What if TFA is awful? — Page 4

danny_boy said:

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.    

:D If Abrams turns TFA into another "michael bay", it may require careful fan-editing to slow down the scenes, but how to fix shaky cameras and lens flares?

danny_boy said:

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.    

If you think about it, the only character we knew would survive were Anakin, the Emperor, Obi-wan, the droids and Yoda. Vader's motives were at the core of the prequels and kept the audience's interest high, but in the end they didn't carefully handled them :\

John Doom said:

danny_boy said:

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.    

:D If Abrams turns TFA into another "michael bay", it may require careful fan-editing to slow down the scenes, but how to fix shaky cameras and lens flares?

danny_boy said:

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.    

If you think about it, the only character we knew would survive were Anakin, the Emperor, Obi-wan, the droids and Yoda. Vader's motives were at the core of the prequels and kept the audience's interest high, but in the end they didn't carefully handled them :\

Knowing the fate of the characters that you mentioned was enough to supress any potential excitement that can be derived from not knowing what is going to happen.  

In 1981,when I watched SW back to back with ESB for the first time , I thought Han was dead in the carbonite(despite Vader's, Fetts's and C3P0's assertion that he would be/was ok---hey I was 6 years old!) and I thought Luke would bleed to death on the gantry when his hand was sliced off.

When that did not happen I thought Luke would die when he jumped off  said gantry (only for him to get sucked into the airshaft).

And when that did not happen I thought he would die on the weather vane--lol! 

All of that excitement/adrenaline was accentuated by the fact that I(we) did not know what was going to happen in those tense few minutes.

Now maybe an  older person in 1980/81 would have anticipated that the hero/main protagonist would not die in ESB.

But compared to any of the prequels, there was never a threat of death or impending doom to any of the principle characters (for someone who was familiar with the Star Wars mythology).

The real test though would be to show the saga in episodic order(I- VI) to someone who is not familiar with it and see if it works(on them). 

DominicCobb said:

Also, I would encourage all the people decrying Abrams's proclivity for camera shake and lens flare to watch the trailers for TFA again.

I didn't say they're going to be in TFA, just that I dislike his directing-style so far. I studied the teasers a lot (I also did this), and if you look closely, you can see camera shakings in there too, just toned down (which is good), and no lens flares. Doesn't mean it's necessarily going to be a good directing: you still have lifeless shots like this and this, but no camera shaking to revive them this time :D

DominicCobb said:

Bingowings said:

Ridley Scott is still a strong visual director but he allowed himself to be associated with a script mangled to death by Lindelof.

It's interesting that every time Lindelof is involved with something people always blame him for its perceived failures. If I remember from what I read, the main issues people have with Prometheus were Scott induced issues, a lot of them in the editing phase.

Not that it really matters in regards to TFA. Lindelof has nothing to do with that.

I like Super8 and Cloverfield but his first Star Trek is as bad/good as any TNG movie and the second one is truly painful in places. He didn't write the screenplay but he allowed himself to be closely associated with it. He is allowing himself to be closely associated with TFA.

But he wrote the screenplay to TFA, he didn't just allow himself to be closely associated with it. The challenge of directing a Star Wars movie vs. the challenge of directing a Star Trek movie is completely different. Sorry Trekkies, but the Star Wars one is a bigger challenge. Abrams is not a Trekkie - that's why they brought him on as director, so that he could reimagine the franchise and make the film engaging for everyone (I'm not saying that's what the film needed, but certainly it was what the execs wanted and it worked). Abrams is a huge Star Wars fan. That's exactly what TFA needs. Someone who loves the franchise (read: the good parts of the franchise) and who understands that if he effs this movie up he won't just be disappointing the whole world but himself too. Hence why he threw away the original, Lucas-story script and wrote a new one from scratch with Kasdan.

 You are correct to say that they are different assignments but as the director/producer/screen writer(who is inheriting a franchise) --you have to stay true to the source.

Abrahams veered way off course to supposedly make Star Trek more popular. And there in lies the rub....Star Trek did not need to be made more popular and it did not need a new movie or story-it had had plenty of both already.

  Star Wars does not need to be made more popular  or to have a  good story/movie --it has had plenty of both already.

DominicCobb said:

You do not have to stay true to the source. There's no rule that says that. There are plenty of films that have succeeded by not staying true to the source.

 That's true: Tim Burton's Batman movies come to mind, in a way.

DominicCobb said:

The producers of Star Trek 09 decided that it would be a reboot, so, by nature, only staying true to the source in some ways. Not Abrams's decision.

According to Wikipedia, the producers were Damon Lindelof and J. J. Abrams, though :D

Anchorhead said:

danny_boy said:

But you are entitled to your opinion...

 Thank you. I'll keep that in mind.

