AVS Forum banner

Star Wars: The Force Awakens Teasers/Trailers Discussion Thread

17K views 583 replies 81 participants last post by  sdurani 
#1 · (Edited)


Earlier today, I misunderstood a new thread started by Morhpeo, and unintentionally hijacked his thread. But I thought a new thread devoted to discussions about this and future teasers and trailers for the film is a good idea.

Anything is up for discussion; story theories implied and/or inferred, impressions of tone/spirit, tech aspects such as cinematography (surprise!), sound, visual effects, etc..

Here is my opening salvo covering all that plus my analysis of the Falcon fighter maneuvers, and some crew inside info. You guys take it from here.

Love the voice talent for the voice-over. Clearly this pays homage to the classic cinematographic styles of episodes 4-6, but adds some modern touches such as the chaotic documentary style in the storm trooper assault landing. Love the handheld camera, flashing fluorescents, smoke, and wind.

Nice introductory hero shot of the female lead. Not sure the intro shot of the male lead is so flattering.

Awesome shot of the low-level ingress across the lake by X-wings! That looks like a filmed aerial background plate with the X-wings added.

I love that there was not a JJ Abrams blue-streak anamorphic lens flare to be seen. :D

Love the dark, cold, snow shot in the forest. The light sabre shaft has a more tangible dangerous appearance. That shot looks like it is done with Steadicam in low mode with the operator coming down steps at first, then following the actor. A-camera operator is South African Colin Anderson who follows Abrams from the Star Trek movies. Colin came to the U.S. in the mid-90s to make his way with the mentorship of fellow South African Steadicam operator, Chris Haarhoff. Both terrific guys! Damn, what an opportunity to do this gig!

I put on my fighter pilot cap (A-7, A-10, F-16) to comment on the Falcon shot. This is a remarkably realistic shot! Unlike the P-51s in Red Tails that flew ridiculously unrealistically, this is really good. The Falcon is doing a loaded roll to get the nose down quickly, and even pulls some higher Gs after about 90 degrees of roll, evident by the "G-conning/cottonballing"; an extremely realistic touch! It continues the roll to level just above the deck with quite a bit of G to stop the downward vector.

This is realistic enough, but the added complexity is the chase camera "platform" POV. It's not POV from the Falcon. It's an imaginary chasing camera that performs the same maneuvers as the Falcon to keep up with it. Both must look very realistic, or it blows the shot for both. It rolls and pulls down with the Falcon, but in an interesting touch, rolls the opposite direction to level off, and even overtakes the Falcon a bit alarmingly close at the end as the TIE fighter pass in the merge. I've been there and done about the same things countless times in the late 70s and the 80s and 90s in the stuff I flew. They clearly have very good aviation consultants on this.

Tactically, it's a reasonable maneuver to give the TIE fighters a very difficult/low PK shot with the high aspect (beak to beak) merge. Maneuvering to ensure a maximum aspect merge is a superb defensive tactic if they are the only bandits in the area. No two reasonably matched aircraft can pass beak to beak and either party be able to make the 180 degree turn and chase down the other. It's a sure separation strategy to escape when low on fuel or out of weapons ("Winchester"). But these two spacecraft are not equally matched. I will pay good money to see how this engagement continues. :)


Overall, promising, but only time will tell if we have a winner.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
The trailer impressed me, and excited me to the new series.

good - after the debacle of the last three films which I don't even own the set because they were so bad.

As I was reading your post I had to smile. You compare the realism of their flight maneuvers with real earth based planes that require aerodynamic wings. The M.F. doesn't have wings, and has no requirement to fly like an F-16 does in Earth's particular atmosphere and gravity. :p

None the less, enjoyable trailer!
 
