Star Wars: The Force Awakens (Pre-release)

[Solo4114]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

I blame Lucas' clunky dialogue for that. It was blatantly obvious that some of Threepio's lines served no purpose other than an attempt at being humorous, and as a result they felt like they'd been added to the script with a crowbar. I think Daniels simply did the best he could.

Yeah, that wasn't Daniels' fault at all. All of the actors in the prequels are talented actors. If you watch them in other stuff, they actually do really well. (Except for Natalie Portman's "English" accent, of course.)

Watch Ralph Brown as Ric Olie and you'll think "Man, what a crappy actor." Then watch him in Cape Wrath or Life on Mars and tell me what you think. The guy can act, just not when he's given godawful dialogue and poor direction in an empty green-screen room.

 

[Bigdaddy]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

The actors in LOTR talked about that in the special features, The on location sets made it that much easier to get into the role, those films really did well at blending CG/makeup/camera usage to make Middle Earth come alive and not seem like a fantasy. Something the PT failed at doing.

 

[Zuiun]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

The actors in LOTR talked about that in the special features, The on location sets made it that much easier to get into the role, those films really did well at blending CG/makeup/camera usage to make Middle Earth come alive and not seem like a fantasy. Something the PT failed at doing.

In general, though, I think this is a load of crap -- at least as far as an excuse goes for the Prequels.

Stage actors have been delivering amazing performances for far longer than film has existed, and done so on completely imaginary sets. If the material is good, a good actor can perform it regardless.

The Prequels had some good actors (and some clunky ones), but it also had uniformly horrible writing. All of the practical sets/locations in the world wouldn't have saved it.

 

[Solo4114]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

In general, though, I think this is a load of crap -- at least as far as an excuse goes for the Prequels.

Stage actors have been delivering amazing performances for far longer than film has existed, and done so on completely imaginary sets. If the material is good, a good actor can perform it regardless.

The Prequels had some good actors (and some clunky ones), but it also had uniformly horrible writing. All of the practical sets/locations in the world wouldn't have saved it.

Completely imaginary? Yes. But still there. Now, if they have actual physical sets and are simply greenscreening backgrounds, that's one thing. But when EVERYTHING is an otherwise featureless green object, that's a different story. Then you don't have a set. You're basically having to revert back to being 5 years old and playing pretend using your imaginary laser sword as you climb into your imaginary spaceship.

Now, it's not always as bad as all that, but I expect it's a LOT harder to be in character when you've (A) got a Lucas script, (B) got Lucas "direction," and (C) are acting on something looking -- at best -- like this:

And at worst, like this:

Sets in the theater are full things. Background, furniture, props, all of it. Anyone know what Daniels is sitting on there?


I'm not saying it's impossible to turn in good performances with green screen work. Obviously plenty of films have done it. But I tend to think that effective blending of green screen and real world and location stuff is really helpful to get into character and really feel IN the world. Even just a background painting helps. It's not real, but it's at least MORE real than the harsh glare of the green screen backdrop.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Stage actors have been delivering amazing performances for far longer than film has existed, and done so on completely imaginary sets. If the material is good, a good actor can perform it regardless.

There's a huge difference between stage acting and acting in a movie.

 

[Zuiun]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

I still maintain that had the writing been good and the director not lost in his own world, the performances would have been significantly better despite the lack of real sets.

James Cameron managed to get emotional performances out of actors out of nothing more than MoCap suits in a warehouse. (Regardless of what anyone thinks of the film, many of the performances in it were about a million miles superior to anything in the prequels.)

Robert Rodriquez filmed Sin City in a freakin' garage set.

I simply refuse to buy the notion that the green screen is the culprit here.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

True. I was just pointing out that there is a difference between the two acting forms.

And yes... for the most part it lands on the director failing to bring the performance out of the actors.

 

[Zuiun]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Yeah, don't get me wrong...

I think the green screen hurt the films in other ways. It looked too unreal. In a film like, say, Sin City, the digital sets were part of the visual style of the film. It's OK that it was all obviously fake.

Star wars, however, requires a lived in look that was just completely missing from the prequels. Even if Lucas was intentionally going for a cleaner aesthetic, it still needed to look like a REAL world. And it didn't -- especially by ATOC and ROTS. TPM had the most practical sets (and also had the benefit of being shot on film), and so I think visually matched the original films the best. Most of the acting still sucked, though.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Nailed it. :thumbsup

 

[jme3]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Sorry for the late replies...

Ditto to all three comments below.