I won't address every bit of your response because I'm trying not to take us too far off-topic.  However, I do want to address the Star Trek film references.  I should have been more clear in explaining when I think the franchise veered off course.

I have no issue at all with any of the TOS films and I like and own a few of the TNG films.  However, when I was sitting in the theater and saw this scene;  https://youtu.be/NKFMWhxJask   I very nearly walked out.  For the Star Trek franchise, this scene was my 3PO telling campfire stories to plush toys moment.  It's when I knew it was time to part ways.

I didn't bother with Nemesis when it was released.  I saw a bit of it on cable about a year ago.  Like Insurrection, it looked and felt like a 1990s TV show.

For me, Star Trek2009 was a welcome return to characters and story. I haven't seen Cloverfield beyond a few minutes, nor have I seen MI3. Shaky-cam is a guaranteed no thanks in my world.  I don't chase the story around the screen trying to figure it out. I won't work or struggle to watch a film.

Abrams received an enormous amount of grief over the flares in Trek2009.  I suspect they'll be all but absent in TFA.  He understands what the fans want and the original atmosphere of the 1977 film.

That is fair enough.

Sorry I should have been more clear with regards to Star Trek.

I was referring principally to the TOS movies (Star Trek 1-6)....not TNG.

Star Trek V was a bomb(not dissimilar to Superman IV)....a good idea badly executed. 

But the others (Star Trek 1-4 and 6) are excellent(in my opinion).

They are quite varied too in terms of style and content(which I always believed was one of Trek's attractions) .

It is interesting that the 2 Trek films that Abrahams has done are practically identical in tone and rhythm.

But Nimoy's 2 Trek films(III and IV) are quite different.

III follows a dramatic  emotional arc and IV has drama combined with adult(primarily) humour.

Even Meyer's 2 Trek films(II and VI) are diverse.

II is revenge/action.

VI is a conspiracy whodunnit(with a little action).

The problem with Abrahams is that he is generic in his approach...irrespective of whatever that approach is.

So Mission Impossible and Star Trek 2009 + 2013 follow that crash bang wallop style  of Michael Bay(Abraham's chum on Armageddon).

And Super 8 is a Spielbergiun Close Encounters/E.T rip off(and nowhere near as good as either of them!)  in style and tone.  

As for doing stuff for the fans....that is not the point.

The original Star Wars of 1977 was not for the fans.

It just so happened that the fans were drawn to the film.

You were there in 1977.

And you know why.

Smoky And The Bandit,Saturday Night Fever, A Bridge Too Far,The Gauntlet, and The Deep (amongst others)were Star War's main competitors that year.

It is easy to see why Star Wars had the impact it did when it did....it was different.

A situation that cannot  be replicated. Ever.

The Force Awakens will be going up against The Hunger Games , the Martian, Dawn Of Justice .....all of which will be offering the same overinflated CGI wankfest that overpowers the storytelling in most contemporary sci fi/fantasy movies these days.

TFA will do well just to  stand out from such a saturated crowd.

DominicCobb said:

danny_boy said:

DominicCobb said:

Bingowings said:

Ridley Scott is still a strong visual director but he allowed himself to be associated with a script mangled to death by Lindelof.

It's interesting that every time Lindelof is involved with something people always blame him for its perceived failures. If I remember from what I read, the main issues people have with Prometheus were Scott induced issues, a lot of them in the editing phase.

Not that it really matters in regards to TFA. Lindelof has nothing to do with that.

I like Super8 and Cloverfield but his first Star Trek is as bad/good as any TNG movie and the second one is truly painful in places. He didn't write the screenplay but he allowed himself to be closely associated with it. He is allowing himself to be closely associated with TFA.

But he wrote the screenplay to TFA, he didn't just allow himself to be closely associated with it. The challenge of directing a Star Wars movie vs. the challenge of directing a Star Trek movie is completely different. Sorry Trekkies, but the Star Wars one is a bigger challenge. Abrams is not a Trekkie - that's why they brought him on as director, so that he could reimagine the franchise and make the film engaging for everyone (I'm not saying that's what the film needed, but certainly it was what the execs wanted and it worked). Abrams is a huge Star Wars fan. That's exactly what TFA needs. Someone who loves the franchise (read: the good parts of the franchise) and who understands that if he effs this movie up he won't just be disappointing the whole world but himself too. Hence why he threw away the original, Lucas-story script and wrote a new one from scratch with Kasdan.

 You are correct to say that they are different assignments but as the director/producer/screen writer(who is inheriting a franchise) --you have to stay true to the source.

Abrahams veered way off course to supposedly make Star Trek more popular. And there in lies the rub....Star Trek did not need to be made more popular and it did not need a new movie or story-it had had plenty of both already.

  Star Wars does not need to be made more popular  or to have a  good story/movie --it has had plenty of both already.

