Star Wars: Episode VII to be shot on 35mm film and use less CGI - Polidicks

[quote] J.J Abrams has decided to shoot “Star Wars Episode VII” on film. Cinematographer Dan Mindel revealed that the new film would be shot on 35 mm film instead of the digital format often utilized to film major blockbusters in the modern era. He added that the the film would shot on Kodak stock color negative 5219. With the past two “Star Wars” films shot digitally, the news certainly came as a surprise. George Lucas introduced the digital age with “Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones,” the first major film to be shot using the digital format, and “Star Wars Episode III: Return of the Sith” followed the trend. However, the decision could have been made because Abrams has yet to shoot a film on digital. His “Star Trek” films, “Super 8″ and “Mission Impossible 3″ were all shot on film. ... The decision could have also been a result of Kathleen Kennedy’s statements at the Star Wars Celebration in Germany where she stated that the production team would use less CGI. “The conversation we’re having all the time now about Episode VII is how much CGI,” Kennedy told fans at the Star Wars Celebration convention in Germany last month. “We’re looking at what the early Star Wars films did; they used real locations with special effects. So we’re going to find some very cool locations, we’re going to end up using every single tool in the toolbox.” Read more at [url]http://www.swtorstrategies.com/2013/08/star-wars-episode-vii-to-shoot-on-35mm.html#RwYpcX1hEr855VDB.99[/url] [/quote] [url]http://www.swtorstrategies.com/2013/08/star-wars-episode-vii-to-shoot-on-35mm.html#uIEwDggvTti5ult8.99[/url]

fuck yeah seriously ilu jj abrams 35mm film is bomb

Great to see their avoiding everything being CGI. The Star Wars episodes were on TV the past month, and even though the older films are evidently old, they're a lot more enjoyable to watch. I find the extensive CGI in the prequel trilogy nauseating and really detract from the believability of what's happening on screen. (All my honest opinion, of course).

what the fuck is star wars going to become a thing that was great, turned shit, and then suddenly just returned from the dead on a burning chariot of film excellence

Star Trek was on film? [I]Seriously?[/I] Thats fucking awesome.

I dare not getting as hyped as I did before Ep1 and the demise that followed watching that trainwreck, but it seems promising at least. Glad they got a guy who care for Star Wars integrity as a name than George Lucas.

Less CGI can be fine as it can keep the artists from getting lazy but I am not sure if there's justification for ditching modern digital cameras for film. Can any film enthusiast enlighten me on which advantages does film recording have, these days?

I hope JJ Abrams is making the film that [I]he[/I] wants to make, and isn't just bowing to the criticisms of the previous films.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41985164]Less CGI can be fine as it can keep the artists from getting lazy but I am not sure if there's justification for ditching modern digital cameras for film. Can any film enthusiast enlighten me on which advantages does film recording have, these days?[/QUOTE] Film usually has more dynamic range than a digital sensor, let's say the one in the Red Epic. Since they are Hollywood and such, they are using the good 35mm film. The workflow is still similar but you need to process the film and I'm pretty sure all of the film will go through a digital converter because editing with film would take forever and editing with digital files on whatever video editor they are using is fast and efficient.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41985164]Less CGI can be fine as it can keep the artists from getting lazy but I am not sure if there's justification for ditching modern digital cameras for film. [/QUOTE] many filmmakers still use film. especially paul thomas anderson and quentin tarantino film is said to be better because of the better color differences and contrast and stuff. digital is getting better and better though and soon will beat the shit out of film if it hasn't already

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41985164]Can any film enthusiast enlighten me on which advantages does film recording have, these days?[/QUOTE] I am not enthusiast, but you can achieve much higher qualities of resolution with film. With film you can upgrade it's quality as we advance in output capability (i.e. 4K resolution), whereas with digital, you're stuck with that resolution forever. That's why we are able to get new HD remakes of old film movies. This wont be possible with digital movies made at our time, at the future.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41985164]Less CGI can be fine as it can keep the artists from getting lazy but I am not sure if there's justification for ditching modern digital cameras for film. Can any film enthusiast enlighten me on which advantages does film recording have, these days?[/QUOTE] Means more believable scenes with real props. Instead of acting in front of a green curtain sitting on a green curtain, they are acting in a green curtain sitting in a prop. Means more money can be made selling "original props" and allows a bigger cult following for collection of movie items. Also it doesn't look like shit after 3 years unlike most modern movies. The uncanny valley is amazing.

