The Force Awakens

<p>My son and I went to see "Star Wars: The Force Awakens", this past weekend.</p>

<p>In the closing credits, it was noted that the film was shot on Kodak movie film. This is a bit ironic, because "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace" was, I believe, the first major movie to be shot entirely on digital.</p>

<p>Perhaps the fact that it was shot on film has something to do with something a lot of people are saying about the latest installment in the Star Wars franchise: it is very remeniscent of the original trilogy. It has the same feel as Star Wars: A New Hope from 1977.</p>

<p>I still have to go (but seeing it in original language is hard where I am, so I need a bit of patience). For all I've read, though, the similarities between the story-line of A New Hope and The Force Awakens are so much, that the new film seems simply modelled after the original. At least, that's what most reviews told me :-)</p>

<p>Frankly, I doubt how many people will really notice the recording medium; most people do not care and/or do not take notice (they're watching a movie, after all). Even if you show a still image, most people will not distinguish easily between digital and film, if both are done right. So with moving images, I think the likelihood is even less.</p>

I think the look of the film was probably due to the more limited use of SGI than the previous 3 SW films, which

resulted in a more realistic and grittier look to the world they created. Besides, the film was mastered in digital

and is mostly shown in digital theaters.

<p>Yes, I was much more aware of the use of practical (rather than CGI) effects in many key scenes than I was of the original recording medium. <br /><br />As for the plot ... of course it's reminiscent of the original. That's very deliberate, I'm sure. It's meant as an homage to the original, and as a bridge between those earlier movies and the new block of three under Abrams' stewardship. I enjoyed it, familiar-feeling plot elements and all. Daisy Ridley is a delight. </p>

<p>From Kodak's InCamera blog:<br>

<a href="http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Blog/Blog_Post?contentId=4294992667">The Force is With Film! Dan Mindel on Star Wars: The Force Awakens</a></p>

<p>As well as I know it, many directors like film, and others like digital. It probably does depend some on the actual subject, though.</p>

<p>I see the difference between the two mediums which is why I shoot film. Personal taste.</p>

<p>The colorist (color timing/grading) also influences the overall look of film. I still can't see a difference between digital vs film though upon close examination of the linked Kodak blog there's the tell tale sign of a slight green bias to bone hued neutral highlights vs desaturated cobalt blue shadows such as the opening scene of inside a dark ship in the Star Wars trailer.</p>

<p>I saw this color combination with Ridley Scott's Alien and Stanley Kubrick's 2001 all shot in London studios. And what seems too much a coincidence is Harrison Ford's skin color is a perfect CCchart Lab readout of around L55, a25, b25,. Makeup I'm guessing had a lot to do with that because his neck is the typical rose hue which didn't get makeup. I'm going by Apple Digital ColorMeter CIELab setting sampling the photos in that Kodak blog.</p>

<p>Now I don't know if those slightly green biased warm neutral hues are on account of the old lenses used, the type of lighting or the color grading but I find that too much a coincidence that it matches the other films shot in London studios back in the '70's so it's either intrinsic within the physical nature of negative film or it was intentionally color graded to look that way.</p>

<p>Quinten Tarantino's "Hateful Eight" is shot on film and with the original lenses used to shoot Ben Hur but some of the skin tones are quite jaundice from what I'm seeing in the trailer. </p>

<p>Digital capture is very clean cut, sharp, too perfect, not as nuanced. Film is deep, gradiated, seems to have more soul.</p>

<p>Alan, have any film capture examples that show this deep, gradiated and soulful look?</p>

<p>Tim: Check my FLickr site and tell me if you see a difference between my digital and film shots. Maybe it's an illusion in my mind.</p>

<p>Also, the creatives decided to rely much less on CGI and instead went back to building sets and using puppets which is a large contribution to recapturing the "look"of the first film.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Tim: Check my FLickr site and tell me if you see a difference between my digital and film shots. Maybe it's an illusion in my mind.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since I already color corrected a portrait of your wife shot on Velvia a while back and you didn't seem to think it looked right, I'm not going to put much faith in you seeing deep, gradiated and soulfulness in a color film substrate. Editing that Velvia portrait was not easier, better or any of the aforementioned attributes than working on a digital version. In fact working on digital captures has WAY more color information than editing film.</p>