You do not have to stay true to the source. There's no rule that says that. There are plenty of films that have succeeded by not staying true to the source. The producers of Star Trek 09 decided that it would be a reboot, so, by nature, only staying true to the source in some ways. Not Abrams's decision. 

The good news for you is that it seems like the goal for TFA is stay true to the OT.

No there is no rule.

There is only creative intuition and perception(or the lack of it).

Abrahams rather dumbly perceived Star Trek to be boring  and slow ect ect.

And we have witnessed his  Michael Bayesque reaction in 2009 and 2013!

The fact that he does not perceive Star Wars to be boring is intriguing.

I expect him to react the same way he reacted to Close Encounters and E.T.

By making a second rate generic homage piece.

danny_boy said:

Abrahams rather dumbly perceived Star Trek to be boring  and slow ect ect.

And we have witnessed his  Michael Bayesque reaction in 2009 and 2013!

 If you think JJs two ST movies were like Michael Bay movies... you need to watch more Michael Bay movies... wait no I take that back. I wouldn't wish that anyone ;-)

danny_boy said:

TFA will do well just to  stand out from such a saturated crowd.

 Really? Have you heard of this thing called Star Wars. I understand it's quite popular.

John Doom said:

-the way he put faces VERY CLOSE to the frame is painful to watch, making the resulting screen look cropped. I think he said they look more "intimate", but they just look bad compositions 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 half of the time hard to tell what is 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 hard to se 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).

Good post. I hate all those things as well. They seem like poor attempts by someone who cannot make a good scene in a proper way.

SilverWook said:

CatBus said:

SilverWook said:

Were there any insiders expressing dismay about TPM back in 1999 though?

The internet rumor mill wasn't what it is now of course.

The only advance warning I got about TPM was a local popular theatre owner who declined to show TPM after they saw a preview screening.  It seemed like a crazy decision at the time--it even warranted a local newspaper story where they essentially were asked to explain themselves, because it was right in the middle of the crazy TPM-buzz-media-blitz, and how can you not show Star Wars?

But I think even if TFA's pretty bad, most people would still show it--even this theatre--because it would draw crowds and money regardless.  It would have to be a real howling dog for it to get the TPM treatment, and I don't really think that's in the cards.  And in the end, TPM (hell, even ROTS!) made fistfuls of money, so it proved that even if the theatre ultimately boosted its reputation by avoiding TPM, they still lost money on that decision.

 I wonder if that fellow regretted the decision? If he's even still in business after that. ;)

I can't answer either of those with absolute certainty, but they were still in business last time I checked, and they didn't run AOTC or ROTS, so I'm guessing No and Yes.

Admittedly it was a small independent theatre, and while they did run mainstream first-run blockbuster stuff, they also ran their share of foreign and independent films--so for their target audience, maintaining their "I've never heard of this film before, but if it's showing here then it must be good" reputation can't be dismissed as a good long-term move.  Lost reputations are harder to recover than lost money.

Ryan McAvoy said:

danny_boy said:

Abrahams rather dumbly perceived Star Trek to be boring  and slow ect ect.

And we have witnessed his  Michael Bayesque reaction in 2009 and 2013!

 If you think JJs two ST movies were like Michael Bay movies... you need to watch more Michael Bay movies... wait no I take that back. I wouldn't wish that anyone ;-)

danny_boy said:

TFA will do well just to  stand out from such a saturated crowd.

 Really? Have you heard of this thing called Star Wars. I understand it's quite popular.

I meant "standing out " in terms of story telling style, production aesthetics  and general quality.

I would not say that the competition is great......rather it is all the same.

The Force Awakens will take on The Hunger games(as well as trying to outdo Age Of Ultron and Jurassic Park IV).

Star Wars went head to head with A Bridge Too Far and Smokey And The Bandit in 1977. 

Massive difference.

Tobar said:

John Doom said:

DominicCobb said:

You do not have to stay true to the source. There's no rule that says that. There are plenty of films that have succeeded by not staying true to the source.

 That's true: Tim Burton's Batman movies come to mind, in a way.

 Burton's films were heavily inspired by the darker toned '80s Batman comics of the time.

I know: you can definitely see Miller's insipration down to the minutiae (Frankie must be a Corto Maltese fan, it seems :D)

But still, you get things like Bruce being portrayed as a psychopath, and Joker as the the one who murdered Bruce's parents. It was all done for a reason, though: to make a strong parallel between the protagonist and the antagonist, and it worked!

danny_boy said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

danny_boy said:

TFA will do well just to  stand out from such a saturated crowd.

 Really? Have you heard of this thing called Star Wars. I understand it's quite popular.

I meant "standing out " in terms of story telling style, production aesthetics  and general quality.

Oh I see. If you'd meant in terms of excitement, cultural impact, boxoffice etc that would have been an insane statement. I could imagine TFA making more than the last Marvel movie in it's opening week alone ;-)