#3 · (Edited)
As I was reading your post I had to smile. You compare the realism of their flight maneuvers with real earth based planes that require aerodynamic wings. The M.F. doesn't have wings, and has no requirement to fly like an F-16 does in Earth's particular atmosphere and gravity. :p
Or so we suspect with science fiction creative license. The same gravity and atmosphere do affect the craft. How they "overcome" those is where it gets interesting. Air flows over all that clutter on the Falcon creating an immense amount of parasite drag that the propulsion system must overpower. In the maneuver you see in the shot, it is clearly performing to answer to Earth-like physics of gravity and aviation. When it is moving fast in one direction and commands a turn in another (higher demand of lift therefore increasing radial G forces) the angle of attack of the vessel visibly increases, and the disturbed faster moving air on it's top surface condenses to create the G-conning and lift vortices off the edges.

Say what you want, but that vehicle is flying by Earth-like aviation rules of science in that shot. Maybe the Falcon doesn't have to, but it sure is in that shot. ;) IMHO, that's an excellent creative decision for us. :)


Edit: Of course, my favorite technology is how all these forces have little or no effect on the occupants. :-D I'll happily ignore that for the fun of the ride.
 
#43 ·
It's Star Wars and JJ Abrams is directing it... best to temper your expectations now. :p
 
#5 ·
Let's hope they haven't just rehashed one, or more, of the old films. Other than that, it was a good trailer, but we know how that goes, don't we....

Seggers
 
#10 ·
I can't comment on the realism of the physics in the aerial maneuvers, but the cinematography doesn't impress me much. It's all shaky-cam and teal, and an emphasis on "cool" trick shots (like the Falcon loop-de-loop) that aren't at all stylistically consistent with the original films.

Typical J.J. Abrams. All superficial flash and razzle-dazzle, with very little understanding of the material.
 
#16 · (Edited)
This is realistic enough, but the added complexity is the chase camera "platform" POV. It's not POV from the Falcon. It's an imaginary chasing camera that performs the same maneuvers as the Falcon to keep up with it. Both must look very realistic, or it blows the shot for both. It rolls and pulls down with the Falcon, but in an interesting touch, rolls the opposite direction to level off, and even overtakes the Falcon a bit alarmingly close at the end as the TIE fighter pass in the merge. I've been there and done about the same things countless times in the late 70s and the 80s and 90s in the stuff I flew. They clearly have very good aviation consultants on this.
I really loved the trailer except for one thing... and I stress this is a *very* minor complaint... it looks like the whole falcon shot is entirely CGI, like the falcon itself, the fighters, and perhaps even the landscape?

There is a high res shot here of the falcon (last part of the article)

http://io9.com/a-shot-for-shot-dissection-of-all-the-clues-in-the-star-1664299291

(if you click "expand" on the top left of the falcon pic you can see it in extreme detail). I see a lot of good things & bad things... some of the shadows on the falcon itself have pixelated jaggies. The bottom left/ rim of the falcon looks too sharp to be a model or a real craft. A lot of the textures look flat... like in a first person shooter when a wall just has "artwork" to indicate what would otherwise be 3D objects. I'm hoping it's not a completed shot.

But on the other hand a lot of it looks very realistic... I like the engine in particular. I'm also aware that this would probably have been too difficult or perhaps even impossible to film with a model... so I can understand why CGI had to be used if that's the case.

Thanks for your insight into the filming techniques... I'm curious to hear more of your thoughts if you come to have any. I've been reading about this daily ever since JJ was announced as director. If what I speculate about this film's production is true... then I think this film actually has the potential to out-do the origianls... well... ANH & ROTJ atleast.

I believe this for 3 reasons... the first of which my understanding is vague, but I've read a lot about it:

1. Lucas's 80's outline for the Sequel trilogy could be the template for the story. Why is that a good thing? Lucas's biographer (who I guess had a falling out with him?) was the only person to have gotten a glimpse at the outline (Lucas's son perhaps as well). The biographer thought the outline was great... and that was coming from someone who wasn't afraid to critique Lucas. Either way... when Disney made it's deal with Lucas... that outline was part of the deal in selling the franchise. I'm hoping to god Lucas didn't touch it after 1983... because I think after his divorce he was a changed man... I really didn't like any of his work after Return of the Jedi... except for Indy Jones & the last crusade. In fact I think Lucas's ex wife had a lot to do with what made Star Wars great... she helped him with the story. She was (/is?) an editor by trade. But they got divorced right around the time of ROTJ... and I don't think it's a coincidence that things went awry at that time period.

2. JJ's filming crew... / set building/ etc... if you guys have seen the sets for the Star Trek films... you will gain an appreciation for how authentic everything is, and how well they filmed the sets/scenes (youtube it now if you haven't seen behind the scenes work on into darkness... you'll be glad you did). Based on many first hand accounts, the force awakens sets are a thing to behold. I've seen photos of a lot of sets & concept art... I got the tingles just seeing some of that.

Even though I'm concerned about the Falcon's CGI... I felt the CGI in Into Darkness was very good... particularly the Enterprise looked very real. I think the CGI was a lot better than the first Star Trek JJ did... like for example the villain's ship was very CGI-esque. But still a lot of pleasing visuals in both films. I'm hoping the same CGI artists are working under the same conditions for the force awakens.

3. Kasdan. I know Kasdan has done a lot of bad work over the years... but he's the perfect counter weight for Lucas. For example... the argument about weather or not Yoda would have used a light saber... it's interesting to hear Kasdan's thoughts in that discussion. I think of Lucas & Kasdan as being internal editors much in the same way Lenon & McCartney were when they wrote songs together. A lot of greatness can come from bouncing ideas back & forth.

I do have one concern which is JJ himself. I think He's very talented with script writing for dialogue... but I'm not as impressed with how he handles stories based on his previous work. That is why I'm banking on Lucas's outline & Kasdan's revisions. Hopefully Kasdan hasn't lost his touch!
 
#17 ·
2. JJ's filming crew... / set building/ etc... if you guys have seen the sets for the Star Trek films... you will gain an appreciation for how authentic everything is, and how well they filmed the sets/scenes (youtube it now if you haven't seen behind the scenes work on into darkness... you'll be glad you did).
Kind of a moot point when he smothers all of those real sets and models with CGI afterwards in post-production.
 
#18 ·
To all ... enjoying your posts!

I never worked with or even met JJ. I liked ST 2009, but otherwise nothing he has done has me bowing before him. He was probably making Revel Enterprise models in my day. :D I'm trusting Kathy Kennedy ... who I do know and trust ... to keep him in line. Hoping and praying he doesn't screw the pooch.

Interesting commentary on Lucas post marriage. His 1985 biography, Skywalking is a good read.
 
#20 ·
I think Daniel Mindell is who I should have brought up... He's the directory of photography though I noticed JJ was doing a lot of hands on stuff... I'm not sure how much of that was just for show or not. I'm not a fan of JJ's earlier work either... I think he paired up with Mindell for Mission Impossible 3... which I thought was a pretty good movie actually. Not like "wow" but it was fun to watch. Keep in mind they are only on board for Episode VII... Episode VIII will be the guy who directed "Looper".

If I understand film production correctly... the producer is who determines the actual look of the film... but since both JJ & Kennedy, among others are listed as producers it's hard to say who's in charge of handling what aspects of the production. When looking @ the images I see in the teaser... it doesn't look like Star Trek to me, depending on the shots. The Desert scene certainly not... the Stormtroopers yes... that felt JJ-ish. But I dig how that looked though!

I'm guessing you know Kennedy personally, so if she's competent I'll take your word for it. I know that just because someone's name is attached to something that doesn't mean they are solely responsible for the outcome. I was not a fan of Indy IV... but I'm venturing a guess that she probably didn't have anything to do with the CGI gophers & the Indy's son swinging with monkeys through the trees. The film had it's moments though... I chuckled @ the library chase scene.

I'll check out the book... Oh and that is the same biogrpaher who read the outline that Lucas wrote! It's heart breaking for me because I grew up on Lucas & he was my hero. But based on quite a few stories I've read & heard... he just seems like the biggest jerk ever. One of them was on Home theater geeks actually... I forget the guest's name but he worked with Cameron on Titanic & I believe he worked for ILM @ the time they were working on Roger Rabbit... I'll look it up if you guys want to hear the story, but I really got a bad impression of Lucas after hearing it (the words "a lot of people don't know this, but he doesn't really like people actually"). I know a lot of the cast has had their issues with him (Prowse comes to mind right away). I'll give credit where credit is due though... I know Lucas is a philanthropist of the most generous kind.
 