I was/am sure that the direction and environment had quite a lot to do with the awful performances of otherwise good, talented actors. I'm well aware of what Anthony Daniels, for example, is capable of and that I didn't see in the prequels; my frequent references to the OT (at the seemingly never-ending expense of the prequels) isn't just a nostalgic nod to my childhood. The movies were just simply better all around. Better acted, better scripted, better just about everything. Having said that, I do think there are certain talents that are just exemplary no matter what they do. Ian McDiarmid, as I've often praised and applauded, would deliver a fine performance if he was told to stand in a pitch black room with not another actor around for a thousand miles. He's just that good where some, on the other hand, are not...:unsure

I blame Lucas' clunky dialogue for that. It was blatantly obvious that some of Threepio's lines served no purpose other than an attempt at being humorous, and as a result they felt like they'd been added to the script with a crowbar. I think Daniels simply did the best he could.

Yeah, that wasn't Daniels' fault at all. All of the actors in the prequels are talented actors. If you watch them in other stuff, they actually do really well. (Except for Natalie Portman's "English" accent, of course.)

Watch Ralph Brown as Ric Olie and you'll think "Man, what a crappy actor." Then watch him in Cape Wrath or Life on Mars and tell me what you think. The guy can act, just not when he's given godawful dialogue and poor direction in an empty green-screen room.

The actors in LOTR talked about that in the special features, The on location sets made it that much easier to get into the role, those films really did well at blending CG/makeup/camera usage to make Middle Earth come alive and not seem like a fantasy. Something the PT failed at doing.

 

[CessnaDriver]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

I think a big problem with me for CGI is taking me out of the moment by doing crazy impossible "camera" work that doesn't feel grounded in reality and that it was actually "filmed" by a human being. It's sort of a hyper active god view of things zipping around like a sprite for the most wild and action filled shots.

I know times change, but somtimes at least for me it's getting too removed from a relatable human perspective.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

I think a big problem with me for CGI is taking me out of the moment by doing crazy impossible "camera" work that doesn't feel grounded in reality and that it was actually "filmed" by a human being. It's sort of a hyper active god view of things zipping around like a sprite for the most wild and action filled shots.

I know times change, but somtimes at least for me it's getting too removed from a relatable human perspective.

That's always been my problem with CG. All of a sudden physics don't matter and you can be anywhere. In some ways it takes you out of the experience. The best shots are the ones you don't notice.

For me that's applicable to all films.

 

[LMFAOSchwarz]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

That's always been my problem with CG. All of a sudden physics don't matter and you can be anywhere. In some ways it takes you out of the experience. The best shots are the ones you don't notice.

For me that's applicable to all films.

:thumbsup to all of this.

Every CGI animator should read...and absorb...Tex Avery, King of Cartoons.

 

[rodneyfaile]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

I can count on one hand the cgi that was done well enough that it didn't instantly take me out of the movie. Bad practical effects can do that as well, but for the most part, I can recall far more convincing practical effects than cgi.

 

[jme3]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

I can count on one hand the cgi that was done well enough that it didn't instantly take me out of the movie. Bad practical effects can do that as well, but for the most part, I can recall far more convincing practical effects than cgi.

Flesh and blood matter seem to still present cgi with difficulties, whereas other organic matter can be very convincing. Avatar is an example of that. Pretty much everything except what were supposed to be living creatures was very well done, imho...

 

[CB2001]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Robert Rodriquez filmed Sin City in a freakin' garage set.

Yeah, but his garage was a fully functional studio built across the street to his house.

 

[jcoffman99]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Good read on Kathleen Kennedy.
Lucasfilm's Kathleen Kennedy on 'Star Wars,' 'Lincoln' and Secret J.J. Abrams Meetings (Exclusive) - The Hollywood Reporter

 

[Zenwalker]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

The rumour is Harrison Ford will be working in the Art Department.

:lol

 

[t1i2z3]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

The rumour is Harrison Ford will be working in the Art Department.

:lol

I totally buy that he could paint that entire picture with that brush. Harry is the man.:lol

 

[DARTH SABER]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Good read on Kathleen Kennedy.
Lucasfilm's Kathleen Kennedy on 'Star Wars,' 'Lincoln' and Secret J.J. Abrams Meetings (Exclusive) - The Hollywood Reporter

Im sorry, some people may have issues with Abrams (Mainly due to personal nostalgia factor, and some asinine cosmetic issues like lens flare) but the guy definitely knows how to direct, has that 1970's film making style, and all his films thus far have been successful financially, among the mainstream movie populace, and among critics.

Then there's the fact that Michael Arndt is writing (Toy story 3- Probably the one Toy story installment with the most heart and emotional pull of any of the TS films), and Lawrence Kasdan is on board.....Then we have Kathleen kennedy hand picking Abrams.

Sorry, but everything about the new SW is looking good.