Podcast: Play in new window | Download
First off, if you haven’t seen it yet – and since it’s only at 5,000,000 views as of the recording of this episode, there’s a halfway decent chance you haven’t seen it yet – check out the behind the scenes video of The Force Awakens shared at San Diego Comic-Con on Friday:
We’re breaking format this episode to give you a detailed breakdown of what’s included in the video. The website Indie Revolver has also captured still shots from the SDCC video for your perusing pleasure.
And speaking of shots, if you know anything about such movie-related things as markings on clapboards, do with this what you will:
Desert: Clapboard blurred/out of focus
Falcon interior: Roll 101, Scene 123, Take 6, A Camera
Imperial-looking hallway: Roll 58, Scene 48, Take 5, B Camera
R2-D2: Roll 190, Scene V235A, Take 2 (Clapboard in shadow for camera)
First Order shuttle: Roll 57, Scene 3, Take 4, B Camera
Two aliens: Roll 292, Scene V178, Take 1, A Camera
Leia with Threepio in background: Roll 109, Scene 161, Take 18, B Camera
So, what did you think of the video? Share in the comments!
Permalink
Thanks for doing this “spoiler free”! I was looking forward to hearing your take on the reel, and as a non-spoiler guy, I’m happy you went that route!
I have the theory that I am working on, where I believe that all the talk of “practical effects” and “physical sets” is Jeff code for words like “story” and “character”.
It is obvious that the new team of filmmakers is trying very hard to win back the public, especially since the prequels (deservedly or not) have such a negative reputation. BUT, they can’t come right out and say “hey, we get it, the prequels sucked, the story was a mess, the characters were weak we know it wasn’t quite what the world wanted.”. They can’t say “hey, we are fans, just like you, and we understand what makes Star Wars special. maybe more so than George Lucas did” They can’t say all that stuff, it would just be too rude, it would cause such a negative stir in the blogosphere and entertainment press. So, instead, they talk about what they can get away with, which is things like the effects and the sets.
If you look back at the prequels, are the special effects really that bad? (I don’t think so) And, if you ask yourself what were the weakest part of the prequels, more often than not you’re going to say things like story and character. A film with a great story and strong characters can live on with great affection from the public even if the effects are bad. Look back at all the sci-fi from the 50s &60s, that is still beloved today, and you can see the strings on the space ships and you can see the zippers on the aliens. (Im think of Stat Trek as am example) But the stories were great, so people still love them. But if you go the other way. You can have a film with amazing effects, but a pretty bad story, and it won’t be as loved. I’m thinking of Avatar as an example. Great effects, but really are there any avatar fanatics?
Anyway, I’m not sure if I’m getting my point across, but to sum up, I think you are supposed to read between the lines whenever the new Star Wars filmmakers are talking about how they are making the movie. I’m not sure if this is rude or not, but, I can understand where they’re coming from and why they are doing it.
Thoughts?
Permalink
I think that’s a VERY perceptive way of looking at things. I might only consider substituting the word “execution” for “story,” because I generally think the bones of the story were solid; it’s just how it was played out, with character and dialogue challenges, that became the issue. As you’ve often said about the prequels, “missed opportunities” abounded, and execution, character, and dialogue were the issues, not the special effects.
That said, it’s easy to try to make a case for saying that the reason many folks are dissatisfied with the execution is because they think Lucas concentrated on the special effects to the exclusion of the story execution, but I hardly think that’s the case. The more I read the Ring Theory stuff, I start to wonder whether he may have taken the concept of creative limitation too far…