#24 ·
BTW this is the video I'm talking about... there are also a lot of good "related" videos that show how they did other scenes... but it's really fun to watch this. It looks to me like everything was well crafted. But I don't know much about what makes a good shoot... it just looks to me like it's pretty well executed:

 
#29 ·
BTW this is the video I'm talking about... there are also a lot of good "related" videos that show how they did other scenes... but it's really fun to watch this. It looks to me like everything was well crafted. But I don't know much about what makes a good shoot... it just looks to me like it's pretty well executed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J-v9u42h_k
I concur. The work on the bridge set is quite routine ... actually quite efficient and orderly. That is Colin Anderson (SW7 A operator) on the dolly and Steadicam. I think the gray haired operator on B-camera is the DP.

At 2:37, the camera is being "operated" by a motion control rig so that it can be repeated precisely again and again so that other elements can be added.

The bridge is so well designed that it is easy to use two cameras a lot. JJ is wise and experienced enough to know that he can block the action and cameras such that he gets multiple set-ups out of each take. I LIKE that a lot!

At 6:06 you can see JJ banging the lens with the flashlight to create his signature anamorphic lens flares.

How about the racket the IMAX camera makes! :eek:
 
#27 ·
I am with Josh on this one. The trailers for this film leave me cold. The last 4 SW films sucked. It has been all downhill since The Empire Strikes Back. As great as JJ's reboot of Star Trek was, the second film was terrible ( and I am a huge ST fan). I couldn't believe how bad it was. My fear (probably not a good word as there are just films after all) is that the next SW film will be all flash and no substance, with plastic characters and empty dialogue. These new trailers don't make me feel any better. BTW, could Harrison Ford look any more uninterested that he does in this little snippet? He has read the script and may be bored with the film. Sure looks like it.
 
#28 ·
What do you mean trailer(s)? There is only one trailer and in that one trailer, Harrison Ford is not in it. Keep in mind this isn't an actual trailer, it's a teaser trailer which is what it is, a teaser. I find it funny how people are complaining about the CGI... The movie has 12 months to go. Films work on CGI and special effects leading up all the way to the film's release.
 
#35 ·
It was a mean trick that these fake teaser youtuber's pulled. I actually *almost* got tricked by one of those earlier in the week.

Did you think the visuals were bad or just the story? I wasn't a big fan of the story... having Kirk revive @ the end was like putting us through Schildner's List and having it end with Despicable Me's final scene (haha). But I thought the visuals were pretty cool. I think honest trailers did a spoof of into darkness... I loved it cuz they called it "JJ's Star Wars demo reel" to paraphrase.

I think I'm gonna watch the reboot tonight... it's been a while.
 
#36 ·
Last time a Star Wars Trailer appeared that was "this important" too me, was in 1996 for THE PHANTOM MENACE. My local CBS station, KDKA, ran it as part of their newscast. I recorded the damn thing! I LOVED THE TRAILER!! But boy was I FOOLED. Those first two movies in the NEW TRILOGY were HORRIFIC. Just plain BAD movie making. The third one was OK at best. Just because the previous two were just SO BAD. I promised myself I would never be SUCKERED IN again because of a trailer, of any kind. I have not since.

I watched this trailer just this morning, not even knowing it existed. Others had mentioned on being FOOLED by FALSE trailers on YouTube and the like. Count myself among you. A**wipes.

Anyway, I saw that this actually was the trailer since zi was flipping through HULU, looking for something else entirely. So I watched it. LOVED IT!!!!! I am being SUCKED IN AGAIN. All for maybe what amounts to about 1 min of the actual movie.

