ages? huh? In that regard I'm surprised Rogue One got made.

Yep, it's all crap and because they brainwash teenagers (through heavy marketing) into going, they will always make their money back.

[Tyler Purcell]

It seems to me small investment if it will be picked up in full blown production. Imagine the return... :)

 

Why not some sort of a kickstart project?

Unfortunately it's impossible to crowd fund a project like this without some sort of a pre-existing fan base.

 

My goal is to self fund the first TWO episodes, release the pilot to the public and build a fan base. Crowd fund for a 2nd episode (even though it's already been shot) and use that money to make episodes 3 and 4. Then crowd fund for episode 3 and use that money to make 5 and 6, etc... This way you're only fundraising a few episodes, but you've already got a bunch in the bag. Once the prop's, costumes and actors are on-board, physically shooting each episode will be easy and not very expensive.

 

Since the series will be shot in two episode segments, each two segments will be made by different filmmakers. This way, I can use my friends contacts to help fundraise the production and let them re-tweak the scripts for those episodes they direct and of course, bring in their own DP if they want. I simply want to get the franchise off the ground.

 

Of course, the show will be #shotonfilm. We'd probably shoot the first two episodes on 35mm. I just need to work out a battery solution for my friends 3 perf Arricam LT package. I'd allow the "guest" filmmakers to choose their format of choice (16mm/35mm) and since MOST of my filmmaking friends have never shot on film before, they'll be all excited about the opportunity. That will give me the opportunity to train some new cinematographers on the skills necessary to work with film cameras. I think it would be awesome for each filmmaker to choose a different aspect ratio, different lenses, different format, even stock choices as I'd probably buy some more Fuji stock to shoot a few episodes with, in order to change the look entirely.

 

Since inquiring minds are interested... Imagine this "image" if you will.

 

A 12 year old girl with long blonde hair, dressed up in a space suit without a helmet, dragging along a little teddy bear in the desert. She reaches the crest of a sand dune and below her is a spaceship escape pod and someone dressed in a space suit buried in the sand.

 

That's the poster for the show and it's "episode 2" :)

 

The series is called "Girl and the Robot" and it's hopefully coming to a small-screen near you!

[George Ebersole]

I think this is going to be my last post on the topic, but as a die hard Star Trek fan, I think I can safely say that the fandom of Trek was very much alive before Star Wars came out. We just had so little other material to enjoy. A few sci-fi 50s and 60s classics, but a lot of it was junk, though not for the same reason that todays very technically competent scifi is junk.

 

Trek just had the misfortune of not hiring Kubrick's team to do their space shots. Trek wasn't intentionally designed to look "cheesy" (an over used term). In fact the production team went out of their way to make the show convincing. So what it lacked in space shots, it made up for with other effects. And the effects' shots were passable, though not sterling.

 

My story is that film was a second career option for me. My first love is science and engineering, and particularly stuff related to space technology and all sorts of planetary science and astronomy. There were a few issues that required I resort to the arts, ergo film. And one of the few first thoughts I had after I saw Star Wars was why no one took those production values (not just the SFX, but also the shot design, lighting, sets and so forth) and inject them into a slightly more serious scifi film.

 

I loved Star Wars as a movie and just pure fun. But it was standard movie fare, and not something a bit grittier. I now see the opportunity to make something with a bit more teeth, but, like you, I don't think it'll have staying power. When I was a boy your typical Star Trek fan was college age or much older. Kids who liked scifi like me, were rare.

 

Today the model is turned on its head, and now all scifi films, even interstellar, are made for younger audiences, or audiences who, very bluntly, aren't as smart as audiences in previous generations. But I think that's more an audience shift than an actual demographic truth. In other words the old scifi guard of older people who liked science and fantasy have been pushed away by the younger teenage generation, specifically males, who know little else.

