Star Wars: The Force Awakens [** SPOILERS FROM POST 4472 ONWARD **]

I don't get the hate for Zac Efron. For the record, I never watched the High School Musical movies, but he's proved himself excellent in movies like 17 Again and Me and Orson Welles and seemingly quite good in Charlie St. Cloud.

Cale

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't get the hate for Zac Efron. For the record, I never watched the High School Musical movies, but he's proved himself excellent in movies like 17 Again and Me and Orson Welles and seemingly quite good in Charlie St. Cloud.

Also excellent in The Paperboy.

This thread is symptomatic of big movie discussion on the internet:

Rumours abound, people in their loungers who think they know better getting in a tizzy and condemning possibility of some actors, writers, directors being mentioned, thinking they know better...


..the movie studio goes ahead and does what the f*ck it wants, because they know better....

..movies' released and everyone's happy.

Zubeneschamali

Cale wrote: »

..movies' released and everyone's happy.

Well, except no-one's been really happy with a Star Wars movie released since 1980, and by all accounts, we narrowly missed getting a stinker in 1977, too.

bur

Gbear wrote: »

If Abrahms gets it I think it'll be ok at worst.

Who knows how low it could sink if some absolute gob****e takes over.

Fair point. I want something epic though and honestly I don't think anything Abrams has done even comes close to that description.

karaokeman

krudler wrote: »

Hamill looks cool with a beard though so he could easily play a grizzled Luke training new Jedi or something, stands to reason he'd train more of them since he's the last one in the galaxy at the end of ROTJ.

He needs to hit the gym though.

karaokeman

Good to see Williams will be scoring the film. I hope he's right that there will be references to the older stories, because otherwise it wouldn't seem like it was part of Lucas' vision (say what you will about the prequels, but the fact the new trilogy is being done to the ESB format with collaborators doing hands-on work I can't see this being ruined).

krudler

Hmm, so Abrams is shooting Episode VII in 35mm not digital:

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=38538

There was a clue or two earlier this year when Abrams told the Producers Guild conference that, "If film were to go away then the standard for the highest, best quality would go away. I have not yet shot a movie digitally. Film is the thing I am most comfortable with.”

In his passion for celluloid Abrams has a long-established accomplice in Mindel. The pair have worked together on Mission: Impossible III, Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness. Mindel also shot Enemy Of The State for Tony Scott, Savages for Oliver Stone and John Carter for Andrew Stanton.

I hadn't realised the Star Trek movies were shot on film tbh.

stevenmu

krudler wrote: »

I hadn't realised the Star Trek movies were shot on film tbh.

+1, kinda surprised by that given how much CGI was in every scene.

Personally I don't really care if things are shot in film or digital, but I like that directors care, it shows that they're putting a lot of thought and effort into making something as well as they can, rather than just knocking out a quicky blockbuster.

pixelburp

That's interesting news; whatever else was wrong with Phantom Menace (ie, everything), probably the only thing done right was to shoot on film. Bad cinematography aside, it had the texture of a movie that the subsequent prequels completely lacked, so I hope Abrahms goes for this classic look.

Yeah, you might not like J.J. Abrams, but there is no denying his love and respect for movies, which is something that is lacking with directors like Michael Bay.

Didn't Keanu Reeves make a documentary about directors choosing not to use film anymore? He must be delighted with this news.

Otacon

Deleted User wrote: »

Didn't Keanu Reeves make a documentary about directors choosing not to use film anymore? He must be delighted with this news.

It was called Side By Side. It also wasn't really about directors not choosing digital, just the evolution of the art form and what its future holds. A good watch IMO.

Otacon

Otacon wrote: »

It was called Side By Side. It also wasn't really about directors not choosing digital, just the evolution of the art form and what its future holds. A good watch IMO.

Ah I see. Have never seen it, but have listened to him being interviewed by Mark Kermode about it and that's the gist that I got. Great interview, he gets quite animated (well, animated for Reeves, that is).

krudler

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah I see. Have never seen it, but have listened to him being interviewed by Mark Kermode about it and that's the gist that I got. Great interview, he gets quite animated (well, animated for Reeves, that is).

it's on the US netflix, might even be on the Irish one now I think. Well worth a watch some good interviews and really gives an insight into how filmmaking has evolved over the years.

Sad Professor

Great news!

Lucas never would have approved of this, so it's confirmation that he is totally out of the equation and isn't secretly pulling the strings from his "creative consultant" position.

krudler

Sad Professor wrote: »

Great news!

Lucas never would have approved of this, so it's confirmation that he is totally out of the equation and isn't secretly pulling the strings from his "creative consultant" position.

Was it Episode II or III that was entirely digital? or both? I think III looked more "filmy" especially on Grievous's ship at the beginning, that definitely looked like a Star Wars movie. I hope Abram's doesn't go nuts with the handheld stuff, Star Wars has always been very much conventional shots and framing, the odd flourish like the quick zooms during the battle in Episode II here and there but I kinda like it that way.

Sad Professor

Episode II and III were both shot entirely using digital cameras. There was also a few digital shots and scenes in Episode I but it was mostly 35mm. For Episode III I think the cameras and lenses had improved somewhat and they were more experienced at using them, so it probably did look better. Although they are both pretty poor looking compared to today's digitally-shot films. I think Lucas jumped the gun.