The trailer just had a different FEEL to it. Anyone else feel that way? Like the shots being shown look like something Lucas would never approve of. This feels like an Abrams movie. I cannot really describe it. It just felt different. But I cannot/will not get my hopes up again. I was burned badly by the last three movies. But this trailer just seems good, and he showing, really, NOTHING.

I find myself looking at Rotten Tomatoes more and more over the last 5-6 years to decided whether or not to GO SEE A MOVIE, or wait for the Blu-Ray/VOD. If the movie has MIXED reviews(too me that is 75% FRESH or less), than I will just wait.

When the movie has been in the HIGH 80'S/LOW 90'S on the FRESHMETER, Rotten Tomates has YET to steer me wrong. This years Cap America, X-MEN are two shining examples of this. GREAT MOVIES.

I have yet to watch the latest Planet of the Apes, and Guardians of the Galaxy. But those are rated at 90% FRESH. So that tells me they seem too be UNIVERSALLY LIKED/LOVED by many different people, for different reasons. RT has not treated me wrong yet using that way.

But I LOVED the trailer. A couple of Questions though. I have not read this thread, just posted.

Is that Benedict Cumberbatch doing the narration over the trailer? Also, I heard today some people(Star Wars NERDS, HAS TO BE!!) are "Angry" about the BLACK STORMTROOPER? And the actor who was in that scene, tweeted out(not smart, do not answer these A**holes/LOSERS. And I am being KIND. They are ALL LOSERS) for them to "get used to it, or get over it."

What the hell is wrong with people?! They have no idea the context that scene is even about. G*d, do people have to complain about anything/everything?

When Heath Ledger got cast as The Joker, people went nuts. Turned out to be a LEGENDARY PERFORMANCE of that character. Any others that come after him will just be IMITATING him to some degree(Think Sean Connery's James Bond. All others are imitations to one extent or another).

And when they made STARBUCK a woman in the new Battlestar Gallactica, people freaked(LOSERS!!!) Turned out just fine.

I have to stay out of the movie forums. People(LOSERS!) are going to just ruin movies I enjoy. It is my own fault. :)
 
#55 ·
Great analysis in the OP Cam Man.

When I first started watching the trailer and the actor popped up into view, I laughed and thought I'd stumbled on to a fan gag-take on Star Wars. It had me not sure until much of the way through the trailer.

One thing that struck me was how sparse the images were, so focused and unadorned by the amount of visual distraction Lukas put in the sequels (as per that send up of the new trailer). I wonder how much of that aesthetic will be the final film, vs not the exigencies of getting the trailer out.

As for the style, it grew on me with more viewings. For one thing it seems simultaneously to capture something of the original movie (the desert/sky, the lighting in the first shots etc) while updating it to greater realism. I love the touch of the X-wings over the body of water, the contrails on the Falcon moves, all giving the ships more gravitas and realism.

I actually really like Abrams style with VFX and action. There was all sorts of interesting and unexpected framing of the VFX in the Star Trek movies that were often beautiful and original IMO. Further, his eye combined with his DOP and FX team seem to produce some of the most believable VFX I've seen. The Star Trek Into Darkness London city, the various space shots, and especially the chase atop vehicles through the city at the end, were just about the most realistic, seamless combination of practical and CGI FX I think I've seen. So believable it seems strangely effortless.

So I can't wait to see what Abrams brings to Star Wars.

The one thing I am hesitant about is that Abrams can be a bit, as someone mentioned, ADHD in terms of pace/plot. But hopefully he's got a strong script to keep the drama strong.
 
#58 ·
I actually really like Abrams style with VFX and action. There was all sorts of interesting and unexpected framing of the VFX in the Star Trek movies that were often beautiful and original IMO. Further, his eye combined with his DOP and FX team seem to produce some of the most believable VFX I've seen. The Star Trek Into Darkness London city, the various space shots, and especially the chase atop vehicles through the city at the end, were just about the most realistic, seamless combination of practical and CGI FX I think I've seen. So believable it seems strangely effortless.
A++ that city chase scene did look bad ass.
Some of those shots with the Enterprise really gave me the chills... and as I said I'm not even a trekkie (well maybe now I am?). But can you imagine how cool that will be when the Falcon "punches it"?
 