 

In short, I think you can make a good sophisticated scifi film that will be grasped by all, and do it on the cheap. I think a couple posts back you said that an all green screen production wouldn't work, and yet before Lucas and his team shot a single frame of the prequels, there was a little show called "The Starlost" which was essentially a chroma key production. "Darkman" in the early 90s was also the same. A little indy film called "Darkstar" was able to make a cult classic.

 

But you have to have the drive. Regrettably I'm on the outs of a scifi franchise that I wanted to bring to the big screen because of some real world harassment I suffered over the last ten-plus years, some of which I touched on in the scam-phone call thread. If this was 2005 or 2006, I probably would have called your bluff and cranked something out in a weeks time. But I'm just really soured on just about everything to actually go shoot something.

 

On a final note, Rogue One, I think, was a Disney necessity. I thought it was unique and inventive. I didn't fall in love with it, but thought it was okay. Unlike Lucas's first Star Wars film, this one truly was aimed at teenage boys and girls, verse the 1977 film which had cross generational appeal. But I've told that story.

 

Broken record; way back in either 1990 or 1991 I worked a Sun Micro industrial where Kevin Pollack did his Captain Kirk / Shatner imitation in a Trek parody. The soundman there gave me the number of some supervisor up at ILM, and told me to give him a call to see if had an opening. As a young 20-something I was scared-s___less because it was a dream come true at that time. My goal was to work for the SW grandmaster, see how he went about getting spectacular production values and great shots, and apply those techniques to a series of shorts distributed via computer. As usual, I chickened out. But now some 25+ years later, I'm just burnt out on all the rotten crap on the screen. Big screen and YouTube alike. So, my motivation is a bit lacking.

 

But, like I say, if you know where you can improve stuff, go for it. Show us what you got, kid :D

[Tyler Purcell]

But, like I say, if you know where you can improve stuff, go for it. Show us what you got, kid :D

That's the best thing about being a "filmmaker" and not just a "creative". I have the drive to make stuff become a reality from scratch. The problem is, anything I make today, needs to look very professional and "cinematic". The days of writing quick, grabbing friends as "cast" members and shooting with my digital cameras, are over. I'm tired of churning out "product" for the sake of making it, I'm just not interested in that form of filmmaking anymore. I just did a narrative short for a friend, first time I've shot narrative in years and my craft as a cinematographer I felt was very good for the time and financial constraints we had. It really showed me, I need to be focused on more serious, more professional productions like that one.

[Guest]

But, like I say, if you know where you can improve stuff, go for it. Show us what you got, kid :D

 

 

Well Disney could of hired a first year film student to direct Rogue 1 and the crowds would of still showed up in the millions. All the title needs is, "Star Wars" and boom….the audience will be there.

 

I watched Disney's the Jungle Book on Netflix, nice cute movie shot against green screen with all CGI animals. Maybe they should try shooting in the real African wild, with real African animals like I did, then they can call themselves real filmmakers.

 

R,

[KH Martin]

I think trek fandom peaked just before SW came out, it was a huge insanity, with 30,000 attending a Chicago con in 76 or 77. And it certainly wasn't due to the vfx, but I think they were mostly adequate given the budget and the time pressures, which are not factors to count in with Kubrick on 2001. The fact you've got chattering matte lines eating a nacelle some of the time isn't a huge thing when, at least a third of the time, the stories work very well, and keep working well on the umpty-umph rewatching.

 

BTW, I'd absolutely consider CHILDREN OF MEN as SF, because it is sociological speculation deriving from a what-if scenario. I hate the book but the movie is my favorite thus far this century.

[Anthony Schilling]

My expectations about the story line wren't all that high going in. I was a fan/kid at the 77 original, save the princess, blow up the castle plot. The characters had chemistry and we were emotionally invested in them. The new movie trying to feed us emotional scenes, and political structures. The action were where it was at for me, and I thought they did a good job with the throwbacks and tie in's to the original. They even pulled original 1977 unseen footage from the vault for the battle scenes. I saw it digitally projected and thought some scenes looked too videoish in spots.

