JJ Abrams returns Star Wars to Kodak Film

Good film. It has its CGI moments, but they are nowhere as egregious as Episodes I-III. Yes, we've all seen bits and pieces of it before, but if you're the type that repeatedly watches Empire Strikes Back or even Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, it's a case of pot-meet-kettle.

D
 
tyrone.s said:
Not surprising he used film like the original, he copied everything else from that film as well!
Click to expand...

Which works extremely well for me.
I watched it with my daughter who has never seen the original Star Wars.

I thought the new characters are well-done by good young actors.

But... do they really have to... (sigh)
 
shadowfox said:
Which works extremely well for me.
I watched it with my daughter who has never seen the original Star Wars.

I thought the new characters are well-done by good young actors.

But... do they really have to... (sigh)
Click to expand...

It's ... like ... the force (sigh).

Fair enough. My kids are still a little too young to watch it (daughter's 7, son's four and half). I enjoyed it myself and saw it on the first day as a special treat in 3D :D

Certainly there's nothing massively original about the original movie either (hero's journey >> jonah and the whale >> Boy to man). But then there's probably only 6 stories since the beginning of time anyway. It just seems a little bit too much of a re-travelling down a road we've already been on. But I had more of that feeling after the movie, not while I was watching it. And that's a credit to the artistic, technical and creative abilities of the people who made it.

At any rate it's fantastic to see real film stock being used and not everything being digital. The more film stock that's produced the better off all film users will be given the economics of scale and so on. Plus it seems reassuring that influential film makers like Abrams and Tarantino et al are using and advocating film and expressing the appreciation for what, aesthetically speaking, film can still bring to the game.
 
I think of the movie as more of a reboot/remake, a retelling of a modern myth, so I didn't mind the familiar tropes. I might have preferred a threat that wasn't just another Death Star, but I think the new actors are just delightful, and the special effects are not so gratuitous. I love the Kylo Ren character—he's a Vader wannabe; his mask is completely optional; his lightsaber looks like something he probably designed when he was 9 years old, playing with toys. He's kind of a meta-Star-Wars character, somebody as steeped in the lore of the original movies as we are. And it was great to see Ford and Fisher in those roles again.

I saw it in 2D first, then went to see 3D later. I tend to think 3D doesn't add anything to most movies, but this time I really enjoyed it. Abrams and crew used it judiciously, I think...I actually liked the movie better the second time.

I didn't realize the current-tech 3D could be shot on film, though. Is the principle the same as it was back in the old days of 3D?
 
Film is still pretty common on big shows. We shot Jurassic World mostly on 5219. Magnificent 7 we used 5207 and 5219 while shooting 4 perf anamorphic (same exact cameras that shot Star Wars). Just did a music video that was using 7 different film stocks. Jack Reacher 2 is a 4 perf anamorphic Kodak show. Spectre was Kodak.
 
Just saw it in 2D and really liked it. Great "look and feel", sim to A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back.
True, the storyline was a modification of A New Hope .... okay ..... let's see what Disney does next with the franchise.

Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford have aged enormously. I was shocked.

EDIT: Daisy Ridley had the most work to do and she was like #6 in the credits!
 
Another new movie -- kind of a polar opposite to SW -- "Carol" shot on Super 16mm.

Lovely movie, period piece set at the 1952 of the original novel. Many good things to say about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom