126

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

127

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

While there were certainly more interesting choices out there, I'm coming to terms with JJ Abrams. With him directing and Arndt writing the script, there's at least a pair of capable people at the helm. It's one thing to have a writer/director pair that you "think" can pull it off versus a pair that you "know" has the capability, at least. I would have preferred Bird or Aronofsky for a single flick, or Jackson for a new trilogy...but I'm comforted some to know what I'm getting -- and with Abrams you know what you're signing up for.

I think my biggest worry will that this will feel too much like Star Trek, because JJ's not really known for his range of "looks". Considering how much New Trek can feels Star Wars-like, it's entirely possible that you could watch the films back to back and not see much of a difference...and that'd be a shame, in my opinion.

It's an interesting theory about panning being the crux of the issue for 3DHFR.

On a more "creative" level, the way I've put it -- and I'm basing this off my experience with higher frame-rates only, not 3DHFR directly though it seems applicable, because I haven't seen Hobbit yet -- is that the fluidity and "realness" of it ends up putting the film into a Theater-Film hyrbid zone...it's basically a new medium.

This has to be accounted for in all aspects of the production to work properly -- from the writing to the directing to the cinematography to the editing room. You can't just change the formatting on a script and put on a play with it. You can't merely film a play from multiple angles, throw in some SFX, and make a great movie. They are simply different mediums and need to be treated differently.

I feel like that's the case with 3DHFR. Panning, as a technical aspect, would certainly fall into that category, as you are correct that it's not something our eyes/mind do in real life.

I actually think older movies would be better "designed" for 3DHDR. Before cameras had much mobility -- blocking and movement within the frame were vastly more important and given more attention. Metropolis would be amazing, especially the sections with loads of extras...it would feel like an epic play that could simply never be performed in real life.

Metropolis. City Lights. Nosferatu. Citizen Kane. Watch some clips and see how the scenes could be seen as theater-ish. Likely because filmmakers were facing a combination of film being a new medium and cameras being huge/heavy and having limited movement capabilities. The most modern examples I can think of...Clerks I think would work well. Moon, at least mostly. Again, films that were written/designed with a bit more of theater "feel" to them.

That's not to say grand action-y movies CAN'T work. I just think it's not just a new brand of film, it's a new medium entirely...and it's going to take a bit before writers/filmmakers get a handle on that medium. Maybe in time they'll design action sequences to be more "within the frame", sticking to cuts and zooms, keeping pans for more intimate scenes. Maybe use a bit of Japanese Kung-Fu movie style, where they tend to stay wide in fight scenes rather than Bourne style close-up & cuts.

3DHFR seems like watching a play through a window. Until they take that into account, I think it'll continue to polarize people.

129

(62 replies, posted in Episodes)

130

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

131

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

132

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

133

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

134

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

The more I think about it, the more I come down on the side of two choices:

Option 1: Make a full-bore epic trilogy to lay the foundation of what I've decided I will call Star Wars: The Next Generation (SW:TNG). That gives you 3 movies to lay everything out and build from, wiping the prequels and the ill will towards them off the map. If you do this -- Peter Jackson.

Option 2: Jump right into the Bond-style movie every couple of years plan. Brad Bird or Gore Verbinski could easily pull off a movie that could be very good without trying to do "everything" in 120 mins.

Chatting with Brian, he also tossed out another name (for option 2) that could be interesting...Darren Aronofsky. He was inches away from directing a Wolverine movie, so it's not like he's unwilling (or unable) to stray from the art house. He clearly has the talent for characters and an eye for visuals. I'd put him right behind Bird & Verbinski, if only because they both have more established records for what I think Disney will be looking for.

All told, I'm not coming down on either side (terrible or great) because we won't have anything to even base positivity/negativity on for several months. Admittedly, it's tough to imagine it getting "worse" than the prequels, but how many times have we been burned by that thought before?

For now, my state is "Cautiously Hopeful".

135

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

Mindless Self Indulgence?

136

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

Ok. I know there’s an overwhelming amount to talk about when it comes to this craziness...but I’d like to address only one thing: Who should/will direct the next Star Wars.

The 3 most names that immediately come to mind: Joss Whedon, JJ Abrams, and Brad Bird.

Joss is already doing Avengers 2, which honestly I feel is a production that “needs” Whedon more to be successful. I could name several people (I am, in fact) that could handle a good SW movie, but I’m not sure I think anyone other than Whedon could pull off Avengers 2. I want them both to be good, so that's a sacrifice I might be willing to make. (ducks)

Abrams has the ST franchise already, and I’m not sure his “feel” meshes well with the actual Star Wars universe, no matter how similar Star Trek (2009) is to the Star Wars formula. I just don’t see it happening without the idea being a “revamping” of SW, which I don’t think is what Disney will be aiming for.

One fun thought: If Disney does take this down the Bond/Potter road, constantly changing directors and tone, then I could easily see both Joss and JJ doing SW movies down the road…and how exciting is that possibility?

For Episode 7 though, Brad Bird seems to be the favorite in my mind. He’s established himself as a great live-action director, is already in-house for Disney, and his background at Pixar lends itself well to the “tone” SW would likely be going for. If I was in the meeting, he’d be the name I’d go for if Joss didn’t have time (likely) and the pie-in-the-sky name I’ll drop later doesn’t work out.

Mentioning Avengers above, let’s not forget Jon Favreau could be on the list as well. Similar to Whedon/JJ, he’s sort of got his corner of the universe, so I’m not sure the odds. I’m also not sure if he’s as capable as others on the list, but it’s worth tossing his name out as a possibility since he’s definitely got big-budget-action on his resume.

Next up, Matthew Vaughn. Seems like a good backup option if Brad Bird doesn’t work. Solid and safe.

Ok. So. Pie in the sky time…

Peter ‘Effin’ Jackson. The Hobbit is done filming, in post, and there’s nothing on the immediate horizon for him. If what I read is true, and there is already a story framework in place for a full trilogy of 7/8/9, how about reintroducing a new generation to Star Wars with the most epic Space Opera ever. Go big or go home. Clearly he has the ability, in character, action, and technological experience (not to be overlooked). Disney could use Jackson to firmly establish the universe, then transition to the “Bond” style movies afterwards, building on that foundation.

Quick note on something I heard on the intermission…Rian Johnson. Sorry, no. He’s great, and Brick is one of my Top 3 favorite movies of all time, but he doesn’t do action well. He’s a film-noir guy at heart, building tension/suspense – think of the shootout or chase scenes in Brick. In interviews he talks about how he wanted to ground Looper and its action sequences with a very tangible/real feeling – that’s not SW. I’d rather him work on character pieces that will keep me on pins and needles, rather than directing space battles.

Lastly, I assume Nolan’s name has to be in the hat simply because he’s Nolan. He’s obviously a solid director, but the larger-action scenes of Dark Knight & Inception really felt like they got away from him a bit. I’d worry that something as large and fantasy based as Star Wars wouldn’t be something he’d be great at.

Oh oh, and also Gore Verbinski. He’s got the family-friendly-action cred and Disney in from Pirates. I should write more, but if the script is there I think he’d be up there on my list…Rango being a better example of what I’d hope to see.

From those listed, my hopeful order:

Jackson, Whedon, Bird, Verbinski, Vaughn, Abrams, Favreau, Nolan, Johnson