Star Wars: The Force Awakens teaser #2

[Man Called X]

Star Wars was always a gritty dirty story to me. There was never anything that was brand new/shiny.

But that trailer? Yeah, lots of shiny.

 

[theSTEREO.]

So there won't be infinite lens flares in this movie? You wanna bet?

I doubt it, only because of the fact that he got called out on it so hard for how hilariously overdone they were in the past, and said he wouldn't repeat that same mistake.

But I definitely expect some, sure.

Not sure how.. A New Hope created this entire franchise from nothing.

...What?

I don't see how that responds to what I said. X just had an issue with shiny, dirty things on screen. A New Hope was basically filled with shiny dirty things on screen. Just wondering what makes that bad for Abrams to use, considering that is part of the visual language of the original films.

 

[theSTEREO.]

Star Wars was always a gritty dirty story to me. There was never anything that was brand new/shiny.

But that trailer? Yeah, lots of shiny.

Well pretty much all aspects of the Imperial look was pretty shiny, particularly the Storm Trooper armor and the polished floors of the Death Star.

What did you have issue with in the trailer that was 'shiny'? Maybe the rolly polly little droid? I suppose he was kinda shiny.

 

[col63onel]

Star Wars was always a gritty dirty story to me. There was never anything that was brand new/shiny.

But that trailer? Yeah, lots of shiny.

A New Hope was a huge success in large part due to groundbreaking (for the time) special effects like lightsabers and the Battle of Yavin. They were very shiny at the time. Special effects have gotten better so today's shiny is shinier than the late 70s shiny. But Star Wars has always been shiny.

 

[gourimoko]

No.... but I think you might want to hear some to accurately portray if the movie will have substance, which was your quote.

Stereo, that's my quote completely out of context. The very next paragraph reads:

Scenes like this aren't cinematographically good, because it's unnatural to the setting and the environment. Think about how the story, setting, and plot had to be twisted just to make this scene happen...

I don't take his movies seriously. Who does?

So I pegged you correctly, you fit into group #1 of Abrams fans.

"I don't take his movies seriously."

But then the entire point of your post is described in the very next sentence... "Who does?" implying "Why are you taking this so serious?"

Stereo, some of us really enjoy these films. We really enjoy the art of filmmaking. Abrams hasn't demonstrated he particularly cares about maintaining the heart of a particular story - hence the Star Trek references; nor has he demonstrated an ability to direct a memorable film - not ever in his career, and with virtually unlimited budgets.

So when you imply we're somehow jumping the gun, or that we shouldn't take it seriously, it's kind of weird - it's almost like trolling.

You know there are people who take art, music, movies seriously right? And you know there are people who love Star Wars and Star Trek as their favorite stories growing up, right?

Popcorn blockbusters is exactly what he makes, and I don't see why those don't have their merit as exactly that?

They do.. they are popcorn movies, for people who enjoy popcorn movies.. Not all people enjoy those kinds of films because they are so highly predicable, evoke little emotion, and require very little thought.

Again, by your own admission, he makes "popcorn movies," yet you question me when I say I predict the movie will lack substance?

C'mon..

..What?

Shakespeare...

In The Tempest by William Shakespeare, Act II, scene i, the character of Antonio utters the phrase “what’s past is prologue”. In Antonio’s speech, he was trying to convince the character of Sebastian to murder his sleeping father so that Sebastian could become king. All that had happened up until then – their past – was merely a prologue to the great things to come if they went through with the deed. A prologue was a preface to a play or novel that “set the scene” and provided some background information.

In other words, if JJ Abrams' past movies have been without substance, or in essence "popcorn films," what should we expect from his next film?

...What? I mean, so are you assuming that this film will make that exact same mistake?

I'm predicting, based on all of his previous directorial credits, that he will stylistically remain the same. Why would I assume he would change? What evidence is there to suggest otherwise?

Maybe it will. I don't see evidence in the trailer though.

Because maybe you aren't looking hard enough?

See previous answer.

See JJ Abrams' work.

 

[gourimoko]

A New Hope was a huge success in large part due to groundbreaking (for the time) special effects like lightsabers and the Battle of Yavin. They were very shiny at the time. Special effects have gotten better so today's shiny is shinier than the late 70s shiny. But Star Wars has always been shiny.

It wasn't shiny at the time. Star Wars was a direct contrast to 2001: A Space Odyssey and Star Trek.

The artistic direction went out of it's way, and Lucas has commented on it numerous times that everything in the Galaxy was to be tremendously worn and dirty. Again, this same style is used in other contemporaneous settings like Blade Runner.

This was a complete reversal from the hyper-clean futuristic feel of THX-1138, as well as the other aforementioned movies. It wasn't for lack of special effects - it was done specifically and deliberately.

 

[theSTEREO.]

Welp, I just got pigeon holed, and I'm not particularly enjoying this one, so I'm gonna let this one slide. I can't say I'm pleased that you would assume from my response that I don't enjoy movies or look at them with a critical eye, so I'm gonna just watch this one on my own when it comes out.

