Star Wars: The Force Awakens (Pre-release)

Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

I feel that one of the issues with the Falcon shot is, in the OT, you relied on computer controlled camera shots, and nothing was that elaborate.

Gotcha and filmmakers today aren't bound by the limitations of such controlled shots. The vast majority of the Falcon shots in the OT were "in space" not within an atmosphere. It made some spins etc. To me this shows its capabilities of being FAST and aerobatic in any situation.
 
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

The Falcon shot is more "follow cam" or "tracking cam," right? Couldn't we use a more accurate term? Or am I just going to have to adjust my brain to accept an inferior/inaccurate label because it's already caught on?

Jeez, relax. It's a term that had come to be used to encompass any camerawork which isn't stable. Sorry that it makes you so mad, but it's not that big a deal. Chill.
 
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

To me what it looks like the Falcon is doing is what's known as a split S, this is an acoustic move where an aircraft dives down and then levels out at the bottom of the dive; it's nothing new and pilots have been doing this for a long time now. What we're getting is a tracking shot of the Falcon from behind of the Falcon doing the Split S, all they've done is instead of looking down the camera they seem to have it set to follow the Falcon from behind so that it follows every move it does so when the Falcon tools the camera rolls, the Falcon climbs the camera climbs with it.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
 
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

I had to watch it a few times just to see the instability. It wavers left/right a few times, but it's perfectly acceptable to me, which is what's really important here. ;)
 
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

I was gonna make an argument about how the fighting style has no bearing on the lightsaber choice. Unless it is dual blade, a lightsaber cuts the same. The Claymore fighting stance relies on heavy swings, a lightsaber would chop you in half with a light passing. So fencing it would be because first strike wins!

But Rule of Cool wants me to see a revamped fighting style in line with the claysaber. I would like a samurai showdown too, two combatants pass by each other and strike and only one falls.

The direction for the first movie included using the sabers as mostly two-handed weapons - Lucas originally wanted them to seem heavy, and as though it took some effort to wield them effectively. The effortless ballet duels really took away from that effect. Hopefully this thing (which I admittedly don't love the idea of) gets us back to that approach.
 
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Regarding the falcon shot:

Computer-generated shots need some kind of grounding. If the "camera" loops around Optimus Prime's head, under his armpit, and between his legs before sweeping around to the other side again, we're just as disconnected as the camera is. It has no limitations, no physics or boundaries, and it's distracting to everyone to different degrees. This shot is not that at all - this is what it would look like if you bolted a camera to a ship and flew it behind the falcon follow-the-leader style.

It shouldn't represent much of the cinematography for the film. The shots of Boyega and Ridley indicate a very deliberate, classic approach to composition.
 
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Whether for hacky-slashy or finessed fighting styles, I prefer two-handed grips because you use the upper hand as the fulcrum and the lower hand as the leverage. With practice, you could develop some pretty good point control with it, crossguard or no. Why I also like the saber-pikes of the Shadow Guards in The Force Unleashed. Used yari or naginata style, that would also let the wielder put point or edge anywhere they want with the slightest of twitches. The longer the grip you have to work with, the more distance between your hands, the finer your control. In that respect, the lightzweihander is a lovely thing.

--Jonah
 
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Post SW trilogy ILM did get into adding shake to motion control shots to emulate the look of them being taken from a following vehicle. Just sayin'.

(and I generally despise "shake for the sake of it" shots, for the record. Like those BSG shots mentioned...)
 
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Well, arguably the Prequels had the Jedi in their prime whereas the Originals had two old men (one half a robot) and a noob... so there may've been some difficulty in the way they yielded their sabers. I generally liked the lightsaber choreography in the Prequels, it definitely felt more like the Jedi were a force to be reckoned with.
 
Last edited:
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

There's a crucial distinction between a "shaky cam" shot and a "following" shot. The Falcon is the latter, and that's why I am fine with it. It looks like the camera is strapped to another aircraft struggling to keep pace with the Falcon.