<p>And seeing a "difference" between the two image capture/processing formats doesn't count as a plus either.</p>

<p>The one thing that chafes my hide is the orange/teal color grading trend that ruins both film and digital movies. There's already a backlash online about that.</p>

<p><a name="00dexr"></a></p>

<p>A variety of sources predict that movie film usage from Star Wars and others, will put Kodak "in the black" in 2016. Good news!</p>

<p>Tin: I appreciate your working on my wife's portrait. Of course, Velvia was the worse film for me to use for portraits as it's so saturated and difficult maybe impossible to get the flesh tones right.</p>

<p>Just curious why you think that seeing a difference between digital and film isn't a plus? It gives a photographer options. Isn't having differing results valuable? </p>

The Phantom Menace was 35mm.

Eps. II and III were digital. Lucas

actually went backwards, not forwards,

by choosing digital cameras. The

current digital cameras are fine but the

early ones were less efficient on set

than film cameras.

 

Tim, I still cannot agree with the

assertion that film and digital look the

same. But you are 100% right about

that asinine orange/teal look. Nobody

likes it and it certainly will not enhance

ticket sales. It's a worse fad than

shallow DOF.

"Nobody likes it and it certainly will not enhance ticket sales."

 

The Force Awakens has set the record for biggest opening, and in less than two weeks, it was already the 10th highest-grossing film of all time. I wonder how it would have done without that awful color look that nobody likes.

<p>Yes, Velvia to prove authenticity for skin tones is not the best fulcrum to a point. Fortunatley there are other films for that.</p>

I'm going to make a sweeping, unsubstantiated claim...

 

The cinema-going public couldn't give a hoot whether or not a movie has been shot on film. They are there for the story, not for the soul of the recording medium.

<blockquote>

<p>I'm going to make a sweeping, unsubstantiated claim...<br>

The cinema-going public couldn't give a hoot whether or not a movie has been shot on film. They are there for the story, not for the soul of the recording medium.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Of course that's true, but those of us here do care about such things. I only brought it up because I noticed the Kodak logo in the closing credits.</p>

<p>Another, slightly ironic thing. When George Lucas made "The Phantom Menace", he had to have Sony develop special video cameras, whose frame rate matched that of film, because the completed movie would have to be transferred to film for exhibition, because, at the time, there were still many theaters that had not yet converted to digital projection.</p>

<p>Now, in 2015, "The Force Awakens" was shot on film, but had to be transferred to digital, because the studios have completely stopped distribution on film. All theaters have converted to digital projection. This, BTW, spelled the death sentence for a few drive-in theaters that were hanging on by a thread and couldn't afford the cost of a digital projector.</p>

<p>Colin, Good point and in agreement from one who prefers film.</p>

<p>Whatever. Digital projection renders this all a bit pointless. All I know is that the coating alleys are still cranking out film stock--good news for still film shooters.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I only brought it up because I noticed the Kodak logo in the closing credits.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which is now the only way for me to see if a movie was shot on film. In fact the movies I knew going in were shot on film were actually surprisingly worse looking not because it was film but because the color grading style and contrast reduced color detail (monochrome skin) and sucked the life out of the overall look.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>All theaters have converted to digital projection. This, BTW, spelled the death sentence for a few drive-in theaters that were hanging on by a thread and couldn't afford the cost of a digital projector.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a poignant story of one of them just north of my Texas town that has a happy ending..</p>

<p>

<blockquote>

<p>Which is now the only way for me to see if a movie was shot on film. In fact the movies I knew going in were shot on film were actually surprisingly worse looking not because it was film but because the color grading style and contrast reduced color detail (monochrome skin) and sucked the life out of the overall look.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> I don't know about that, and don't know what you base it on. I saw previews for the new Coen bros. movie, shot in film and the color, at least to me, was beautiful.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know about that, and don't know what you base it on. I saw previews for the new Coen bros. movie, shot in film and the color, at least to me, was beautiful.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I based it on what it looks like. I saw the same Coen bros. movie preview, too, and I agree it looks beautiful but so were other movies shot digitally such as "It Follows" and many more... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_shot_on_digital_video_prior_to_2015</p>

<p>And then there's Fargo Season 3 shot digitally and where the warm yellowish orange and teal color grade actually looks great...</p>

<p>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2802850/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt</p>