#62 ·
This amazes me, really.

I'm amazed that Star Wars culture has lasted so long. I have no idea about all the "extended universe" stuff and have never known anyone who was in to it. But apparently the enthusiasm for Star Wars has persisted, even surviving the prequels.

I'm now quite excited about the movie, from the trailer, and just looking around the web at the amount of discussion and giddiness, this thing is going to be huge at opening.
 
#73 · (Edited)
Just throwing this out there, but the Prequels, specially ROTS, set records for the amount of practical effects and models.

Just go through this thread, you will be blown away at the models.As a very amateur model maker I really appreciate the skill these creators have.


http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...e-prequels-sets-pictures-models-etc.50017310/

Super excited for the next SW movies, but I doubt they will have as many practical effects, I imagine there will be a lot of CGI, which is fine with me. Whatever looks best.
 
#76 ·
Just throwing this out there, but the Prequels, specially ROTS, set records for the amount of practical effects and models.

Just go through this thread, you will be blown away at the models.As a very amateur model maker I really appreciate the skill these creators have.
I've heard that but don't see how it could be true if the OT was just about completely made from practical. I did see that page before & looked through the pics... and yeah... the podrace theater looks AMAZING... but then they destory it with some of the worst CGI ever! Jabba, the announcer, and some of the aliens in the podrace look terrible... the ones that were actually handmade look far better.

I've heard a lot of the ship models were models... I can see it in some scenes & others not. In the opening battle for Episode III I've heard the X wing precursors were models... but then they plastered them with CGI lighting & other CGI elements in the foreground that detract from the model experience... which is such a shame, because I agree... the model work is fantastic.

As for Episode VII... I think it's wrong to assume there won't be more practical. Just look at that teaser! I've also heard 3D printing will be used for a lot of the model work... I could see that being particularly cool if they get a whole fleet of X wings in a battle or something. Based on a lot of first hand accounts very little green screen was used. The photos of sets I've seen seem to back that up. I remember reading somewhere that there was more set construction being done for this film than there was in Return of the Jedi.

Reading through IMDB I see some matte painters & model makers in the art departments... I have faith.

Those are really cool pictures but I already knew there was a lot of practical effects.

The problem is there is WAY, WAAAY too much bluescreen CGI background stuff that doesn't look convincing. A lot is good, yes but there is way too much (especially in 2&3) of some people walking around talking and it just looks like they are on a blue carpet and blue background with CGI filler. It looks awful in a not-convincing type way.

Poor direction, imo.
Yeah looking at those set photos... ugh. It's strange... some of that stuff looked great like the Coruscant night time chase scene, while that stupid duel between Obi Wan & Anakin was horrendous. Not at all what I had hoped for when I was thinking about all the ways Obi wan could have f-ed up Anakin.

Using static micro models as Macro interior sets was what made a lot of those scenes look so fake... although that's how they did some of the Kamino scenes which I thought looked cool... I guess it depends. I could see how people might think "that will look great!" and then it doesn't turn out that way.

Who knows... maybe if Disney makes mad bank off the next trilogy... someone will re-film the Prequels (haha).
 
#74 ·
Those are really cool pictures but I already knew there was a lot of practical effects.

The problem is there is WAY, WAAAY too much bluescreen CGI background stuff that doesn't look convincing. A lot is good, yes but there is way too much (especially in 2&3) of some people walking around talking and it just looks like they are on a blue carpet and blue background with CGI filler. It looks awful in a not-convincing type way.

Poor direction, imo.
 
#77 ·
I do also see in the VFX department there is a "reference camera operator"... I'm not sure if that's common but I'd say is one of the essential tools needed to make CGI convincing.

I can't for the life of me understand why some modern CGI looks unbearably awful (TF4) while some of it looks stunning (GOTG)... but I tend to think it's more to due with lack of reference... because when CGI looks out of place it's usually because it doesn't interact with the environment correctly (like the correct color bouncing off the CGI object just as an example, or the proper amount of focus is a big one I've noticed).
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top