Edited December 25, 2016 by Anthony Schilling

[Landon D. Parks]

Sounds like a good idea for a series, Tyler. Hopefully we'll see something from it in the near future. Have you considered Amazon Studios? If they like the idea, they will fund it for you as an original series.

[Tyler Purcell]

Sounds like a good idea for a series, Tyler. Hopefully we'll see something from it in the near future. Have you considered Amazon Studios? If they like the idea, they will fund it for you as an original series.

Thanks! Yea there is a lot more to it that I can't discuss, but needless to say it's going to happen. I actually had a meeting with my producer friend today... yes on christmas and she knows how we can make it for peanuts. So now I gotta bang out a script.

 

I kinda wanna shoot the first 12, 7 minute episodes in the structure I describe above. I'm a nobody right now, but with all that work completed and available to the public, I will get some notoriety. It's with that notoriety, that I'll be able to take the remainder of the project and turn it into something much bigger. Heck, I'd totally be an EP on a complete re-do of the series. I'm just realistic and know, there is no way I could walk in and sell a concept for money, it's impossible. The only thing that's possible is showing up with a finished product and saying; "here is what I got, here is my deal, take it or leave it." If I do the right thing, I will have plenty of fans clamoring for more to watch. It's those fan's, that "buzz" so to speak, that MAY land me an EP role. I doubt I'd be able to produce, write or even direct, I'm just not big enough. I'd take the peanuts they throw me, put my name as the creator and EP and work on something else.

[Guest]

Just saw this, Rogue One, if we're still talking about that?

 

Well Disney, good job making a movie designed to sell…toys, & video games. It's not much more than that.

 

R,

[Max Field]

Just saw this, Rogue One, if we're still talking about that?

 

Well Disney, good job making a movie designed to sell…toys, & video games. It's not much more than that.

 

R,

I took you for an avid video game player, was I wrong?

[Heikki Repo]

Compared to Force Awakens I enjoyed this film much more. The setting was at least coherent (New Order, Rebels, planet size death star built without anyone knowing about it?) and the bad guys were, well, bad and not just ... angsty. And we didn't see people just taking up light sabers for the first time and fight like professionals.

 

Definitely not a masterpiece film but for me it's the first SW film after the first trilogy to have most of the pieces together right.

[Guest]

Compared to Force Awakens I enjoyed this film much more. The setting was at least coherent (New Order, Rebels, planet size death star built without anyone knowing about it?) and the bad guys were, well, bad and not just ... angsty. And we didn't see people just taking up light sabers for the first time and fight like professionals.

 

Definitely not a masterpiece film but for me it's the first SW film after the first trilogy to have most of the pieces together right.

 

 

I should of added that out of SW EPS, 1, 2, 3, and 7, this is the best of the bunch, I agree. But that isn't saying much, as it's still a light year away from the 1977 SW. And really, just a massive two hour toy commercial, I would't call it, "cinema."

 

My son asked me why I was laughing at some parts. I love how in the 1977 version getting one tie fighter into the air was a technical challenge. Now all of a sudden, in a movie set BEFORE those events, a giant door opens and 50 tie fighters take to the skies at once. Why? Because we can that's why.

 

I think they made a big mistake on the bad guy side, Vader should of had all of General Tarkin's lines, Vader is 10X a better character, no need to put Tarkin in the movie at all.

 

And a final battle at a beach resort? Actual line from the movie, "Get that beach under control!!!!" Ok that was funny. I was half expecting the Disney High School Musical kids to show up. What side would they fight on, that would be the question?

 

R,

[Guest]

I took you for an avid video game player, was I wrong?

 

I do play a lot, on my 1982 Vic 20 set up in my office. Not joking, it's awesome!

 

R<

[Max Field]

 

I do play a lot, on my 1982 Vic 20 set up in my office. Not joking, it's awesome!

 

R<

up to a 64