And yeah, Lucas's static and traditional framing really defined the look and feel of Star Wars. He's a fantastic visualist, really knows how to use the widescreen frame to its fullest. Lots of deep focus and never overuses close-ups. I see a lot of him in Fincher. Abrams's camera, in contrast, can be a bit hyper and he loves his long lenses and close-ups, but his style has a way of emphasising the characters which is probably better for CGI-heavy films like this.

krudler

Sad Professor wrote: »

Episode II and III were both shot entirely using digital cameras. There was also a few digital shots and scenes in Episode I but it was mostly 35mm. For Episode III I think the cameras and lenses had improved somewhat and they were more experienced at using them, so it probably did look better. Although they are both pretty poor looking compared to today's digitally-shot films. I think Lucas jumped the gun.

There's a shot near the end of Episode III I can't believe made it into the final cut, it's right where Anakin and Obi-Wan are about to fight on the platform after he chokes Padme, when Obi-Wan ignites his lightsabre, there's huge blue/green hue around Ewan McGregor as if the greenscreen wasn't blended properly, it's definitely on the dvd I'm not sure about the blu-ray.

david75

This is really really strange news/timing given the discussion that was just taking place. Fascinating insight in here too.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/24/gilbert-taylor-star-wars-cinematographer-dies

The renowned British cinematographer Gilbert Taylor, whose body of work included Star Wars, The Omen and Dr Strangelove, has died.

Taylor passed away at his home on the Isle of Wight aged 99 after a life which saw him credited with some of Hollywood's most acclaimed films.

While his work included Ice Cold in Alex, the Beatles' film A Hard Day's Night and Alfred Hitchcock's Frenzy, he is best known for the first of George Lucas's Star Wars series.

"George avoided all meetings and contact with me from day one," Taylor told American Cinematographer magazine. "So I read the extra-long script many times and made my own decisions as to how I would shoot the picture."

His career in the film industry started in 1929 when he was still a teenager and was taken on as a camera assistant at Gainsborough Studios in London.

He worked on the special effects for the 1955 film The Dam Busters and turned down a Bond film in order to work with Roman Polanski, according to his wife Dee.

During the second world war, when he spent six years with the RAF, he turned his skills to shooting night-time raids over Germany after a request from Winston Churchill.

His television work included The Avengers and The Baron and he shot commercials after he finished with feature films in 1994.

Taylor was a founder member of the British Society of Cinematographers, which presented him with a lifetime achievement award in 2001.

He died on Friday with his family at his bedside. He met his wife Dee, who was 23 years his junior, on the set of The Punch and Judy Man in 1963 and the pair married four years later.

JP Liz V1

Saoirse Ronan has confirmed the rumours that she auditioned for a part

FlashD

.....hoping Benedict Cumberbatch gets the rumoured role also.

david75

FlashD wrote: »

.....hoping Benedict Cumberbatch gets the rumoured role also.

What role?

Nervous Wreck

david75 wrote: »

What role?

Darth Khan.

david75

Was just thinking him getting a role would be a bit much.

They would avoid that kind of obvious crossover, surely.

Who cares if Cumberbatch was in Star Trek? The man is a damned fine actor and would be an excellent addition to any movie. Is that not what should matter? Also excellent about Saoirse Ronan. Another amazing actor who is incredible with accents!

david75

If Ronan gets cast in these, I'll boycott them. She can't act.
Dumber batch is overexposed as it is. It'd taint the whole brand if he were to be in these as well. It beggars belief he's already taking part in two major franchises. Seriously doubt hell be allowed into a third, one which is possibly bigger than the other two combined. He's an amazing actor, but what is seldom is wonderful, and right now, he's everywhere as it is. The wiki leaks film included.

david75

I didn't mean to write dumber batch but I'm leaving it cos its funny.

johnny_ultimate

david75 wrote: »

If Ronan gets cast in these, I'll boycott them. She can't act.

When has ability to act ever been a prerequisite for featuring in a Star Wars film? And Ronan certainly can act anyway. And it's ridiculous to boycott a film over one cast member, especially in a series that has made fantastic actors read out unutterably bad lines of dialogue.

Roar

david75 wrote: »

If Ronan gets cast in these, I'll boycott them. She can't act.

She can.

And she can act quite well.

.ak

I think she's a bit of a plank in terms of acting depth tbh. I do agree her accent work is very good. But she's extremely unbelievable in her roles.

Also think Cumberbatch is overhyped. Think he's too similar in a lot of his roles. He's got a great presence and he's kinda weird looking, which goes a long way for the casting guys, but he's never really showed me much depth of emotion.... Having said that I thought he was excellent in Star Trek.

Have you heard Ronan talking in her normal accent? I never realized she had a Dublin accent, because I had never heard her in any interviews. She is a complete chameleon, who is also quite young. Guaranteed she is going to go into an incredible actress with the more movies she does.

With regards to Cumberbatch being overexposed - doesn't every actor go through this, especially when they are making it big? The ones of the past few years have been Shia LaBeouf and Seth Rogen. Just the way the world works and it doesn't really bother me - as long as it doesn't get in the way of Sherlock, that is.