I would ******* HATE for this new SW movie to be shaky-cammed. And I mean it would RUIN IT for me. IMO that stupid trend has been the ruin of half the Hollywood action scenes in the last 15 years. I wouldn't mind something that looks truly handheld. But what passes for "documentary style" footage these days is more like a horribly exaggerated caricature of actual handheld footage, rendering a lot of shots/scenes almost incomprehensible.
 
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

There's a crucial distinction between a "shaky cam" shot and a "following" shot. The Falcon is the latter, and that's why I am fine with it. It looks like the camera is strapped to another aircraft struggling to keep pace with the Falcon.

My thoughts exactly.
 
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

I feel that one of the issues with the Falcon shot is, in the OT, you relied on computer controlled camera shots, and nothing was that elaborate.

When I see quotes like that I wonder just how much attention some people paid to the OT.

Because off the top of my head I can think a handful of shots equally as elaborate, or even more so.
 
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

When I see quotes like that I wonder just how much attention some people paid to the OT.

Because off the top of my head I can think a handful of shots equally as elaborate, or even more so.

Yes,the falcon entering the second Death Star innards or going through and landing in the asteroid in ESB etc...

Ben
 
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Again a couple of points for peoples consideration. There were a few “shaky” camera shots in the OT ,specifically when the Falcon was struck by asteroids or lazer fire from a TIE. The “very brief” glimpse of trooper shots here looks like they are coming in hard and rough through a heavy atmosphere to a combat arena. So to see them get “shaken up” as they are landing is pretty reasonable. I note once when they have touched down and the hatch drops its all dead steady again. Personally I think JJ is playing with your minds.
Secondly, we have no clue what powers the new (or rather old) sabre can have. The electricity crackling up and down it could give it unknown properties, like “over loading” other sabres . It could have a rare “force enhancing” crystal in it. The blade (s) being longer gives it a far greater reach than the standard ones, so fighting techniques WILL have to change. Historically long swords were made to primarily to combat plate armour and slash down foes with one blow. Interesting.
How do we know who Johns character is? Obviously dressed in a trooper uniform he could be anything (and he doesn’t even have to be a little short). He could have infiltrated the troopers on a mission. Have we as yet got any information on which side (if not both) storm troopers are fighting, as there appear to be multiple versions.
And again the complaints over the Falcon are a bit much. Firstly, you should be rejoicing that probably the most iconic ship in the galaxy (and arguably sci fi history!!) is back in the movie. Secondly, its not been touched in any shape or form, other than having a new radar dish and to be honest that does seem to look good on it (god help us if they had dared to alter anything else about it, oh the rage!!!!). Thirdly, please go watch the all OT scenes with the Falcon. If this had been shot against a black star scape you would n't have noticed the difference at all!!!!)
Really, with just thirty odd seconds of footage showing us anything at all its just daft trying to draw any conclusions about the story from it other than it mostly looks like they have properly managed to make Star Wars look quite cool again and they wanted to share that with the rest of us. The people who are making this are just as huge a fans of the series as we are!!!!! Give them a break and at least some credit for trying to bring us back to the worlds and characters we loved!!!!
 
Last edited:
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

When I see quotes like that I wonder just how much attention some people paid to the OT.

Because off the top of my head I can think a handful of shots equally as elaborate, or even more so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hkth1ruOnZQ

This sample of Falcon flight scenes give an example of Falcon's flights in the OT (it is taken out of context and includes Han in the ROTJ flight into the death star) , and even though there are plenty of elaborate flight paths, the camera angle basically stays level, and never inverts and turns upside down, and returns to a level view. Yes, there were plenty complex flight scenes created with the motion control camera and optical printing, but using the computer with a 3D model of the falcon can put the camera anywhere at any angle, which gives a totally different view of the Falcon in flight. One we didn't see in the OT. That's what I meant in my original comment.

he's an example of a stabilized view of the same scene..

http://i.imgur.com/MVhkmQa.gifv
 
Last edited:
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Can we please stop putting words in other people mouths (or posts, as it were)? Not one person has damned the movie as a whole or even the story in itself by what was shown in the trailer. The only displeasure expressed so far has been about the way some scenes have been chosen to be shot as shown in the trailer...that's it. And, of course, the lightsaber, which I personally am indifferent towards
 
Last edited:
Back
Top