Enjoy the discussion fellas.

 

[col63onel]

It wasn't shiny at the time. Star Wars was a direct contrast to 2001: A Space Odyssey and Star Trek.

The artistic direction went out of it's way, and Lucas has commented on it numerous times that everything in the Galaxy was to be tremendously dirty.

This was a complete reversal from the hyper-clean futuristic feel of THX-1138, as well as the other aforementioned movies. It wasn't for lack of special effects - it was done specifically and deliberately.

So what are we calling the space battles and lightsaber battles and blasters? They were bright/vibrant/other synonyms of shiny. At best, saying the prequels weren't "shiny" is arguing semantics.

 

[col63onel]

Welp, I just got pigeon holed, and I'm not particularly enjoying this one, so I'm gonna let this one slide. I can't say I'm pleased that you would assume from my response that I don't enjoy movies or look at them with a critical eye, so I'm gonna just watch this one on my own when it comes out.

Enjoy the discussion fellas.

Just say Interstellar was the best movie ever and you'll be a movie savant again.

 

[gourimoko]

So what are we calling the space battles and lightsaber battles and blasters? They were bright/vibrant/other synonyms of shiny. At best, saying the prequels weren't "shiny" is arguing semantics.

It's not arguing semantics, it's quoting the creator, writer, and the director...

Lucas described a "used future" concept to the production designers in which all devices, ships, and buildings looked aged and dirty.[9][46][47] Instead of following the traditional sleekness and futuristic architecture of science fiction films that came before, the Star Wars sets were designed to look inhabited and used.

Barry said that the director "wants to make it look like its shot on location on your average everyday Death Star or Mos Eisly Spaceport or local cantina." Lucas believed that "what is required for true credibility is a used future", opposing the interpretation of "future in most futurist movies" that "always looks new and clean and shiny."[44]

Christian supported Lucas's vision, saying "All science fiction before was very plastic and stupid uniforms and Flash Gordon stuff. Nothing was new. George was going right against that."[45]

X is completely right in this... and this was reversed for the sequel trilogy to give a completely different look and feel - for contrast.

And no, the space battles weren't intended to be "shiny."

I don't want to argue semantics, but let's not completely make stuff up and change what George Lucas himself has said.

 

[gourimoko]

Welp, I just got pigeon holed, and I'm not particularly enjoying this one, so I'm gonna let this one slide. I can't say I'm pleased that you would assume from my response that I don't enjoy movies or look at them with a critical eye, so I'm gonna just watch this one on my own when it comes out.

Enjoy the discussion fellas.

Sorry if I took you out of context...

I'm not trying to "pigeonhole" you.. I said earlier, if you enjoy Abrams' work, knock yourself out.

I just take exception when folks suggest that we shouldn't take these movies seriously while simultaneously suggesting they should be of good quality and substantive.

It's a contradictory view in my opinion.

Again, sorry if it came off as being arrogant or dismissive.

 

[gourimoko]

Just say Interstellar was the best movie ever and you'll be a movie savant again.

Who ever said this?

Try again bro...

 

[col63onel]

It's not arguing semantics, it's quoting the creator, writer, and the director...

Lucas described a "used future" concept to the production designers in which all devices, ships, and buildings looked aged and dirty.[9][46][47] Instead of following the traditional sleekness and futuristic architecture of science fiction films that came before, the Star Wars sets were designed to look inhabited and used.

Barry said that the director "wants to make it look like its shot on location on your average everyday Death Star or Mos Eisly Spaceport or local cantina." Lucas believed that "what is required for true credibility is a used future", opposing the interpretation of "future in most futurist movies" that "always looks new and clean and shiny."[44]

Christian supported Lucas's vision, saying "All science fiction before was very plastic and stupid uniforms and Flash Gordon stuff. Nothing was new. George was going right against that."[45]

X is completely right in this... and this was reversed for the sequel trilogy to give a completely different look and feel - for contrast.

And no, the space battles weren't intended to be "shiny."

I don't want to argue semantics, but let's not completely make stuff up and change what George Lucas himself has said.

Lucas has said a ton of shit that was either a flat out lie or stupid.

There were certainly "dirty parts". There were also lots of explosions.

I agree the prequels were shinier. Doesn't make the prequel any less colorful.

 

[col63onel]

Who ever said this?

Try again bro...

I admit I am strawmanning a tad. I just find odd that you love a movie riddled with plot holes but then can make sweeping judgements about people who like a popular director.

 

[gourimoko]

Lucas has said a ton of shit that was either a flat out lie or stupid.

There were certainly "dirty parts". There were also lots of explosions.

I agree the prequels were shinier. Doesn't make the prequel any less colorful.

Color != Shine...
Brightness != Shine...

Again I want to avoid argument semantics but it's important to note that the director, art director, actors, at the time, remarked at how the stylistic look and feel of Star Wars was to be completely different because it was so dirty and grimy.