35mm film is better quality than 4k. Christopher Nolan refuses to use digital cameras in all of his movies

I'm hoping they return to stop motion models of the original trilogy

[QUOTE=Starpluck;41985277]I am not enthusiast, but you can achieve much higher qualities of resolution with film. Whereas with film you can upgrade it's quality as we advance in output capability (i.e. 4K resolution), with digital, you're stuck with that resolution forever. That's why we are able to get new HD remakes of old film movies. This wont be possible with digital movies made at our time, at the future.[/QUOTE] not only that but seeing as it is crazy expensive; you can't afford mistakes. Thus, the director will try their hardest to achieve an ace scene every single time. Hopefully, at least. [editline]27th August 2013[/editline] afaik anyway

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;41985118]Star Trek was on film? [I]Seriously?[/I] Thats fucking awesome.[/QUOTE] Yeah, Into Darkness was recorded in both 35 and Imax.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;41985277]I am not enthusiast, but you can achieve much higher qualities of resolution with film. Whereas with film you can upgrade it's quality as we advance in output capability (i.e. 4K resolution), with digital, you're stuck with that resolution forever. That's why we are able to get new HD remakes of old film movies. This wont be possible with digital movies made at our time, at the future.[/QUOTE] Not quite. It's literally just about the image quality, as in dynamic range and colour quality. Resolution is an afterthought nowadays.

i liked the prequels :( [editline]lol[/editline] let's all give a round of applause to 'diet kane' who believes my opinion is dumb

It's really is sad to see people trying to confine 35mm to history. With HD around, it's is more relevant than it ever has been.

[QUOTE=The golden;41985388]I respect the work it took to make them and the effort in filming them but they really did look out of place. Unless there is a major advancement in how they flim them then I think CGI looks vastly superior.[/QUOTE] stop-motion or animatronics have come a loooong way since the first movies! also, it's not about realism anyway imo; it's about the feel and overall look. sure cgi could look better, but something physical like the alien flower in little shop of horrors or something will beat cgi imo. they are both good/bad depending on the situation ofc

[QUOTE=Starpluck;41985277]I am not enthusiast, but you can achieve much higher qualities of resolution with film. Whereas with film you can upgrade it's quality as we advance in output capability (i.e. 4K resolution), with digital, you're stuck with that resolution forever. That's why we are able to get new HD remakes of old film movies. This wont be possible with digital movies made at our time, at the future.[/QUOTE] If shot on proper hollywood grade film, there is no limitation to the films resolution since it's practically infinite. It just depends on the film scanner to convert that to digital. There was this one video on YouTube a while back when someone digitally converted film from many decades ago. Sure it's black and white but it seemed very high definition.

my dick is hard - i'm so excited

[QUOTE=redback3;41985454]my dick is hard - i'm so excited[/QUOTE] I too am moderately anticipating the release of this film.

[QUOTE=garychencool;41985450]If shot on proper hollywood grade film, there is no limitation to the films resolution since it's practically infinite. It just depends on the film scanner to convert that to digital. There was this one video on YouTube a while back when someone digitally converted film from many decades ago. Sure it's black and white but it seemed very high definition.[/QUOTE] And lets not forget film has given us this Gem [video=youtube;A-I2kLNwBak]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-I2kLNwBak[/video]

Dammit, stop posting after each other. Good to see Disney's trying to do the fans some service. Not like GL.

[QUOTE=Genericenemy;41985515]And lets not forget film has given us this Gem [video=youtube;A-I2kLNwBak]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-I2kLNwBak[/video][/QUOTE] Yup, it was this video

The downside to film is that 3D recording takes several extra steps. Then again, so far most 3D has been pretty much a gimmick.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;41985277]I am not enthusiast, but you can achieve much higher qualities of resolution with film. With film you can upgrade it's quality as we advance in output capability (i.e. 4K resolution), whereas with digital, you're stuck with that resolution forever. That's why we are able to get new HD remakes of old film movies. This wont be possible with digital movies made at our time, at the future.[/QUOTE] Scanners outresolving film exist already. The resolution of film is finite. At some point you will only get grain. Then the lenses as good as they are have resolution limits as well. I think that beyond 4K small format film doesn't gain any detail.

[QUOTE=pentium;41985618]The downside to film is that 3D recording takes several extra steps. Then again, so far most 3D has been pretty much a gimmick.[/QUOTE] It's going to be in 3D?

[QUOTE=redback3;41985454]my dick is hard - i'm so excited[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;41985511]I too am moderately anticipating the release of this film.[/QUOTE] You two plans these things, don't you? Regardless, love it when it happens.