John Doom said:
About Abrams, yesterday I (tried) to watch again Mission Impossible 3 to study his directing and, screenplay aside (which, I HOPE, he had nothing to do with), here's my opinion:
-the way he put faces VERY CLOSE to the frame is painful to watch, making the resulting screen look cropped. I think he said it looks more "intimate", but it just looks like bad composition to me;
-I understand quickly switching between shots is useful to give a sense of tension, but during gunfights he completely abused of this "trick", making most of the time hard to tell what's really going on;
-to this, add "lens flares": they're so strong (especially in the helicopter scene), that basically cover almost half the screen, making really hard to understand what's going on (though Abrams recently said he is aware of this issue and he's going to use them less);
-camera shaking: common "trick" to make the scene look live and add tension. He shaked it half the times so much (even when unnecessary) that it kind of gives you headache (again, helicopter scene).
So, so far I dislike his directing. Later on, I turned up TV and watched "Killer Joe" which was directed by William Friedkin, and his work looks WAY more professional than Abrams's.
Totally agreed on all the above.
Lucas could have shot the Phantom Menace with lens flares,shaky cams and rapid fire editing(ala Michal Bay) in 1998 but chose to preserve the static compositions and conservative editing(by 1990's standards)of the OT.
Lucas's main departure with the prequels was the use of CGI and the character (or lack of) portrayals.
But one factor that affected the prequels which hardly anyone notices is that the audience already new where the plot and the characters were headed(they just did not know how) across all 3 episodes(I,II and III).
What was the main attraction of the OT whilst it was unfolding?......the idea that you had no idea where it was heading and who would survive and who would not.
Big difference.